Thinking about getting an SUV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
3,513
Woah, hard for me to admit, but I'd like to step up to an SUV.

I feel somewhat bad in a way -- I feel as if I'm finding some flaws with the Accord, but I can't pretend that it's something it's not. It is, and will always be (while being a nice car) a 4cyl small to midsize FWD car.

It does good in the snow, but does get thrown around pretty good with the ruts, tracks and moguls that are left in the roads thanks to the plowing (or lack of) by the county. Snow tires do make a considerable difference, but having more wheels turning would help me avoid spinning when taking off or driving through the 2-3" worth of sloppy greasy intersections.

A few weeks ago, it had snowed a lot overnight and I had to go into work early 5:30-6am. I had some things I wanted to catch up on and wanted to make sure everything was OK as I had a few UPS power notifications go off in the middle of the night. Some roads weren't even touched, my work parking lot wasn't plowed -- good thing for a little speed or I would've been stuck in the 4-6" we had.

Also, and this is probably a first world problem, but I hate when you have to trudge through a bunch of snow, to jump into a car -- bring a bunch of that snow into the car, then sit on the ground. It'd be so nice to hop up into a vehicle and to sit up high.

I'm not much of a truck guy, yeah they're nice, but not something I'd want as a daily driver. I've come to two conclusions -- I don't want a crossover, and hardly anyone makes a real SUV anymore. I'm not buying the whole crossover ideology. I don't want the underpinnings of a car. Plus a lot of these vehicles come with a "we'll give you what we think you want when you don't want it" AWD/4WD/Part-Time/Real-Time system. Besides Subaru, they all look like they do the same thing -- try some power in the rear when the front spins. I want to be able to put it in 4HI and go without worrying if my front or back wheels are turning or not.

For full body on frame brand-new vehicles, that leaves us with a Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon or 4Runner. Out of them all, I am leaning towards the 4Runner. From reviews online, stories from their owners and the rapport that seems to follow them, they're excellent vehicles. Seems like everyone who has owned one, really likes their 4Runner.

I like their styling, 9.6" of ground clearance, conventional/proper 4WD system with 2HI, 4HI, 4LO actuated by a level (on the Trail model), electronic locking rear differential, comes with some good sized tires at 265/70/17. It'd be great for camping in the summer. Load the back up and go. I might not even need the little trailer anymore. I would not need to worry about how I'd tow a popup if I got a popup. I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]

Just some thoughts. Not going to test drive or buy anything now.

I might come spring/summer. So who's got a 4Runner? You like it? What do you think?
 
Originally Posted By: redhat

For full body on frame brand-new vehicles, that leaves us with a Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon or 4Runner.


And Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited. A bit different from the others, but still brand-new, body-on-frame, and easily the most offroad capable of the list (if that's your priority). Also available with the combination of a Pentastar v6 and 6-speed stick- a combination that *should* be available in other vehicles as well.

Downside is NVH. Solid axles fore/aft, removable roof panels (though they're surprisingly tight, they still make more noise than a solid roof).
 
Originally Posted By: redhat
I feel somewhat bad in a way -- I feel as if I'm finding some flaws with the Accord, but I can't pretend that it's something it's not. It is, and will always be (while being a nice car) a 4cyl small to midsize FWD car.


You may share my feelings about sedans: they're just too limiting for what I want in a vehicle. I wish I were in the market for one, since there are so many good sedans out there...I just feel like I'm giving up too much utility in one. I've owned a number of sedans, and now both of our vehicles have liftgates.

Originally Posted By: redhat
I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]


Despite what gets said on here sometimes, you don't have to turn in your man card or "car guy" card for buying an automatic. A manual transmission is not required to be able to enjoy a vehicle. (In fact, I feel that if you can't enjoy something without being able to shift it yourself, your perspective on what makes a good or a fun vehicle may be too narrow.)
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Originally Posted By: redhat
I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]


Despite what gets said on here sometimes, you don't have to turn in your man card or "car guy" card for buying an automatic. A manual transmission is not required to be able to enjoy a vehicle.


True- and there are some applications where an automatic is objectively far better. Offroad rock-crawling is definitely one of those. I went so long *without* a stick that even after 2 years I'm still thrilled to be able to stir gears myself... but I don't automatically (heh heh) dislike automatic vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited. A bit different from the others, but still brand-new, body-on-frame, and easily the most offroad capable of the list (if that's your priority). Also available with the combination of a Pentastar v6 and 6-speed stick- a combination that *should* be available in other vehicles as well.


