On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:06 +0200, "Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com>
wrote:

>What is considered the most reliable SUV out there (AND with decent
>handling!)? I have very good experience with Isuzu Trooper (and mediocre
>with Dodge), and would consider another Trooper but am unsure how their
>diesel engines perform (want turbo diesel this time)...
>
>Also, I hear Toyota Lancruisers are very reliable but they're one of the
>most expensive ones...
>
>TIA,
>Peter
>


something with the Toyota brand name...

---
elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
remove ** to email

 

"Elbert" <elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:r7gio1p5mteqatd3nnsbh2n0pe41sm54rv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:06 +0200, "Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What is considered the most reliable SUV out there (AND with decent
> >handling!)? I have very good experience with Isuzu Trooper (and mediocre
> >with Dodge), and would consider another Trooper but am unsure how their
> >diesel engines perform (want turbo diesel this time)...
> >
> >Also, I hear Toyota Lancruisers are very reliable but they're one of the
> >most expensive ones...
> >
> >TIA,
> >Peter
> >
>
>
> something with the Toyota brand name...

I was looking for a used 4x4 SUV and started with the 4Runner because I was
expecting quality and reliability. After doing a google search using
"4runner problem" I learned about a lot of blown head gaskets, cracked
heads, very lousy gas mileage, and lack of power. I bought another Ford
Explorer instead. The early Explorers also had problems with blown head and
intake manifold gaskets but at least it they have some power and get better
than 11 mpg. I have 3 and I use them mainly on dirt roads. I do not do
any rock crawling or offroad racing with them. I have driven through 2 feet
of snow, 2 feet of mud, on very icy, slippery roads and have never gone off
the road or gotten stuck. So, does OP want transportation or recreation?

>
> ---
> elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
> remove ** to email
>


 
An Exploder over a 4Runner? You have to be kidding! They're not even in the same league. Guess you need to learn how to refine
your internet searching abilities.


:
: I was looking for a used 4x4 SUV and started with the 4Runner because I was
: expecting quality and reliability. After doing a google search using
: "4runner problem" I learned about a lot of blown head gaskets, cracked
: heads, very lousy gas mileage, and lack of power. I bought another Ford
: Explorer instead. The early Explorers also had problems with blown head and
: intake manifold gaskets but at least it they have some power and get better
: than 11 mpg. I have 3 and I use them mainly on dirt roads. I do not do
: any rock crawling or offroad racing with them. I have driven through 2 feet
: of snow, 2 feet of mud, on very icy, slippery roads and have never gone off
: the road or gotten stuck. So, does OP want transportation or recreation?
:
: >
: > ---
: > elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
: > remove ** to email
: >
:
:


 
Karl Rove wrote:
> An Exploder over a 4Runner? You have to be kidding! They're not even in the same league. Guess you need to learn how to refine
> your internet searching abilities.
>
>
> :
> : I was looking for a used 4x4 SUV and started with the 4Runner because I was
> : expecting quality and reliability. After doing a google search using
> : "4runner problem" I learned about a lot of blown head gaskets, cracked
> : heads, very lousy gas mileage, and lack of power. I bought another Ford
> : Explorer instead. The early Explorers also had problems with blown head and
> : intake manifold gaskets but at least it they have some power and get better
> : than 11 mpg. I have 3 and I use them mainly on dirt roads. I do not do
> : any rock crawling or offroad racing with them. I have driven through 2 feet
> : of snow, 2 feet of mud, on very icy, slippery roads and have never gone off
> : the road or gotten stuck. So, does OP want transportation or recreation?
> :
> : >
> : > ---
> : > elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
> : > remove ** to email
> : >
> :
> :
>
>


Yes, the explorer is not even worthy of the being compared to it. Heck I
drove through 2 feet of snow with 4x4 Subarus in the 80's and never got
stuck either and though smaller they were a lot tuffer built than any
explorer too.

--

-----------------
www.thesnoman.com
 

Yes; I drove through 2' of snow with a 1966 Pontiac Tempest so what does that prove. The Exploder is nothing more than an urban
grocery getter.
:
:
: Yes, the explorer is not even worthy of the being compared to it. Heck I
: drove through 2 feet of snow with 4x4 Subarus in the 80's and never got
: stuck either and though smaller they were a lot tuffer built than any
: explorer too.
:
:


