[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/out/ - Outdoors


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 100 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: IMG_5820.jpg (200 KB, 1280x853)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
First time posting on this board, so be nice:

I'm thinking of purchasing a new car, one that will allow me to be more /out/. Incidentally, I've been keen on the Subaru Outback. What can /out/ tell me about this car? Is it good for both urban and /out/ environments?
>>
If you buy an outback, I'd recommend getting a late 90's or early 2000's model. I've been driving one for a little under a year now and I gotta say it's one of the best vehicles I've driven in the snow. Haven't taken it off road much, but the guy I bought it from said it'll go places his 4wd F-150 won't on his acreage. Lots of room in the back with the seats down if you wanna go car camping as well. Not a ton of rear leg room for passengers, but it doesn't sound like that's a big deal for you. It gets pretty good mileage too at Around 30mpg. Overall, I highly recommend it.
>>
Can anyone offer any advice regarding Honda CR-Vs or 4Runners? I'm kind of torn between the two right now. CR-V seems more within my price point, but I'm afraid it's not rugged enough to handle certain trails that I would like to check out.
>>
I have a 2005 Forester and it's an absolute beast to me. I've climbed some hills you wouldn't believe even with the shitty stock tires. Can't wait to get some more rugged tires and really tear ass. So much fun.
>>
>>1095359
i have a 2004 crv that i rally the shit out of in the sierra. with a little focus it goes everywhere i've ever wanted, it eats 4 people and all their gear without a thought, and i get 31 mpg going over 9000' passes. wouldbuyagain/10
>>
File: DSC_4983_.jpg (91 KB, 800x533)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
Dual-sport + pickup master race.
>>
>>1095357
Thanks for the post, friend.

>If you buy an outback, I'd recommend getting a late 90's or early 2000's model.

But wouldn't said model have a ton of miles already on it?
>>
>>1094543
>>1095359
I own a 2017 base model 4cyl Outback, one of my buddies has a 2015-ish 4cyl CRV and one has a 2008-ish v8 4Runner.

From my own personal experience, I wouldn't be able to tell any meaningful difference between them performance-wise, other than the V8.

Personally I like the Outback the best in terms of interior space / comfort and in my opinion Subaru's generally seem to have just perfect steering feel; I also chose it because I think Subaru has superior AWD and crash safety. The stock stereo in my Outback is pretty much garbage, and the infotainment generally is pretty shit (slow, shitty bluetooth, etc). Perhaps to be expected for a base model, but luckily those aren't priorities for me.

The only thing about the CRV that I prefer is that gets a bit better gas mileage, and the stereo seems to be better. I particularly hate the dash-mounted gear lever. A base Outback is slightly cheaper than an AWD CR-V.

The 4Runner has worse visibility than the Outback, and in other respects is about the same from my perspective. I think the Outback has slightly more space for the seats, and the 4Runner might have a slightly larger cargo area at the back. The 8cyl provides smoother power than the 4cyl in the Outback or CRV, but the Outback is also available with a 6cyl which should substantially even that up, especially since 4Runners also only come with 6cyl these days. The new CRV only comes with a 4cyl.
>>
>>1095378
Probably, but the performance is so much better than the newer ones I think it's worth it. You'll also pay a lot less for it that way.
>>
I have a base 2017 forester manual trans. It handles great and is real quiet in the highway. Dash says lifetime mpg is 28.5. My biggest complaint is I miss driving a truck.

Unforeseen circumstances require I buy something that can tow a camper though. Wife and are are childfree and doing an early semi retirement fulltime rv thing.

Biggest advantage the forester has over a rugged body on frame vehicle is the mpg and ride. The body on frame wins in towing and slow technical driving where low range t case is required.
>>
>>1095526
Post your wife's tits, m8
>>
File: IMG_1259.jpg (2.28 MB, 3264x2448)
2.28 MB
2.28 MB JPG
>>1094543
Most forest type roads can be driven with a stock Corolla. Pic related. I'd just look for something reliable with good storage/roof rack.
>>1095359
CR-V is the better vehicle for around town/regular driving. My 4runner is overkill 95% of the time (and gets 15 mpg), but it's sometimes nice having that extra capability for that 5%.
>>
>>1095367
Fellow califag? I really want to be able to drive to the eastern sierras in the winter and go camping near some hot springs. The fuel economy was another thing pushing me toward getting a CR-V, but I think I'm pretty much sold now
>>
>>1095378
Subaru is literally a throw-away car.
>>
File: 1504238844260.gif (904 KB, 500x532)
904 KB
904 KB GIF
>>1095627
How do you mean?
>>
File: fugg the bolice.gif (1 MB, 238x190)
1 MB
1 MB GIF
>>1095627
Subaru is good car, fite me.
>>
File: IMG_0280.jpg (95 KB, 500x375)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
I drive pic related and love it.
>>
>>1095359
The 4Runner is a truck.
The CR-V is a Civic with a lift.
You probably mean the RAV4 instead of 4Runner
>>
>>1095714
No, I meant 4runner. I am weighing my options between something more rugged but less everyday-driving friendly versus a car that may be more limited while /out/ but a more economical choice overall
>>
File: IMG_8414.jpg (90 KB, 640x427)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
best /out/ vehicle - for you
>>
>>1095716
Unless you intend to go off-road for fun, or have extremely bad roads you shouldn't worry that much about capability.

The 4Runner is pretty civilized for urban use too.

The amount of equipment that you'll be carrying should be taken into consideration.
Adding weight will drastically reduce the capability of the CR-V.
>>
File: beaver.png (33 KB, 496x390)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
>>1095671
These are great.
>>
Mitshubishi L200
>>
>>1095724
>Adding weight will drastically reduce the capability of the CR-V.
the only time i've noticed that to be a problem is when trying to accelerate hard up 10+% grades above 8000'. then i can really feel the difference between 1 person and 4. otherwise she does just fine.
>>
>>1095627
I'm poor. $500 is all I can save up for a car in two years
>>
Hasn't been posted yet, so here is my pick

Nissan Xterra. It will go anywhere you ever want to go, short of serious off roading requiring modified jeeps and trucks. It's not great with MPG, but is reliable and cheap to maintain.

It will def ride worse than a car or outback, but will be more capable too.

Honestly you need to look at how much offloading you'll really be doing. Any AWD vehicle with a little ground clearance will go 99% of places for most people.
>>
>>1095876
>3' bed
>7" of ground clearance
>22kpg fuel efficiency
>79 horsepower, <100 lb-ft of torque
>costs more than the Nissan Frontier and almost as much as a Hilux
>>
>>1095983
What the fuck, Cletus? Stop being a NEET faggot living of welfare.
>>
Is it worth the trouble to own a motorhome? I'd like to do so but it seems so much more expensive and high-maintenance than just using a re-purposed van or a tent.
>>
>>1095983
How can you possibly expect to pay for gas and insurance?
>>
>>1096015
A motorhome is expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, expensive to drive (really shitty on gas), and more expensive to camp with, since water and power hookups typically cost extra (at least everywhere I have been). Sewer means you have to do your own sewage disposal, which is probably not worth the benefit of being able to shit in your own tiny home and make the whole place stink. With a motorhome, they are so shit to drive that you aren't going to want to move it once you park it, meaning that it makes a poor basecamp unless you are towing a smaller car as well.