Thank you, I completely forgot about Jeep. I for some reason thought they were all crossover. I remember looking up the fact that the Grand Cherokee was now uni-body along with the Durango.

Any why is the Explorer a uni-body? C'mon Ford, you still would've sold a boat load if they were body on frame. When I look at the new Explorer in parking lots, they look like they sit too low.
 
Originally Posted By: redhat
Any why is the Explorer a uni-body? C'mon Ford, you still would've sold a boat load if they were body on frame. When I look at the new Explorer in parking lots, they look like they sit too low.


I think they moved to a unibody platform because they felt the body-on-frame architecture was hurting sales, either directly or indirectly. The Explorer is their front-running SUV, and it's got to be class-leading in terms of fuel economy, road-going dynamics, etc. Remember, the sales they're chasing are folks who would be embarrassed to be seen in a station wagon, even though that's what they are. Ford could've built a rock crawler, but that's not their target audience.

The Wranglers are good, and ride far better than their capability would have you believe...talking about the 4-door JKs here. My folks have owned two...a 2-door TJ and a 4-door JK. The TJ rode like a dump truck and had all of the refinement of one. But the JK is extremely impressive by way of what it delivers in terms of road isolation and ride comfort. They finally have a class-competitive engine. The 5-speed W5A580 auto's programming is a little wonky (at least it was in their 2012 model), but that's typical for the brand in my experience. I'm sensitive to transmission programming, and Chrysler's newer stuff consistently frustrates me.

But it's a solid platform, and EVERYTHING under the body (chassis, suspension) seems to be over-built. The sheet-thin doors don't inspire confidence (you can crinkle them with your hand), but that's not where the body's strength (or your side impact protection) comes from.

The Grand Cherokee and Durango are very competitive vehicles, and are RWD along with the Tahoe, 4Runner, etc. They are uni-body, but they have proven powertrains.
 
Another vote for the 4Runner. We are happy with ours. Well, I should say the wife is happy with it since I don't get to drive it much.

The Dunlop tires that came OEM on them were horrible but once they were swapped out for Michelin LTX-MS2s, that made all the difference in the world.

The one complaint I have is that we only average 19-20 mpg with the 4.0L engine. But that is typical for SUVs. Otherwise it has been trouble free.
 
For towing a pop-up trailer you don't really need the ladder frame rwd platform. The one downside to rwd to 4wd manually selected system is having to switch back and forth a bit as the roads change. My wife runs our Tracker in 4wd more than she technically should, but a little drivetrain abuse is better than losing the back end on a patch of ice.
So if you aren't comfortable with the odd rear end slide, or if you are paranoid about damaging the drivetrain by running in 4wd over wet pavement, you might want an AWD or part time AWD drivetrain.
 
Originally Posted By: redhat
I'm not much of a truck guy, yeah they're nice, but not something I'd want as a daily driver. I've come to two conclusions -- I don't want a crossover, and hardly anyone makes a real SUV anymore. I'm not buying the whole crossover ideology. I don't want the underpinnings of a car. Plus a lot of these vehicles come with a "we'll give you what we think you want when you don't want it" AWD/4WD/Part-Time/Real-Time system. Besides Subaru, they all look like they do the same thing -- try some power in the rear when the front spins. I want to be able to put it in 4HI and go without worrying if my front or back wheels are turning or not.

For full body on frame brand-new vehicles, that leaves us with a Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon or 4Runner. Out of them all, I am leaning towards the 4Runner. From reviews online, stories from their owners and the rapport that seems to follow them, they're excellent vehicles. Seems like everyone who has owned one, really likes their 4Runner.

I like their styling, 9.6" of ground clearance, conventional/proper 4WD system with 2HI, 4HI, 4LO actuated by a level (on the Trail model), electronic locking rear differential, comes with some good sized tires at 265/70/17.


I'll start by saying the 4Runner is a great vehicle and I absolutely loved my 2006. That said, I test drove the 5th gen 4Runner before I bought my Outback and hated it. I couldn't below how much body lean there was, I thought I was going to roll it on every turn. It seriously felt like driving a bus. If you're going to get a 4Runner, I would strongly suggest getting a 4th gen.
 
Don't have a 4Runner but a friend does and likes it. Somehow I see lots and lots of 10+ year old 4Runners in Western NC. Based on CR reliability ratings, it's hard to beat 4R of just about any MY. If I were to go from a crossovers (own a '02 Subaru Forester) to a "real" SUV, I'd look at used 4Runners first.
 
Originally Posted By: RW1
The one complaint I have is that we only average 19-20 mpg with the 4.0L engine.