 
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:57:56 -0800, "Ulysses"
<therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Elbert" <elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:r7gio1p5mteqatd3nnsbh2n0pe41sm54rv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:06 +0200, "Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What is considered the most reliable SUV out there (AND with decent
>> >handling!)? I have very good experience with Isuzu Trooper (and mediocre
>> >with Dodge), and would consider another Trooper but am unsure how their
>> >diesel engines perform (want turbo diesel this time)...
>> >
>> >Also, I hear Toyota Lancruisers are very reliable but they're one of the
>> >most expensive ones...
>> >
>> >TIA,
>> >Peter
>> >
>>
>>
>> something with the Toyota brand name...
>
>I was looking for a used 4x4 SUV and started with the 4Runner because I was
>expecting quality and reliability. After doing a google search using
>"4runner problem" I learned about a lot of blown head gaskets, cracked
>heads, very lousy gas mileage, and lack of power. I bought another Ford
>Explorer instead. The early Explorers also had problems with blown head and
>intake manifold gaskets but at least it they have some power and get better
>than 11 mpg. I have 3 and I use them mainly on dirt roads. I do not do
>any rock crawling or offroad racing with them. I have driven through 2 feet
>of snow, 2 feet of mud, on very icy, slippery roads and have never gone off
>the road or gotten stuck. So, does OP want transportation or recreation?

*********************************************************************************
>> something with the Toyota brand name...

Well I still say the Toyota (you pick the model) is a better choice.
Seems like quality and reliability should apply on-road as well as
off-road.

---
elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
remove ** to email

 
Coasty,
You are only showing your own ignorance here, in the thread name and
your lack of knowledge in off roaders....
1st, the thread is named most reliable SUV. Jeep did not invent the
SUV. Sorry. (moron!!)
2nd, Saying that a Rover is a POS really shows your lack of experience
off road. I guess to guy that has never really been off road a Wrangler
is the best thing since sliced cheese (Moab shops rent em all day).
However, if you had real experience you would have already seen what
Rovers can do and how invaluable they can be.
You are a small minded shallow fool. Open your mind, look around at
what is available, attempt manuvers with those vehicles in ugly
situations and then make an assessment. Otherwise you show your own
ignorance in trying to bash what you have never been offroad in.
As to price, well, they are a bit pricey, but if you look around you
can find em for a decent price (theres a cherry 96 discovery down the
street from my house for $3500), however, I would rather pay a bit more
for the saftey they offer. Roll your wrangler or cherokee a few times,
see what happens to it, they collapse and you will die. period. Now
look at what a rover does when rollled. I've walked away from two roll
overs and went right out to buy another rover. The only other vehicle
that is as safe is the full size cruisers (80s?)
If you dont believe me take a look at my site, goldrushexpeditions.com,
go to the off road porn page and you will see the trucks we rolled.

Your random rant is the reminds me of trailer trash talking about how a
Ferrari is a POS and that a 77 T/A will out perform and out race any
Eur-o-peean POS. Stay in the Jeeps buddy, it keeps assholes like you
off the real trails.

 


Corey Shuman wrote:

> If you dont believe me take a look at my site, goldrushexpeditions.com,
> go to the off road porn page and you will see the trucks we rolled.

http://www.goldrushexpeditions.com/off_road_porn.htm
....and the girl is really great !!!
The car is not bad either...
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.


--
The Meeting Place for Photography http://www.fotograaf.com
Fotofestival Naarden Festival-OFF http://www.festival-off.nl
Rondvaart in Naarden-Vesting http://www.vestingvaart.nl
Erik-Jan Geniets. Phone: +31-(0)6.55.78.60.31
 
> If you dont believe me take a look at my site, goldrushexpeditions.com,
> go to the off road porn page and you will see the trucks we rolled.

Interesting. How do you find the Freelander, both for transportation &
recreation?

Peter


 
Freelander isnt too bad for what it is, it has excellect on road
handling and allows the covering of a lot of ground in a short amount
of time, it has suffered its mishaps, mostly struts which luckily have
been covered under warranty. We bought that for the "girl" who is my
wife now (hooray!!) and she loves it, its a dependable commuter that
can do okay in the snow and other crap that falls on the Utah roads.
As far as an offroader, it can take the small stuff okay, little ruts
and small rivers and creeks are no problem. I would probably work it
harder but it has the street tires on it and I fear popping them. The
bad is that it is all wheel drive and I have gotten it stuck in a few
places where real 4wd would have made all the difference. But it is
what it is, 24 mpg and it will take you on most dirt roads reliably.

 
> The others Cherokee and such are yuppie SUVs with no real
> capability without extensive mods.


lol Oh wow. That's the silliest thing I've read today.


 
> 2004 was the year they put the I-6 in the Cherokees.

I can't be reading that right. Cherokees have had the 4.0L since... well,
how long have the Cherokees been around?