IMO if you are going towards hardsided camping, the real value is in decided sleeping space that is warm, dry and bug/critter-proof. All you need for that is a regular van, if even that.
>>
>>1096015

Just convert an old Econoline my dude.

Vanlife Chad > RV Virgins
>>
>>1095983
Subaru is the car for you.
>>
>>1096015
>motorhome
FUCK no.

Travel trailers and popup campers are superior in literally every way.
>smaller travel trailers and even the biggest popups can be towed by every POS 4banger econobox in existence, even the larger travel trailers can be pulled by bigger sedans and the midsized trucks and SUV's--nothing requires a full-size truck
>relatively inexpensive to buy, extensive used market
>dirt cheap and simple to maintain
>runs the gamut on features--everything from "it's a box with a bed in it you could probably heat if you wanted idk" to "this bitch literally has a jacuzzi and a movie projector to go with its real marble countertops"
>doesn't require yearly registration as it's not a vehicle, plated like a regular trailer so they last anywhere from "at least twice as long as your car's" to forever, and the plates are cheap af
>not legally obligated to insure it because it's not a vehicle
>easily rigged to support extended expeditions
>>
>>1096292
Follow-up with my setup.

I've got a 17 foot travel trailer I've rigged for multi-week outings without hookups. I pretty well gutted it and redid it to fit my uses, since I mainly hunt and fish out of it and don't take off to be a tourist.
>propane rack to run the generator and stove
Holds up to 12, 20lb pigs of propane, usually roll with 9 (rack is 3 wide by 4 high)
>greatly extended potable water supply
Had to rip out the actual bed to do this (most RV's whether they're trailer or motorhome have their water tank under the main bed) but it holds up to 450 gallons of potable water. Now sleep in a hammock slung in the front quarter of the trailer, above where the "guest" bed was.
>extensive battery bank and solar panel array on roof
Running 3, 130AH deep cycle marine batteries that live under the propane rack and 4x 100w solar panels on the roof with an additional 2 that can be folded out off the side. Pretty much everything in the trailer except the generator and stove are 12v DC, including the following:
>installed 2, 12v DC chest freezers
No point in being out in the wilderness for 2 weeks and not being able to keep all that tasty tasty wild game. Pair of 2.8 cubic foot freezers, which aren't massive but keeps the power draw down. These are in addition to the regular RV fridge/freezer that came with it. They draw 80 watts each at 0.75a.
>installed stainless worktop for large game processing
Literally it's a commercial kitchen worktop I got from a restaurant going out of business on the cheap and bolted it in where the "guest" bed would have been/below my hammock.
>installed a secured-storage/gun cabinet
Basic non-fire-rated steel gun cabinet installed next to the stainless worktop
>general modernization and weight trimming
Stripped out most of the aesthetic trim, swapped all the lighting to LED, cut down on the lighting some (seriously the factory setup had so many damn lights...)
>mounted a small charcoal/wood grill to the trailer yoke
>>
>>1096297
Basically, as long as I'm not having to run the A/C or the weather's complete shit, I never have to run the generator. I've got enough water for a month of comfort or several months without regular showers without resupply, and the room to take enough food with me to last that long.

It did greatly increase the weight of the trailer, since propane tanks and boat batteries weigh a ton, but I got a small and light trailer to start with so it's still within the capabilities of my Tacoma and the trailer's axles.
>>
>>1096292
You're fucking high.

You really think a large sedan is going to pull a 10k lbs 38ft travel trailer?

Even the highest rated tow and payload capacity SUV would be overloaded towing the largest travel trailers.

My travel trailer for instance has a tongue weight of nearly 1k lbs. You really think a small SUV or large sedan has anywhere near enough payload for that? And that's if you're flat ground st sea level. A truck like a Tacoma at altitude would grind to a stop pulling 10k lbs up a grade. Even a half ton truck woth a 10k lbs travel trailer is offer overloaded in respects to payload.
>>
>>1096304
If it's 38ft long it's not considered a travel trailer any more.

Have you actually looked at the official/legal classifications of the different kinds of RVs?
>>
>>1096297
post pictures, that sounds gross as fuck
>>
>>1095671
I bet you have no problems finding a nice bottom to pozz in that
>>
>>1096304
>blahblahblah towing capacity autismo ranting
He's right, you know.
>>
>>1096591
I'm >>1096292
and he sorta has a point, a sedan is not going to pull a 5-ton trailer. Period, it would literally rip the hitch off the frame.

Fortunately, all those 10,000lb trailers that he incorrectly assumes are still travel trailers are 5th-wheel goosenecks. Can't put a 5th wheel hitch on a sedan or SUV, period.

A factory-setup 17ft travel trailer weighs well under 3000lb, even the 29ft Jayco Jayfeather 29QB with all the options is only 5500lb and can be pulled by any V6 and all V8 SUV's and trucks and some of the larger V8 sedans that can accept a Class 4 hitch.
>>
>>1096304
This is correct info.
>>
>>1096313
>38' isn't a travel trailer

It is in murica
>>
>>1096605
My 30' travel trailer weighs 7300 dry, almost 10,000 loaded. I'd love to see someone pull it with a sedan. The tongue weight is enough to bottom out the suspension on my half ton truck I use to move it around the shop.
>>
>>1096636
>putting more than a literal ton of stuff in your trailer
Jesus Christ, what do you have in there?
>the tongue weight is enough to bottom out the suspension on my half ton
Then something is mechanically wrong with either it or your truck, the 29' Jayfeather has a 394lb tongue load.
>>
>>1096560
>implying
>>
>>1096639
>feather
>>
>>1096639
440lbs of fresh water, two 30lb(doesnt include weight of tanks themselves)propane cylinders, 180lb generator.

That's before you load up with food and personal affects for 6 people.

Of course you don't want to go above 70% of your tow vehicles rated capacity if you plan on anything but flatlands towing. Also tow vehicles' rated capacity doesn't take into account a frontal area like a camper has or the flat square side that catch wind like a camper does.
It's like you've never done this before.
>>
>>1096745
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=camper+blows+over+windy&view=detail&mid=F9C55964285D067D6A87F9C55964285D067D6A87&FORM=VRRTAP
>>
>>1096313
Ummm... what is it called then?

There at lots of 35ft+ travel trailers.
>>
>>1096605
You really don't know the difference between a travel trailer and fifth wheel... do you?

