Looking for first expedition/overland rig

[bloodycape]

You seem to speak highly of the Nissan Pathfinder. I'm curious why you don't go the route of an early Pathfinder?

Well not really speaking highly of it per-say, but like the size of it. Plus, it was the family car for us for over 12 years, and the first car I learned to drive in. It's a bit more of a sentimental thing more than anything. But, I will say it was a well build and durable car, even in 2wd form. The Xterra seems more the same as the first gen Pathfinder seeing as it is body on frame(though ifs), vs the Cherokee, which is unibody(though solid axle all around). Plus, it doesn't hurt am I am bit familiar with the VG series motor(unless the VG33 really changed things up).

4D55, what did you think of the Pathfinder vs Cherokee in terms of build and capability?

On my drive today I saw a few LC60, Xtrerra, Cherokees, and Wranglers on the road. The more I think I about the more I think I could make either a Xterra or LC60/80(pending I could at some point swap the motor out with something more fuel efficient) work for my needs. Unless you guys think a Rover would be more cost effective build. Thanks.

[DoWorkSon]

The only wrong answer is the one you don't want. If you want a freelander, research its limitations, determine if it fits, and go for it.

There is no such thing as a cost effective Rover build.

[reece146]

Cherokees are great vehicles if you don't mind putting work into something that is under engineered and unfinished. It is the typical POS Chrysler vehicle from that era.

They can be nice and are pretty much unstoppable off-road with the right driver but it takes a lot of effort and some money to engineer/modify the Chryslerness out of it.

If you settle on a Cherokee look at the 87-91 AMC era ones with the 4.0 litter engine. You are in California so rust will not be an issue. The AMC era Jeeps are better built than the Chrysler ones.

Most of the AMC quality is still there in the 92-96 version as Chrysler hadn't started dropping sheet metal thickness or cheapening out the interior and such yet.

Unfortunately these vintages have the old fashioned looking interior. It's not bad, just old looking.

I have a 1998, 2000, and 2001 Cherokee, and a 1988 Comanche. It has taken a lot of work to reduce the crappiness of the interior of the 2001. I like the look of the newer, semi-modern interior but it is really poorly designed, manufactured and installed. If I didn't already have a lot spent on suspension and drivetrain I would have dumped it for something better made. These trucks are decent other than that. I like the size and the engine is able to deal with being loaded down. The engine and transmission is excellent...

If I was looking for something different today my short list would be Ford Explorer (~94-2001) and Expedition (2001-2002), Montero, full size Bronco, first gen Pathfinder, Lexus LX470, Jeep Grand Wagoneer (yes, the old ones with a whack of money thrown at it to install a modern drivetrain). I wouldn't buy another Cherokee.

[bloodycape]

Thank your opinion reece. I guess the Cherokee will be crossed off my list. Out of curiosity how are the 90's Wrangler in terms of build and Chryslerness?

Would a Rover or Land Cruiser(60 or 80) be more cost effective?

[reece146]

Jeeps are big mecano sets in a way. I prefer the YJs because of the simpler dash. Some complain about the leaves but any swb Jeep I owned would get long arms in the front at a minimm so that doesn't bother me. Out of he box the TJ is a higher performance vehicle than the YJ.

SWB Jeeps ar seriously restricted by what they can carry or tow.

I'd seriously look at a lwb TJ but that will likely blow your budget. The interior is almost the same as an XJ around the dash area (i.e. craptastically Chrysler)

I was harsh about the XJ. The issues can be fixed but other vehicles are better built and don't need the fixes.

1999-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees are supposed to have a more robust unibody to the point that stiffeners are not required to add rigidity. Supposedly Porsche was subcontracted to design the unibody. I have no experience wrt how they hold up in off-road usage. The few I've driven felt like the typical Chrysler POS.

[reece146]

I'd stay away from Rovers unless you really like the look of them and couldn't live without one. In spite of what Rover enthusiasts will tell you the are not all that and a bag of chips. They aren't some magical quantity that defies physics and rules the off-road. More like rules Walter Mitty's alter ego. Not to poo-poo too much - they are extremely capable vehicles. In your stated budget an LR is likelyt o be a maintenance nightmare, or so the enthusiasts say.

Old vehicles are just that - old. The 80 series could be decent but fuel costs are quite high. At least it is available with air bags. The 60 series looks good but it's like the Grand Wagoneer I mentioned... starting to get in the realm of big project vehicles.

2¢

[4D55 Performance]

4D55, what did you think of the Pathfinder vs Cherokee in terms of build and capability?

In all honesty it has been 15 years since I drove her Pathfinder and 10 years since I drove her Cherokee. The lasting impression I had was the Pathfinder was a solid vehicle, but the engine drove me crazy. I didn't care for the high revving gutless engine. When you would step on the gas, the engine gets really loud but acceleration did not match the noise of the engine. The Manual transmission felt solid, the suspension was mushy, steering was average at best.

The Cherokee on the other hand looks great it has solid axles, a legendary inline 6 etc. But the vehicle is underbuilt, it squeaks and rattles, the interior is cheap, the seats are thin and the auto tranny is crap. While it was very off road capable, it's not a very good vehicle for long distance drives. You feel every bump in the Cherokee. After all, it's a Jeep.

If I had to chose between the two of them in stock form I would take the Pathfinder, but if they were highly modified with a few thousand in extras, I would take the Cherokee because the short comings like the small front axle can be fixed. If it were me I was looking to travel all over the Americas I would look for something more refined, with better handling, and less compromises. You may want to consider the Montero Sport. I came in lots of different configurations and it every bit the equal of the Pathfinder and xterra. I prefer the 3.0 with the 5 speed tranny and rear leaf springs. A member recently had his 1997 Montero sport give up the ghost after going 544K miles on the original tranny and engine. They also make a 3.5 Montero sport with an auto tranny and the later model Montero Sports had a coil sprung rear. The things are absolutely bullet proof and there are no compromises. You may also want to look at the first gen Tacomas or 4runner. If you have not need for additional passengers, I would be looking for a truck. I have a little 1985 Mitsubishi Pickup with a 2.3 diesel and I get 40+ MPG on the open road. It has loads of torque, 33" tires and has no problem going 80mph on the freeway etc. Trucks are just so versatile. Most of us select SUV's as overlanding vehicles because we have kids that we like to share our adventures with. I have driven lots of different overlanding vehicles over the years and trucks have tons of advantages over SUV's.

[HARDTRAILZ]

You can find trailblazers or its other variants in the 4k range these days...full box frame...270 hp or better...good mpg...2.7:1 tc...available locking rear...nice interior and good basic standard options.

[bloodycape]

Well I want an SUV so I could say maybe sleep in it, plus, the extra seating space would be a nice bonus.

As for the 4runner, any reason you suggest the 1st gen over a 2nd or even 3rd gen?

[Will Riggs]

I'm going to disagree about the jeep thing however relevant it may be at this point, pre-91 jeeps had renix fuel injection. I would steer clear of that can of worms....

The idea of a capable trailblazer has crossed my mind many times. I think they look sharp and are a great starting point for a do-it-all rig.