 
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:02:47 UTC "SBlackfoot"
<trypticon@sympatico.remove.ca> wrote:

> > 2004 was the year they put the I-6 in the Cherokees.
>
> I can't be reading that right. Cherokees have had the 4.0L since... well,
> how long have the Cherokees been around?

Actually, it was 1987 when the first 4.0L I6 was used.

--
Will Honea
 

"Karl Rove" <nospam@****bush.com> wrote in message
news:M1tif.10184$dv.2762@fed1read02...
>
> Yes; I drove through 2' of snow with a 1966 Pontiac Tempest so what does
that prove. The Exploder is nothing more than an urban
> grocery getter.

I agree for the most part however it WILL get groceries no matter how bad
the dirt roads are (so far anyway ;-)



> :
> :
> : Yes, the explorer is not even worthy of the being compared to it. Heck I
> : drove through 2 feet of snow with 4x4 Subarus in the 80's and never got
> : stuck either and though smaller they were a lot tuffer built than any
> : explorer too.
> :
> :
>
>


 

"TheSnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:6xsif.6616$aA2.4475@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Karl Rove wrote:
> > An Exploder over a 4Runner? You have to be kidding! They're not even in
the same league. Guess you need to learn how to refine
> > your internet searching abilities.
> >
> >
> > :
> > : I was looking for a used 4x4 SUV and started with the 4Runner because
I was
> > : expecting quality and reliability. After doing a google search using
> > : "4runner problem" I learned about a lot of blown head gaskets, cracked
> > : heads, very lousy gas mileage, and lack of power. I bought another
Ford
> > : Explorer instead. The early Explorers also had problems with blown
head and
> > : intake manifold gaskets but at least it they have some power and get
better
> > : than 11 mpg. I have 3 and I use them mainly on dirt roads. I do not
do
> > : any rock crawling or offroad racing with them. I have driven through
2 feet
> > : of snow, 2 feet of mud, on very icy, slippery roads and have never
gone off
> > : the road or gotten stuck. So, does OP want transportation or
recreation?
> > :
> > : >
> > : > ---
> > : > elbert.clarke@**adelphia.net
> > : > remove ** to email
> > : >
> > :
> > :
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, the explorer is not even worthy of the being compared to it. Heck I
> drove through 2 feet of snow with 4x4 Subarus in the 80's and never got
> stuck either and though smaller they were a lot tuffer built than any
> explorer too.

Do the Suburus have a frame or are they unibodies? When I have looked at
alternative 4WD vehicles, especially any that might get "good" gas mileage,
most of them looked like they would break under the conditions I drive in.
I am completely open to suggestions for a better vehicle. Heck, I HATE
Fords. On the Exploders something is always breaking and they require a lot
of maintenance but so far they can always be repaired for a reasonable
amount and their engines (4.0 pushrod) last a long time and the bodies and
frames are solid.

>
> --
>
> -----------------
> www.thesnoman.com


 

"Corey Shuman" <cshuman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133194473.915345.115050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Coasty,
> You are only showing your own ignorance here, in the thread name and
> your lack of knowledge in off roaders....
> 1st, the thread is named most reliable SUV. Jeep did not invent the
> SUV. Sorry. (moron!!)
> 2nd, Saying that a Rover is a POS really shows your lack of experience
> off road. I guess to guy that has never really been off road a Wrangler
> is the best thing since sliced cheese (Moab shops rent em all day).
> However, if you had real experience you would have already seen what
> Rovers can do and how invaluable they can be.
> You are a small minded shallow fool. Open your mind, look around at
> what is available, attempt manuvers with those vehicles in ugly
> situations and then make an assessment. Otherwise you show your own
> ignorance in trying to bash what you have never been offroad in.
> As to price, well, they are a bit pricey, but if you look around you
> can find em for a decent price (theres a cherry 96 discovery down the
> street from my house for $3500), however, I would rather pay a bit more
> for the saftey they offer. Roll your wrangler or cherokee a few times,
> see what happens to it, they collapse and you will die. period. Now
> look at what a rover does when rollled. I've walked away from two roll
> overs and went right out to buy another rover. The only other vehicle
> that is as safe is the full size cruisers (80s?)
> If you dont believe me take a look at my site, goldrushexpeditions.com,
> go to the off road porn page and you will see the trucks we rolled.
>
> Your random rant is the reminds me of trailer trash talking about how a
> Ferrari is a POS and that a 77 T/A will out perform and out race any
> Eur-o-peean POS. Stay in the Jeeps buddy, it keeps assholes like you
> off the real trails.
>
Lets see a 60K$ Rover do this.
http://www.hv4w.org/movies/snorkelrun.mpg

You talk about my ignorance who is the pot is calling the kettle black.