Here is a 37'11" travel trailer, 8500lbs dry. That will easily be 10k loaded. 1100lbs hitch weight.

http://www.keystonerv.com/laredo/models/335mk/model-mobile
>>
>>1096956
Here's another. Toy hauler travel trailer. 37'5" and 9200 lbs dry. Almost 1400lbs hitch weight.

http://www.keystonerv.com/carbon/models/35/model-mobile
>>
>>1096001

Stop making shit up. L200 is best jap truck.
>>
>>1096745
>440
>call it at most 130 (a full 20lb cylinder is ~45lb)
>180
---------
750lbs
Where's the other 1550 pounds? Surely 6 people cannot take 258.33 pounds of shit each with them, unless they were literally packing lead ingots it wouldn't all fit.

>>1096846
I have literally never actually seen a >30ft RV that was not a gooseneck. Ever. And I worked for an RV retailer and service shop for 6 years.

>>1096956
>>1096960
Okay, I will admit I was wrong. I have never seen one that large, ever.

I will use this time to modify my original statement to "normal sized" travel trailers. A sedan should have no problem towing up to a 20' travel trailer and a mid-sized SUV should have no issue towing anything under 30'.
>>
File: right side.jpg (300 KB, 1434x1076)
300 KB
300 KB JPG
>>1096001
It's a better vehicle than an equiv year Hilux though, I'm a diesel mech by trade and I own a Triton/Warrior/L200(whatever your local version is) over a Hilux and without question I'd own a Hilux over a Frontier/Navara.

The 4m40/41 powered Mitsubishis are some of the best Jap diesel vehicles around, it's an epic driveline and where I live was offered with a 10 year warranty.
>>
>>1097066
>diesel
That's just it. I'm US. They aren't available in diesel here, only an extremely anemic 2.4L NA gas engine paired with their ultra-shitty 4 speed automatic. You literally can't even special-order a manual transmission in the US.
>>
>>1097073
It's weird how shit works sometimes, in Aus we can't get manual BMW M5's but in the US you can/could. I'm surprised they weren't offered with the v6 though.
>>
>>1097075
Supposedly the V6 was discontinued in 2014 worldwide. The 2015-present offerings are the 2.4L 4g64 4banger gas, 2.4L 4n15 4banger turbodiesel, and the 2.5L 4d56 4banger turbodiesel.
>>
>>1097076
Yeah, I meant in the MK's pictured. The 4n15 is a spectacular motor in terms of power output, on our work dyno they make more grunt than the v8 70 series Cruisers, if they're as solid as the 4m's they should be a good thing.
>>
>>1097076
Oh whoops, looks like that's partially incorrect.

While the 4D56 is available in turbodiesel (both intercooled and non-intercooled), the L200 uses a NA version that produces a measly 74 bhp and 105 lb-ft.
>>
>>1097077
They're torque-y little fuckers, I'll give ya that. Horsepower is a bit lacking though.
>181 bhp
>317 lb-ft of torque
They'd make a great hobbyist offroader but I'd hate to have to tow anything over a couple hundred pounds with it at US highway speeds.
>>
>>1097080
Really depends what you're looking to do, my 4m41 tows 2t at 13l/100km(18USmpg) and it's got heaps less than the 4n, none of the bigger diesels available in Aus get within a week of that economy when towing and over time the cost adds up, at least with our fuel prices.
>>
File: p1010928.jpg (41 KB, 565x424)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
I've often wondered about the feasibility of getting a Class 8 tractor to pull a camper. I'd imagine you'd probably have all kinds of hoops to jump through and DOT cops would be harassing you all the time.

Plus the maintenance.
>>
>>1094543
subaru owners are only below bmw owners on the list of entitled asshole drivers
>>
>>1095357
>Haven't taken it off road much, but the guy I bought it from said it'll go places his 4wd F-150 won't on his acreage.

yeah, its called selling, he was trying to sell you his car

so unless his f-150 was rear wheel drive only you got bamboozled
>>
>>1095359
CRVs are mall rated for housewives and retired old women
>>
>>1097228
Only the ones that drive WRXs
>>
>>1097223
Why though? It's completely unnecessary. A medium duty truck is more than capable of pulling basically every 5th wheel camper out there. With a class 8 tractor trailer you need a CDL, and the maintenance is way more expensive on a truck like that. If you want overkill, just get something like a Ram 5500 or F-450. They are cheap enough (sorta) if you can find a used commercial one somewhere at auction.
>>
>>1097060
What country are you in? The most popular length travel trailer sold in the USA is a "28ft" bunkhouse, which is about 31ft long with the hitch. Even my travel trailer, which is considered small by some standards, is a "26ft" model, and is about 29ft with the hitch.

Also, you'd be amazed how much weight you pack in an RV. Coolers full of drinks, bikes for each of the 6 people, a portable grill, cookware, clothes, toys for kids, ect ect. It adds up. That's not counting extra chairs you bring, firewood you pack in as well. It's basically the complete opposite of backpacking.

I have an RV and I also backpack, 2 complete opposite philosophies of camping, both equally as fun.
>>
File: desu.jpg (390 KB, 1024x683)
390 KB
390 KB JPG
I guess subarus are for old people
>>
File: travel-trailers.jpg (48 KB, 500x320)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>1097060
Additionally, I'm not sure what you call a mid-sized SUV, but they are models like a Highlander, Explorer, Durango, ect. They typically max out toe capacity around 5k lbs, which a 30ft travel trailer will exceed. You can option a Durango or Grand Cherokee to tow 7200-7400 lbs, but even that is pushing it for a 30ft travel trailer, especially with payload, and the short wheelbase of the grand cherokee.
>>
File: Leone_1971.jpg (93 KB, 500x283)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>1097274
Not really.
>>
>>1097297
ok dis cute
>>
>>1097079
>the L200 uses a NA version that produces a measly 74 bhp and 105 lb-ft.

Pretty sure that's wrong, seeing as how my 1997 L200 has a 2.5 intercooled turbo version of that engine.
So did my friends pre 1996 L200.
>>
File: 1504652171176.png (484 KB, 800x498)
484 KB
484 KB PNG
>>1097228
What's wrong, did a Subaru owner fuck your girl or something, mate?
>>
File: DSC_0516.jpg (801 KB, 2000x1339)
801 KB
801 KB JPG
My Taco, selling over the winter, going to get an F150
>>
>>1097468
Get a subaru, faggot
>>
File: panda1987.jpg (48 KB, 750x443)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
This is so hipster I came just now.
>>
>>1097599
This bring me memories. Man, life should have stopped in the 90s.
>>
>>1097599
They sell those in the U.S. As jeep renegade, lol
>>
>>1097602
>Man, life should have stopped in the 90s.
no.
>>
File: 1504813118633.jpg (65 KB, 540x720)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>1095628
>>1095633

>90s-early 2000s subaru
>having a car that doesn't blow its own motor and rusts itself out of existence

pick one
>>
>>1097752
>no
that's heresy. 90s were the best era.
>>
File: jay peg me.jpg (14 KB, 552x308)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>1097468
Why. It's heavy and bulky and bad on fuel.
>>
File: IMG_6556.jpg (1.27 MB, 1936x1936)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
>>1095375
Tru

The only true /out/ solution is to have options for different situations
>>
>>1097950
>bad on fuel
Better than the Taco is.

