>>14260176 I get your decision making skills, but neither of those qualify as SUV's.
OP, as much hate for jeeps is there is, there's just as much of a reason why so many offroad enthusiasts use them here in america: the aftermarket for them is just about unlimited for whatever offroad potential you need/want. As long as you buy one that's meant for offroad in the first place, you can't go wrong. The engines are old as sin because they're reliable, same with the transmissions. Electrical is going to try to kill you, but again, get one meant for offroading, and you'll notice very little electronics in it for that reason.
UK/EU? ignore my post then. I know jeep isn't a smart buy as cost and parts won't merit importing.
>>14260814 I read your post. My statement was accurate in response to your post. The reason ANYONE has them is my reason, they can afford to have a weak, unreliable vehicle. That doesn't mean he should settle for it if he lives in America.
>>14260850 People already are, though. That vehicle has already existed for some time thanks to LeTech who Mercedes contracted for the G400 4x4*2 (fucking annoying name). The LeTech conversion is fairly popular among G-wagen off roaders in the USA. As popular as a 60,000 dollar conversion to a 100,000 dollar car can be.
Still, I don't think the G is the best off road SUV since it doesn't even have skidplates from the factory. Really don't understand that.
>>14260835 ah, I see; you're doing "a thing". The way you wrote your initial statement, it could taken like a jeep driver would never risk their life in a vehicle that could break down, inferring they're sound vehicles. You meant it like jeep drivers are okay with their vehicles breaking down, because they are never in a position where something bad could happen if it did.
Well, your opinion is noted. Care to make a recommendation for the US crowd?
This just shows most of you faggots have never been on any kind of offroad journey and likely have only driven your mums shitbox/minivan. I remember a thread a while back where half you faggots admitted to not even having a fucking license yet you still argue about shit you know nothing about. One kiddo here unintentionally admitted being 16 years old "with the future intention of buying a car".
"Off road" is a much broader spectrum than "On Tarmac"
Especially when $ isn't an issue. But basically comes down to either a military 6x6, or a 2WD trophy truck. Or a dirt bike. Or a snow mobile. Depends on the trail width, terrain and preference, really.
>>14263610 I think it could handle the standard trails that every other SUV can handle. There are a lot of very technical paths that I know a long wheel base and low entry and departure angles aren't going to handle. If you had picked a 4runner instead, I would have agreed with your decision as the 4runner has a fairly healthy aftermarket for gearing it towards pretty intense offroading. There's quite a few groups that are 4runner based and they do lots of moab stuff. However, a jeep honestly has their shit figured as far as offroad is concerned. You implied engine issues, but I've never heard of a jeep getting stranded because of mechanical failure (off road platforms, I'm aware of the grand cherokee's pump issues). Honestly, I'm more of a isuzu guy, but there's just not a big enough of an aftermarket save for the samurai to really make them a proficient offroading vehicle. A stock first gen trooper is absolutely amazing for the price point though.
>>14264188 the 4Runner does not have more stuff than the LC. At least, not stuff you would actually want. But that isn't the point. I'm talking stock, and in that form it could handle all but the buggy trails at Moab. I never said anything about engine issues, but Jeep certainly has its share of poorly engineered engines. The real issue is the rest of the car Weak suspension, axles, frames in the case of the XJ, and awful factory off road performance up until recently.
Gen 3 pajero/montero/shogun with a 6g72. Cheap, reliable and easy to maintain. Popular in australia, africa, russia and surrounding post soviet countries. Makes you really feel like a warlord driving one.
>>14270138 >Gen 3 pajero/montero/shogun with a 6g72 I thought they were initially released with the 6G74, and then the 6G75 later on? Regardless, going with either option over a 4M diesel would be incorrect. That 4M41 is one of the best small diesels you can get in a consumer SUV. Unless you're after the revvy natue of the otherwise decent V6 options.
6g72 is the only engine capable of taking 91-92 octane fuel, I believe, which I add to 'reliability'. The 3.5 and 3.8 litre engines require 95. My only objection against the 4d engine is that diesel in most shit-tier countries is literally donkey piss and paint thinner.
>>14270138 Kazakhstan reporting in. Never thought I'd see it mentioned here since americans dont have it. The pajero is a great all around suv. Here it has nickname "бeгeмoт" - behemoth, hippo. You forgot to add that it also has pretty good stock clearance, super select, and an integrated chassis(that's a pro!). Cons are the abyssmal mileage for a 3.0l engine. In the city I average about 15l-17l/100km with heavy traffic. Climbing mountains and hills and the mileage grows into mid 20s. But the fuel tank is 90litres so it can take you pretty far and back.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.