You make assumptions which you have know knowledge of especially of my off
road experience who is ignorant now?
I have seen what Rovers can do my some owns one a 2004 Range Rover Sport
Don't get me wrong they are rather comfy, and have lots of amenities and
they do have off road capability for what they are.
I did not say anything about who invented the SUV but since you brought it
up, 1947 The beginning of land rover, 1941-1945: Jeep MB, JEEP CAME FIRST SO
THEY INVENTED THE SUV.
I actually have been in a rollover in a wrangler and it rolled 4 times we
just up righted it and kept going. I don't see Rovers rock climbing the
stock Rubicon will out perform any stock rover, yes they are noisy, they do
not have heated seats, a kick ass stereo, GPS and other luxury items.
We do not buy jeeps for their luxury, quietness, the good looks, it is a
jeep thing and you wouldn't understand that is obvious.
You may want to subscribe to Consumer Reports, the Jeep line as far as
capability came out on top of the Rover line for overall capability and that
is what I was talking about capability, not luxury or amenities. In fact
the Jeep Liberty was rated by consumer reports as the most reliable SUV.


Coasty


 
HAHAHA.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen,
especially for an arguement against Rovers... look around, rovers have
been fitting snorkels for years and yes, a $60-70-80k rover could do
just what that jeep did, for that matter a freelander could do it too,
just fit a snorkel correctly. Its not rocket science.

But you are showing either ignorance or a flat out lie in your next
line, there is no 2004 Range Rover Sport. It wasnt released until just
a few months ago and its an 06. And the RRS while still capable, is a
"sport". Not meant for the offroading that the reg. Rangie can do, do a
little research and you will see also that the RRS doesnt share much at
all with the current Rangie. Even the body panels are all different.
Okay and back to the SUV...Jeep was first with an Offroad vehicle, this
is not a SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (SUV). What bit of sport do you get out
of a 4cyl with less than 100hp.
IMHO, Rover showed jeep what to do in the matter of offroad capability.
but thats another story.
Land Rover on the other hand, went out on a limb in the early 70s and
decided to create a vehicle that was competent off road but also
assumed the interior stylings of a luxury vehicle.
Mercedes was next to follow with the G-Class and then Mitsubishi.
everyone else has just been playing catch up.
theres a good article here:
http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Range_Rover_classic.htm

I beg to differ about the Rubicon, not a bad vehicle, but not even in
the same class as the Rover, yet still a Discovery or Defender will out
wheel it stock, mud, rock or snow.

We eat jeeps all day, sorry but its true, you can even check out our
last outting... look at all the Jeeps, even heavily modified. That
couldnt keep up with the nearly stock crusier and the Rovers. The proof
is in the pudding, not just talk...

http://www.goldrushexpeditions.com/sheeprocks_-_hilltop_mine.htm

Oh and if you want to quote magaziones, 4x4 Magazine's '4x4 of the
Year 2006' was the RRS.
http://www.strategiy.com/inews.asp?id=20050818144144

So tell me this, if a magazine that evaluates 4x4 only, puts the least
competent Rover at the top of their list over the Rubicon, and any
other Jeep, how do you think the other rovers do??

 
"Corey Shuman" <cshuman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133539790.099037.303250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> HAHAHA.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen,
> especially for an arguement against Rovers... look around, rovers have
> been fitting snorkels for years and yes, a $60-70-80k rover could do
> just what that jeep did, for that matter a freelander could do it too,
> just fit a snorkel correctly. Its not rocket science.
>
> But you are showing either ignorance or a flat out lie in your next
> line, there is no 2004 Range Rover Sport. It wasnt released until just
> a few months ago and its an 06. And the RRS while still capable, is a
> "sport". Not meant for the offroading that the reg. Rangie can do, do a
> little research and you will see also that the RRS doesnt share much at
> all with the current Rangie. Even the body panels are all different.
> Okay and back to the SUV...Jeep was first with an Offroad vehicle, this
> is not a SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (SUV). What bit of sport do you get out
> of a 4cyl with less than 100hp.
> IMHO, Rover showed jeep what to do in the matter of offroad capability.
> but thats another story.
> Land Rover on the other hand, went out on a limb in the early 70s and
> decided to create a vehicle that was competent off road but also
> assumed the interior stylings of a luxury vehicle.
> Mercedes was next to follow with the G-Class and then Mitsubishi.
> everyone else has just been playing catch up.
> theres a good article here:
> http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Range_Rover_classic.htm
>
> I beg to differ about the Rubicon, not a bad vehicle, but not even in
> the same class as the Rover, yet still a Discovery or Defender will out
> wheel it stock, mud, rock or snow.
>
> We eat jeeps all day, sorry but its true, you can even check out our
> last outting... look at all the Jeeps, even heavily modified. That
> couldnt keep up with the nearly stock crusier and the Rovers. The proof
> is in the pudding, not just talk...
>
> http://www.goldrushexpeditions.com/sheeprocks_-_hilltop_mine.htm
>
> Oh and if you want to quote magaziones, 4x4 Magazine's '4x4 of the
> Year 2006' was the RRS.
> http://www.strategiy.com/inews.asp?id=20050818144144
>
> So tell me this, if a magazine that evaluates 4x4 only, puts the least
> competent Rover at the top of their list over the Rubicon, and any
> other Jeep, how do you think the other rovers do??
>
I am not from Missouri but show me! Show me a new model Rover video doing
what a Jeep just did.