I've got a 2010 Tacoma TRD and a 2013 Chevy 2500 HD LTZ longbed. The Tacoma weighs ~1200lbs less and has a 2.5L lower displacement engine, and gets worse mileage both in-town and on the interstate.

My Tacoma actually beats the EPA highway estimate of 19mpg, I get around 19.8-20.2 because I don't drive like a maniac. Yet my 2500 gets 23mpg highway. They're closer in town, the Tacoma gets about 15mpg and the 2500 gets around 16.

Toyota couldn't make an efficient drivetrain if their lives depended on it. Durable yes, efficient no.
>>
>>1097952
>being this rich
jelly, tell me your ways, master.
>>
Is the jeep a meme /out/ car? Found one for like 750 that runs and is missing a stereo and needs brake work.
>>
>>1098166
I have a first gen tacoma. I get pretty ok millage.
>>
File: 1.jpg (154 KB, 1522x897)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
04' Jeep Liberty. Haven't gotten to go out camping with it just yet, only bought it a month or so ago. But it'll be nice to drive in the harsh Upstate NY winter.
>>
>>1097468
you in southern california?
>>
File: Jeep Wagoneer.jpg (56 KB, 400x300)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
This is my goal truck. But finding one that isn't a rotted out POS, or restored and selling for $25k is near impossible.
>>
>>1098167
The secret is he does his own maintenance and repairs.
>>
>>1095359
Do you mean older or new? New 4runner is epic, but the old one will make your mechanic hate you. Not because they break often but because when they do break, they break in inconvenient places. I spent a whole work day pulling the engine bay apart to fix a coolant leak at the back of the intake manifold. For reference this was a 2003 model with a 3L v6 in it. Toyota's most unpleasant engine to tinker with.

As for CRV, the older models around 03 can be had for cheap, and are brilliant little cars. Super easy to fix and super capable as far as AWD wagon go. The new ones are poop.

TLDR: old crv > old 4runner.
New crv < new 4runner.
>>
File: IMG_8446.jpg (497 KB, 1366x1025)
497 KB
497 KB JPG
>>1098225
I've always really liked the SJ even though they're rare in Europe.
>>
>>1098170
>restored
Jeeps routinely rank bottom of the barrel as far as reliability goes.
>>
>>1098353
Explain why.
>>
>>1098167
Buy used and do your own repairs and maintenance.
>>
File: b_1_q_0_p_0.jpg (832 KB, 2272x1704)
832 KB
832 KB JPG
>>1094543
plebs, everything else clashes with your gorka
>>
>>1096304
he said small travel trailer
just get a teardrop trailer and don't be a pussy
>>
>>1098175
Quantify "pretty ok" mileage. Because depending on who you talk to that can be anywhere from 3mpg to 50mpg.
>>
>>1098356
1. Daimler and later Fiat were never known for caring much about quality. They heavily encouraged corner-cutting for dat bottom dollar
2. People go "Oh it's a Jeep, it's automatically undeadable forever!" and proceed to thrash the fuck out of them when they wouldn't have done the same to any not-Jeep, because memes and a reputation that rides on the dubious success of a 75 year old design from an entirely different company.
3. Assembled in Mexico. Expect to find at least 1 Bud Light can wedged between your body panels if you ever have to take them off, and yes that's what that mysterious rattle is that showed up at 300 miles and your mechanic can't track down
>>
>>1098452
I-is that still running bias-ply tires?
>>
>>1097599
Isn't anything like a panda.
>>
>>1097468

Don't get an f150 you dumb faggot.

Fords are the ultimate meme truck
>>
>>1098500
Upon further inspection you are right, the wheel wells need replacing, the right side rear has a hole eaten through it and the wheel rims are somehow bent.

If I cant trade a cheap shotgun and maybe two benjamins for it I'll pass. Thanks.
>>
>>1098557
>>1098500
What the heck no. If it's a jeep for $750, it's probably just an uncared for, rusted out TJ or YJ

>>1098170
TJ, YJ, CJs, and anything before 2000s were made by AMC which had spot on works. After 2000-2006, they started suffering Fiat-Chrysler reliability and started sucking ass as a result. That's the only downside. Get a TJ, care for it, run it until the engine explodes, OM617 swap it, and run it until you die of old age.
>>
>>1098694
>at least 30 year old vehicle to get back to AMC days (AMC ceased to exist in 1987)
>not having extensive and expensive things you need to fix
I've never seen a Jeep older than about 4 years that didn't have electrical problems. The newer ones are probably Daimler/Fiat corner-cutting, the older ones are just age issues.
>spend a couple hundred bux to obtain older Jeep, with issues
>spend $15,000 and 3 years hunting parts in junkyards repairing it and getting it "trail ready"
vs
>spend $5000 to get an 8 year old pickup from Toyota, Ford, or Chevrolet
>spend $0 reparing it and getting it "trail ready"
>have a vehicle capable of towing more than a small boat that also has usable amounts of cargo room without sacrificing all your passenger compartment

Unless you want a $45,000 enthusiast rock crawler, avoid anything Jeep. You get a small, anemic vehicle that is rollover prone that will fit 2 people and a small cooler, and that's it.
>>
>>1098711
AMC parts existed in Jeeps up until 2006 when the last TJ rolled off the market. The Wrangler JKs from 2006-2010 then suffered immense mechanical and chassis issues from their pentastar engines knocking or just generally shutting down on the highway.

Most people I know have either newer than 2012 JK Wranglers (within your 4 year critique) which are great on the trails. Or they have pretty stock (other than suspension and armour modification) TJ / YJs without much mechanical failures. They ran on the I-4 and I-6 AMC engines which burned gas like no tomorrow but did last up until 2017 without rebuilds. They're sitting on 200-400 k mi with upgraded intercoolers and people only get rid of them pending frame rot in the salt belt.

I do agree with your statement:
>Unless you want a $45,000 enthusiast rock crawler, avoid anything Jeep
However, most built TJs on 35 inch tyres sell for around $8000 here. Another suspension augmentation to fit 42 inch tyres should only cost you $3000 and the tyres to match.
>>
>>1098724
>tyres
I take it you're a leaf.

Yeah, that's not true here in America, and definitely not true in my part of America. A factory-stock TJ Wrangler or XJ Cherokee with extensive body rust and a questionable frame that doesn't run will sell for $6000, a built out one with electrical issues and bald tires will sell for $20,000, and a built out one on 30-35" tires that needs NO work will sell for $30,000-40,000.
>>
>>1098724
>other than suspension and armour modification
You mean "other than the two most expensive things you can do to an offroad vehicle"

Basic 4" lift, portal axle conversion, and the tires to match will run you $10,000USD (the tires alone are $300-500 each, depending on style and ply, cheapest portal axle kit I can find for a TJ is $2200 per axle). Full steel skid plates and rock sliders are an additional $1,000+.
>>
File: 20170628_121514.jpg (1.44 MB, 2560x1440)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB JPG
Love my tacoma and it does everything i need it to do. Hauls my 6x10 trailer fully loaded and made a platform bed in back for road trips/ camping excursions. My fiances shit box is going to die soon so either a crosstrek or 4runner for her and future kids. My apologies if image is ausmode
>>
>>1098739
>built out one on 30-35" tires that needs NO work will sell for $30,000-40,000.
Hecking heck. Those are built JK prices here. It also fully depends on what time you buy and how often you're on the classifieds. If I was bored and poor, I'd consider buying up all the Autumn TJs / YJs for $9k, doing their necessary brake jobs, radiator jobs, etc and driving them down to Colorado or something to sell them in the spring for $20k. Also, stock TJs normally go for the price of built TJs here.