Only? That's pretty good, IMO. That's better than what we get in the 3.0T.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: redhat
Plus a lot of these vehicles come with a "we'll give you what we think you want when you don't want it" AWD/4WD/Part-Time/Real-Time system. Besides Subaru, they all look like they do the same thing -- try some power in the rear when the front spins.


You are clearly not well informed here.

I had AWD subaru (AT) and it was FWD until slip detected and the rears would then kick in. To have it 4WD from the get go, you would have to use 1st gear selection on the shifter.

I have RAV4 now and it works exactly the same, but you have the 4WD switch that gives you 4WD up to 25 mph.

Another difference was Subaru had hydraulically activated center diff, while RAV4 has electric coupler.
 
The JK Wranglers are nice .. and you can get into one (4 door) for a lot less than a 4x4 4 Runner. Now that they have a competent engine in them, they are definitely worth a look.

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Originally Posted By: redhat
I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]


Despite what gets said on here sometimes, you don't have to turn in your man card or "car guy" card for buying an automatic. A manual transmission is not required to be able to enjoy a vehicle.


True- and there are some applications where an automatic is objectively far better. Offroad rock-crawling is definitely one of those. I went so long *without* a stick that even after 2 years I'm still thrilled to be able to stir gears myself... but I don't automatically (heh heh) dislike automatic vehicles.


I prefer having an automatic for off road. Have smelled many-a-burning-clutches off road.

The 5 speed auto in the wranglers has a really low 1st gear, which is nice for off road.



Originally Posted By: redhat
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited. A bit different from the others, but still brand-new, body-on-frame, and easily the most offroad capable of the list (if that's your priority). Also available with the combination of a Pentastar v6 and 6-speed stick- a combination that *should* be available in other vehicles as well.


Thank you, I completely forgot about Jeep. I for some reason thought they were all crossover. I remember looking up the fact that the Grand Cherokee was now uni-body along with the Durango.

Any why is the Explorer a uni-body? C'mon Ford, you still would've sold a boat load if they were body on frame. When I look at the new Explorer in parking lots, they look like they sit too low.


Grand Cherokees have always been unibody. Ford decided to make the new Explorer on the Taurus platform ... so it's a FWD car where AWD is an afterthought ... and uses a cheap little power takeoff device attached to the transmission.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

You are clearly not well informed here.

I had AWD subaru (AT) and it was FWD until slip detected and the rears would then kick in. To have it 4WD from the get go, you would have to use 1st gear selection on the shifter.

I have RAV4 now and it works exactly the same, but you have the 4WD switch that gives you 4WD up to 25 mph.

Another difference was Subaru had hydraulically activated center diff, while RAV4 has electric coupler.


But it's still part time. What good is 4WD if you can't have any after 25mph? That's another thing I'm having a problem with.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The JK Wranglers are nice .. and you can get into one (4 door) for a lot less than a 4x4 4 Runner. Now that they have a competent engine in them, they are definitely worth a look.

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Originally Posted By: redhat
I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]


Despite what gets said on here sometimes, you don't have to turn in your man card or "car guy" card for buying an automatic. A manual transmission is not required to be able to enjoy a vehicle.


True- and there are some applications where an automatic is objectively far better. Offroad rock-crawling is definitely one of those. I went so long *without* a stick that even after 2 years I'm still thrilled to be able to stir gears myself... but I don't automatically (heh heh) dislike automatic vehicles.


I prefer having an automatic for off road. Have smelled many-a-burning-clutches off road.

The 5 speed auto in the wranglers has a really low 1st gear, which is nice for off road.



Originally Posted By: redhat
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited. A bit different from the others, but still brand-new, body-on-frame, and easily the most offroad capable of the list (if that's your priority). Also available with the combination of a Pentastar v6 and 6-speed stick- a combination that *should* be available in other vehicles as well.


Thank you, I completely forgot about Jeep. I for some reason thought they were all crossover. I remember looking up the fact that the Grand Cherokee was now uni-body along with the Durango.

Any why is the Explorer a uni-body? C'mon Ford, you still would've sold a boat load if they were body on frame. When I look at the new Explorer in parking lots, they look like they sit too low.


Grand Cherokees have always been unibody. Ford decided to make the new Explorer on the Taurus platform ... so it's a FWD car where AWD is an afterthought ... and uses a cheap little power takeoff device attached to the transmission.


So the Cherokee was the body on frame one? I am not very familiar with past/present Jeep lineup.
 
The original Cherokee, the 2 door Wagoneer was body on frame.

These were unibody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_(XJ)

These were body on frame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_(SJ)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top