Also,you are calling an independent testing agency Consumer Reports a liar
or their facts are untrue.

Get your head screwed on right denial of your ignorance is a self fulfilling
prophecy.

Coasty


 

"Corey Shuman" <cshuman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133539790.099037.303250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> HAHAHA.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen,
> especially for an arguement against Rovers... look around, rovers have
> been fitting snorkels for years and yes, a $60-70-80k rover could do
> just what that jeep did, for that matter a freelander could do it too,
> just fit a snorkel correctly. Its not rocket science.
>
> But you are showing either ignorance or a flat out lie in your next
> line, there is no 2004 Range Rover Sport. It wasnt released until just
> a few months ago and its an 06. And the RRS while still capable, is a
> "sport". Not meant for the offroading that the reg. Rangie can do, do a
> little research and you will see also that the RRS doesnt share much at
> all with the current Rangie. Even the body panels are all different.
> Okay and back to the SUV...Jeep was first with an Offroad vehicle, this
> is not a SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (SUV). What bit of sport do you get out
> of a 4cyl with less than 100hp.
> IMHO, Rover showed jeep what to do in the matter of offroad capability.
> but thats another story.
> Land Rover on the other hand, went out on a limb in the early 70s and
> decided to create a vehicle that was competent off road but also
> assumed the interior stylings of a luxury vehicle.
> Mercedes was next to follow with the G-Class and then Mitsubishi.
> everyone else has just been playing catch up.
> theres a good article here:
> http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Range_Rover_classic.htm
>
> I beg to differ about the Rubicon, not a bad vehicle, but not even in
> the same class as the Rover, yet still a Discovery or Defender will out
> wheel it stock, mud, rock or snow.
>
> We eat jeeps all day, sorry but its true, you can even check out our
> last outting... look at all the Jeeps, even heavily modified. That
> couldnt keep up with the nearly stock crusier and the Rovers. The proof
> is in the pudding, not just talk...
>
> http://www.goldrushexpeditions.com/sheeprocks_-_hilltop_mine.htm
>
> Oh and if you want to quote magaziones, 4x4 Magazine's '4x4 of the
> Year 2006' was the RRS.
> http://www.strategiy.com/inews.asp?id=20050818144144
>
> So tell me this, if a magazine that evaluates 4x4 only, puts the least
> competent Rover at the top of their list over the Rubicon, and any
> other Jeep, how do you think the other rovers do??
>

Oh by the way I called my son's Range Rover a sport sorry for the improper
nomenclature it had nothing to do with a particular model which I had no
idea there was a SPORT version any thing other than a Wrangler is a sport as
the word sport insinuates.

Coasty


 
On 2 Dec 2005 08:09:50 -0800, "Corey Shuman" <cshuman@gmail.com> wrote:

>HAHAHA.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen,
>especially for an arguement against Rovers... look around, rovers have
>been fitting snorkels for years and yes, a $60-70-80k rover could do
>just what that jeep did, for that matter a freelander could do it too,
>just fit a snorkel correctly. Its not rocket science.
>
Maybe the diesel versions could, but the high voltage ignition on the US
gasoline models would short out.

I'd bet the Jeep in the video had more mods than just a snorkel.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Freelander 2 replacement engine
Replies
1
Views
556
GrumpyGel
GrumpyGel
E
Passionate car owners wanted for TV!
Replies
0
Views
508
emilyjr
E
DPG213
Series 1 109 Engine Conversion - 2.25p or 200DI
Replies
14
Views
3K
nickjaxe
N
G
Sport L494 Sport Purchasing Advice
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
G
Long Time Lurker
Replies
2
Views
467
Hippo
Hippo