>>1098758
>other than the two most expensive things you can do to an offroad vehicle
It's more a testament of the vehicle being able to hold up with the weird gearing done to it using stock components. Another reason people like old Toyotas for the same projects / uses.

People normally build their axles using D44s (or 60s as a stretch) at around $1000 converted (if they do it themselves). Lifts and tyres are probably the most expensive but rarely get their value back when you're reselling them.


ANYWAY, the original question was >1098170 "are heaps a maymay ccar?". And the answer is "they can be but not always".
"Wrangler Lyfe" on the other hand, is.


>>1098771
>ausmode
hehe
>>
>>1098803
>built JK
It's literally cheaper to buy a current model year Wrangler new off the lot and have a custom offroad shop build one out for you than it is to buy a built JK used. I've got a dozen in my home city sitting on Craigslist at $70k and they're not moving because of it, but they've been sitting at $70k for over a year without coming down in price. You can buy a used G-wagon for that and run it as-is if all you're doing is trails.
>it also depends on what time you buy
100% agree, they're high now but they don't come down much during the winter here.
>people normally build their axles
Yeah, a set of ready-to-install D44's is $2500 for front axle and $2750 for rear axle on every website I can find. I can see why people convert them themselves. One website had off-brand portals for $2200 per axle, and there's one company converting surplus Humvee rear portals for use in XJ's for $1800, but they come with no warranty.

Since I don't live anywhere close to rock crawling areas and "mudding" is big here, most built-out offroaders are running Super Swampers. 33" Super Swamper TSL Boggers are $330 each. Those will fit a stock JK with just a hub spacer, or fit a JK with a portal conversion but no lift, part of the reason they're common. With a modest/cheap suspension lift (2" coilover increase) they can fit 35x12.5's with a hub spacer or portal conversion, and those tires are $385 each.
>>
>>1098816
Here. Have this ad:
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-cars-trucks/city-of-toronto/2014-lifted-ford-f-350-platinum-pickup-truck/1285683831?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

I wanna build a G-Wagon. Gief portal axles and 5 different types of diff lockers.

D44s done by shoppes are retarded. You can buy yourself an old Ram 2500, sell the cummies for what you paid for the truck, and rebuild / mount your new dana axles for that price. Hell D60s only cost around $500-$100 by themselves. It just takes a lot of time to do this stuff, of course.

Why are people using portals for mudding? Aren't those things 800lbs each? The Jeep clubs do a mix of mud and rocking here and there's this one club of 8 that did a group buy of MT Kevlars so now 7 Jeep JKs and one Jeep TJ are running a whole set of MT Kevlars. But on top of that, everyone hecking buys them here now. They laugh at my Duratracs ):
>>
>>1094543
anything with AWD and a roofrack is fine unless you're asking about actually offroading, which I don't think you are.
>>
>>1098827
>dat truck

You couldn't buy an old Ram 2500 around here, there aren't any available. All the lawn service companies buy them the second they hit the market then run them until the frames rust out. But that's a good idea.

People use portals for mudding for the same reason they use them for crawling: ground clearance. Ruts suck, the #1 cause for people getting stuck while mudding is bottoming out on the hump.

>MT Kevlars
Damn, those actually aren't bad on price. 33x12.5's are $260ish.
>>
>>1098836
The group buy got their pricing down to around $199 (and that's leaf monies) per tyre for 33s. Someone got 38 inches for $300 each (or some number like that). Wish I was there for that...

Anyway, portals just seem way too heavy to be mudding. But I guess on a non-lux orientated offroad vehicle (unlike the G-Wagons, Patrols, Land Cruisers which all weigh over 5000lbs) that weigh much less than their competitors, it makes some sense.

Also, yeah. You buy the Ram 2500s from companies or people who own them (old farm vehicles included) when their frames rot away. Or off smaller auto wreckers who don't know that solid front axles are worth more than the vehicle combined. Just approach every guy with a rotted out Ram from their vinyl wrapped truck and offer $2000. That's what I do with Land Cruisers here and one day, I might strike lucky.
>>
Got a 2016 Forester. Thing is a fucking fantastic vehicle. I go car camping almost every weekend. With the back seats folded I can fit a full size inflatable mattress inside so I just sleep in my car to make my life easy. Hike and explore during the day and know imma return to a maximumcomfy sleep.

I get 24mpg in the city and 32-40 highway (heavily depends on road type and what I've got the roof. Lowest I've seen it was 29mpg). Just replace the oil every 4k miles and they'll last forever. My dads Impreza hit 280k before he got tired of it and bought a 2017 Legacy.

The Subaru community is also really sweet. Been to a few meet ups and everyone is pretty chill. I just wish I bought the Eyesight package, but oh well.
>>
>>1098893
If you're going by yourself, you can unbolt the seats so that the mattress lies more flat and doesn't increase or decrease your blood pressure stupidly.
>>
>>1098895
Oh fuck that's a great idea. I've been shimming the bed after drunkenly waking up facing the wrong way and all the blood rushed to my head for god knows how long.

I'll try that next time I go, thanks anon.
>>
>>1095357
Please kill yourself
>>
File: IMG_20170610_194903.jpg (268 KB, 1200x1200)
268 KB
268 KB JPG
>>1098896
If it's a one person, you may get away from just removing the passenger side seats (shotgun and side seats). I have pic related as a setup for my cot all around so it seats four people all the time AND one doggo to lay down flat.

I find a one person sleeps better since you don't roll around. If it's two person, then remove the back seats entirely.
>>
>>1098694
>After 2000-2006, they started suffering Fiat-Chrysler reliability
Eh? The Jeeps that have major reliability issues I work on in Aus are Daimler/Benz period Jeeps
>>
>>1099172
U wot.
I own and drive several Mercedes-Benz vehicles from the Daimler-Chrysler era and haven't had any reliability problems.
>>
>>1099175
Who mentioned Mercedes vehicles except you?
>>
>>1098893
What's the eyesight package, friend? Also, could two full grown adults sleep in it?
>>
>>1098496
Not the guy you were responding to but my 1996 gets like 32mpg highway with a cap and 25 city albeit it's the five speed manual as well, if you floor the accelerator in city driving you'll get shit mileage in any small truck/suv.
>>
>>1098167
Boats are way cheaper than most people make them out to be if you stick to the small end of things, I personally have a 15ft skiff with a 30hp 1984 Yamaha, I bought the motor for 300 and built the hull for around 900, but I could have just bought a serviceable one for around 3-400, it's all about buying used and being able to do your own maintenance.
>>
>>1099594
>it's all about buying used
Unless it's a bass boat, those hold their value well enough you'll never save any real money.

But yeah. I picked up both my 12' jon and my 22' center-console jon used on Craigslist. Paid $150 for the 12' and $2100 for the 22' with trailer and 90hp outboard.
>>
>>1094543
>not owning a 1990 Chevy Cheyenne 1500 4x4.
Neck yourselves.
>>
>>1099616
>american cars
>>
>>1099219
>how
I'm a different guy with a 2017, don't think there's enough for two people to fit. I'm 5'10 and Id have to be at least partially diagonal to fit
>>
I want a Volvo XC60 even if it's a car made for people who want to look like they go /out/ more than they actually do, it's so beautiful and it's not like I go offroading with it
>>
>>1099698
You have it wrong.
It's a car made for people who would have bought a Volvo wagon twenty five years ago.
>>
File: 1493584095853.jpg (3.98 MB, 4032x3024)
3.98 MB
3.98 MB JPG
>>1098167
Im not rich. Im only 20. Ill admit im very fortunate to have parents that bought me that truck for my brithday. The bike, boat, and sled I bought myself though. I just saved my money and worked during the summer at a good job.

>>1098234
>>1098357
only on the bike, boat, and sled, which is kinda easy. Truck still has free service for a little bit
>>1099594
>>1099599
My first boat was a 14ft v-hull jon boat that I saw some really old guy selling in his yard. I gave him $300 for the boat and he gave me a free 9.5 evinrude to power it. Probably the best deal I ever found. My dad already had a little boat trailer that would fit it so it couldnt have worked out better. As for the boat in pic related, I payed $5700. I bought it off of my highschool buddy who got it from his uncle who bought it new and that kid I got it from is ocd with keeping his shit pristine so I knew the boat was mint despite being a 2001. Been using it for two seasons now and its been nothing but perfect
>>
File: DSC_7960_.jpg (157 KB, 800x533)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>1097952
>>1099719
ayyy polarisbro

>>1098357
>>1098234
>do your own repairs and maintenance
this
especially with older carb'd engines. Super simple to work on.
The newer stuff like my sled needs some dealer tools to work on... which kind of sucks, but at the same time, the shit's pretty solid and really doesn't need much work.

Truck isn't worth my time to work on, for what local mechanics charge. Load the moto, drive to the shop, unload moto, leave the truck for a few days and ride the moto as needed. Mechanic gets to it when he can, isn't a rush job, and doesn't rape me on labor.
Though it does help when I've already done the diagnosis, pulled codes, checked things, etc. I come in with a "front U-joint's loose" complaint, vs. "it clicks when i turn the wheel lol".
>>
>>1099219
Sorry for the really late reply. Eyesight is Subaru's safety tech package. The auto-stopping if you're gonna collide with someone. Adaptive cruise control and lane departure warnings. All that jazz.

Really, though, I wanted it for adaptive cruise control. My friend's Outback has is and it's so. fucking. good. I hate the constant lane switching because I'm doing 72 and someone is doing 70. I'd rather just do 70.
>>
>>1099873
Oh, and two people could sleep there, it'd be a bit cramped though.
>>
File: images-5.jpg (10 KB, 231x218)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>1096003
Welfare actually pays pretty well. All of the minorities scamming it in my neighborhood have pretty nice cars

>>1094543
I'm unironically looking at pic related for my next /out/omobile.
>rear wheel drive is fun on gravel
>decent mpg
>can run on cooking oil in emergencies
>levels of comfy that shouldn't be possible
>reliable diesel engine
>can be had for under 1000 ameribucks
>>
>>1099878
Posting better pic. Also forgot
>did pretty well in rally back in the day
>>
>>1099719
>worked during the summer at a good job
Doig what?
>>
>>1096304
This. Overloading a vehicle is a great way to kill a car. My dad had an old Nissan hardbody with a 2.4L that he used for camping. Super reliable trucks, but he had to have the transmission rebuilt twice before the odometer hit 90k
>>
>>1096304
I'm fucking high and even I know this.
>>
>>1099878
>>1099879
Coming from someone who has had a 300TD and now owns a 240D engine swapped from a 300TD (OM617.951), the things are way too heavy. Also, bumpers and wheels and everything costs an assload of money. Plus winter tyres are ridiculously hard to fit around their wheels for some weird reason.

Get the car for the engine (and not even the transmission) only. Maybe for a highway cruiser, too.
>>
suburban. I can sleep in it.

Long list of perks
>>
>>1096297
Badass i want pics and details.
>>
>>1095671
I want one of those badly.
>>
Get a 4x4 Ranger or other light truck with a v6 and learn how to drive it. Don't be a nigger and buy a showy Suburu when you can just put chains or snow tires on a truck that is more practical.
>>
>>1100089
How are Subarus showy, you faggot?
>>
>>1099879
>>1099878
I own a W124.
They are solid off-roaders, especially for their size/weight.
Long suspension travel, precise steering, long first and second gear, clear driving position, and a flat undercarriage.
You can run rough roads at 40mph all day.

The W123 should be no different.


The TD (Estate) versions are perfect for sleeping in.

Maintenance is easy too.
But you do need a special compressor if you intend to change the springs.
You don't really need to though. I've never bottomed out.
>>
>>1100092
>factory color option of "Magpulâ„¢ Flat Dark Earth"
>not showy
>>
>>1100143
Not an argument
>>
>>1095366
is it 2.5XT and manuel transmission?
>>
>>1100156
Yes it is, and a damn better argument than calling people faggots.

But while I'm at it.
>marketed as offroad capable
>3" of ground clearance
and
>marketed as offroad capable
>open differentials
>>
>>1100165
>3" of ground clearance

What are you even talking about, you bumbling faggot?
>>
>>1100143
>don't get FDE
>pick literally any other color that doesn't trigger you
HOLY SHIT HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE?

>>1100165
>3" of ground clearance
So you have no idea what you are talking about
>Open differential
So you have no idea what you are talking about and have dumbass opinions about the things you don't know.
>>
>>1100193
So you're going to say that the Outback and Crosstrek's "X-Drive" system isn't an open differential even though it offers no locking capability what so fucking ever?

I mean, it's not even a limited slip differential.

And yes, the 2017 and 2018 Forester and Crosstrek have 3" of clearance from the ground to the lowest point of the undercarriage (with nothing and nobody in it) regardless of what their website claims (8.7"). A good friend has one, we measured it after he got hung up on a 4" curb.
>>
>>1100169
>even after being called out on resorting to ad hominem arguments, continues to resort to ad hominem arguments while providing nothing else

I just think you're projecting at this point.
>>
>>1100203
Thanks for proving my point
>>
File: 1493591242359.jpg (4.17 MB, 4032x3024)
4.17 MB
4.17 MB JPG
>>1099826
sup homie
>>1099884
Its a party rental business. basically just outdoor manual labor in the heat all summer which is why it pays pretty good
>>
File: 1503838046302.jpg (272 KB, 1198x836)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
>>1100092
>>>1100089 (You)
>How are Subarus showy, you faggot?
They are trendy with the homosexual crowd, part of the lesbian starter pack. Don't get me wrong, they are legendary on snowy roads. However, any front wheel drive car with chains and a good driver with do just as well on snowy roads.
If you really want to get outdoors on forest service roads and the like the ground clearance of a truck is needed. If you want to fit in with everyone at the Denver REI a Suburu is perfect.
>>
>>1097449
no actually a lesbian that drove a subaru stole my girl
>>
>>1100089
V6 midsize trucks get the same mpg as full size with half the capability. The only reason to get one is you can't afford a full size.

Also how you gonna call a Subaru flashy when rangers have stupid packages like EDGE and SPLASH?
>>
>>1100283
>FWD=AWD
>>
>>1100315
I doubt they get 25 mpg like my 2.9L does
>>
File: 1504868739327.jpg (59 KB, 528x623)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
TIL Suburu fans are as rabid as Apple fans.
>>
>>1100315
It's not only mileage though, they're physically smaller which makes them easier to use in a city and the parts are generally cheaper.

Although mileage wise if you ask me, there's little reason to get a V-6 midsize/compact or full size truck unless you tow a fuckhuge trailer long distances frequently, I've pulled a 4000lb sailboat in my I4 Tacoma around 100mi to my house with minimal issues you just take back roads and stay under 55, if it was any heavier I'd want to rent a larger truck but for pulling it to and from the local boat ramp it's just fine, other than that there's essentially no "Truck things" that the Taco can't do that a fullsize can, and the Taco gets 32mpg highway empty which is how trucks are used by most people nowadays.
>>
>>1094543
If you go subaru you will get more ground clearance from a forested. XT is a must.
>>
>>1097926
>doesn't know shit about cars, the post
>>
>>1100415
XT?
>>
How about a Ford Escape?
>>
>>1100340
A lot of the new ones do, yes.

Hell my 2500 with a 6L gets 23 highway with an automatic transmission. And the newish ecodiesel Dodges get 29.
>>
>>1100372
>and the Taco gets 32mpg highway
BULL FUCKING SHIT. BUUUUUULLLLLLSHIIIIIITTT.
I have a Taco. 5 speed manual 2010. I get 21mpg highway.
>>
File: image.jpg (4.38 MB, 4032x3024)
4.38 MB
4.38 MB JPG
End thread
>>
>>1100340
2.9
Nobody wants a 25 year old mini truck
>>
>>1100424
Turbo
>>
>>1100467
4 cyl?

My 4cyl s10 would get 28 hwy with 200000k on it.
>>
>>1100477
>trucks need to have massive displacements because reasons
>just make them from substandard components to keep the price down
>why do modern cars blow up so often and have horrible efficiency
Erectile dysfunctioning boomers and thier retarded offspring need to be gassed.
>>
>>1100480
I had a 2001 4cyl 2wd Taco and I drove it from Colorado to Ohio it was easily getting 30, I drove from Fort Hayes KS to Kansas city on one tank
>>
Guys...just... guys listen...
What if we....hear me out guys.... what if....
What if we make a truck with a big engine and an extreme overdrive final gear so you can cruise at 75mph at 1800 rpm
Wow just imagine the hella gas milage on that bad dog.
>>
File: C6Kz4s6U4AA-0KG.jpg (38 KB, 665x574)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>1100484
>2wd
>>
>>1094543
Forester over outback any day.

Forester is subaru's cheapest offering and the differences between all of them are negligible and won't help you at all when you're /out.

They do, indeed, do magic in the snow as I've (in a 2010 forester) pulled trucks out of snow in the side of the road and once drove miles down a snowmobile trail in wisconsin thinking it was a road (til I looked in the rearview and saw a line of sleds behind me).

They really are outstanding. That being said, I also have a 90s hardbody with 300k on it that also goes anywhere I want and while it gets shittier mileage than the forester, it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

Just stay away from toyota unless you've got money to throw away. Their resale is insane. I see early 2000s trucks with 200-250k on them at insanely high prices on craigslist.
>>
>>1100467
It's a 1996 2wd extended cab 4cyl, the Gen-1s got significantly better mileage than the Gen-2s since they're significantly lighter and overall smaller resulting in less drag, besides even a 2010 should be getting 20C/25H with the 4cyl
>>
>>1100486
Somebody did that. Dodge did that.
>small turbodiesel that still makes enough torque to pull big-boy trailers at US interstate speeds
>8 speed automatic transmission so it gets great mileage
29mpg EPA estimated highway, 22mpg EPA estimated city. 7800lb max tow.

Supposedly the 2018 models realize 33mpg interstate.
>>
>>1100503
>2wd
>4banger
I still don't believe you. EPA estimates had them at 26H/19C and those were ALWAYS pretty fucking hopeful compared to reality.

>>1100480
No, 4wd V6, so it's actually usable as a fucking truck. If I wanted an econobox that couldn't tow an empty uhaul I'd drive a Yaris.
>>
>>1100493
>Just stay away from Toyota unless you've got money to throw away. Their resale is insane

What your not getting with that is that the overall yearly loss due to depreciation/mileage is much lower than with Toyota than with other brands, you may pay more with Toyota initially but when you go to sell your car/truck it's also worth a hell of a lot more that others, plus you'll have likely spent way less money on maintenance meaning that in the long term if you can fork up the cash up front Toyota is generally the cheaper option, although all of that goes out the window if you get into an accident.

>>1100538
>I still don't believe you
Hang tight, I'll screenshot my obd2 reader, I've got some highway driving to do tomorrow anyways.
>>
>>1100548
>plus you'll have likely spent way less money on maintenance
My 2010 Taco has ~160k miles. It's on its second transmission and I just had to pay $500 to replace the head gaskets and 1 piston 2 weeks ago because it shrek'd itself at 2200rpm in town. I've changed the oil religiously every 3000 miles. I'm the only owner, bought it new.

Also, the rockguard decals started peeling themselves off within 8 months taking body paint with them, I've been chasing electrical problems since 2012, it's got a faulty tire pressure sensor that's caused me to fail state safety inspections twice, I've blown the MAF sensor 4x, the exhaust rusted out in 2015 despite not living in the rust belt, and it's lost the strip of rubber in the joint between the roof and driver side door panels at some point.

It's literally been the most maintenance-intensive vehicle I've ever owned, and that's coming from someone who owns a 10 year old Chrysler 300C AWD and previously had a 1997 Dakota.
>>
>>1100556
I really only have experience with the Gen-1s here, but I've got to ask, are you thrashing it off road or something? The transmissions generally are fine to around 300K unless they have a really hard life, and the electrical issues and exaust rusting would be indicative of the truck being driven through water at some point.


I've got two other friends with trucks, one had an 02 Dakota and the other has an 03 Ram, the Dakota had a piston burn through and disintegrate at 97k mi and even an engine swap/rebuild would have been worth more than the truck at that point so it was scrapped, and the Ram is on it's second transmission and third front end by 130k mi, meanwhile my Taco (1996) is at 155k mi with no issues other than replacing the alternator after attempting to clean the engine and a preemptive water pump and serpentine belt replacement plus basic fluid changes.


only having to preemptively changing the serpentine belts and the water pump and replace the alternator
>>
>>1100591
No. I've done very little and very mild offroading with it (point A to point B for hunting, not hobbyist wheeling). I've never driven through serious standing water.
>>
>>1100591
>>1100610
I should also say that I loved my Dakota and had no issues with it up until I got T-boned by a semi doing 70, which ripped it in half just behind the driver's door. I walked away with a bruise on the back of my left hand, seatbelt rash on my right collarbone, and the airbag broke my sunglasses. It had 304k miles on the odometer and the only things I ever had to replace or repair on it were 1 headlight (taken out when I hit a crow on the interstate), the serpentine belt twice, and an alternator. But it was a 2wd base model and I drove it like it was a 2wd base model, so it didn't get abused.

The transmission on my Tacoma naturally failed at 100.5k miles, right after the warranty expired. Being a manual it was a fairly cheap fix (one gear and the fly wheel) but still, it shouldn't have failed. Even the mechanic was baffled, the gear literally cracked in half, no signs of me having fucked it up on a missed shift or anything. The rockguards peeling off was fixed under warranty TWICE (they ended up repainting my whole truck for free both times), and it started happening a third time right after it came out of the bumper to bumper warranty. Just think it's bad design, if it had only happened the once I'd have chalked it up to oil on the paint or fucky stickers or something. MAF sensors...eh. Most vehicles will blow one every 80-100k miles, they're $80 and easy to replace yourself. Not really sure mine was throwing one every ~40k miles (I blew 2 within a week of each other). Probably something to do with the electrical system. Speaking of the electrical system, NONE of the wiring harnesses are correct according to any manual I or any of the mechanics I have used (including the dealership) can find, it's the physical version of spaghetti code. Half the damn truck's been rewired (under warranty) and I'm still chasing issues, like my fucking left blinker randomly coming on on its own or the radio not turning on at all when it's hot out.
>>
>>1100465
And your truck wasn't $900
>>
>>1100610
>>1100620
Man that's weird, you must've got a lemon or something, the production lines for the Taco did shift from Freemont CA to San Antonio TX in 2010 so it would have been one of the last ones out of the Freemont plant so that could have had something to do with it but still it's just odd, as for the MAF sensor are you cleaning it regularly? I generally clean my throttle body and MAF every 20,000 mi or so which is probably excessive but I'm still on the original one.
>>
>>1100634
>cleaning the MAF
Is this something that is only needed on Toyotas? Because I've had 4 other vehicles that had them and I've never had one fail on any of the others and I've never ever cleaned one.

It's also not listed as a periodic maintenance point in the owner's manual for it.
>>
>tfw brand loyalist
>tfw your favorite brand doesn't have anything /out/
>>
>>1100678
Then your brand is shit and you should feel bad for being loyal to it.
>>
>>1100536

Sounds just like a Mercedes Sprinter or a, Ford Transit, or an IVECO Daily, or a Fiat Ducato, or a Peugeot Boxer, or a VW Crafter, or a....
>>
>>1100700
Except Dodge did it in a full-size pickup and not a shitbox """"van"""" that couldn't tow a little red wagon full of girl scout cookies.
>>
File: IMG_8452.jpg (66 KB, 640x480)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>1100706
Oh sweetie are you confusing European vans with American ones again
>>
>>1100700
>>1100710
>Mercedes Sprinter
Car and Driver observed 14.7mpg in combined city/highway driving across 500 miles with no load. Rated to tow up to 5000lbs. No provision for trailer brake.
>Ford Transit
Car and Driver observed 15.8mpg in combined city/highway driving across 550 miles with no load. Rated to tow up to 7200lbs.
>IVECO Daily
Auto Express observed 32mpg in city driving with the smallest of the vans (2.3L, 3.3T single-axle that only makes 116hp and under 100lb-ft of torque). This model literally can't even mount a hitch so it literally can't tow anything, however has "up to" 1200kg/2425lb total cargo capacity, which really isn't bad. They make MUCH larger models, some of which are extremely capable towers, but fuel economy goes down the shitter fast once you start talking the bigger engines and twin rear axles and duallies. Largest model that still has a turbodiesel gets 17kpg/10.5mpg, and the largest model (supercharged diesel) gets 15kpg/9.3mpg.
>Fiat Ducato/Peugeot Boxer
Smallest version can only tow 4500lbs but gets 31mpg. Largest version can tow 7000lbs but gets 24mpg.
>>
File: VC crafter.jpg (162 KB, 1280x720)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>1100710
>b-but my eurovan isn't a van! It's a super capable mini-semi!
Bullshit
>>
>>1100712
>Auto Express observed 32mpg in city driving with the smallest of the vans (2.3L, 3.3T single-axle that only makes 116hp and under 100lb-ft of torque).
They offer an NA Diesel in the US? How the fuck does that pass emissions, in Aus that engine is 125/235. Or is it a petrol that we don't see here?
>>
>>1100716
It's a 2.3L turbodiesel. And Auto Express is a UK company. IVECO isn't sold at all anywhere in North America because it doesn't pass emissions.
>>
>>1100718
Those figures are wrong then my man and yeah the US emissions are strict on NOx which makes shit hard for diesels but lax on CO/CO2.
>>
File: iveco.png (403 KB, 1223x789)
403 KB
403 KB PNG
>>1100719
Off their very own website m8
>>
>>1100721
So riddle me this, how do you make a 116hp diesel produce only 100lb/ft? Compare this figure to any other 115ish hp diesel ever made.
>>
>>1100722
I dunno man. Diesels usually produce more torque than hp.

Bad engine design? Dumb gearing? Really inefficient automatic transmission?
>>
>>1100723
Yeah I can guarantee you it doesn't make 100lb/ft, it will be at least twice that because an engine can't make 116hp at 3200rpm from 100lb/ft.
>>
>>1100724
Take it up with IVECO then. It's literally on their website.

And where the fuck did you pull 3200rpm from? Best power band for small turbodiesels is usually 5000-6000rpm.
>>
>>1100725
>Take it up with IVECO then. It's literally on their website.
Then they dun goofed.
>And where the fuck did you pull 3200rpm from?
Being a diesel mech, 90% of light duty common rail diesels make peak power from 3100-3400.
>Best power band for small turbodiesels is usually 5000-6000rpm.
No diesel ever made peak power between 5 and 6, you can't burn diesel quickly enough to achieve this.
>>
>>1100725
>>1100724
Okay wikipedia is listing the 2.3L turbodiesel as 270NM, which is 199 lb-ft of torque.

Hell of a lot better than sub-100, but still shit in the scheme of towing anything.
>>
>>1100728
Yeah it's not a patch on heavy standard license tow vehicles, I wouldn't argue that it is.
>>
>>1100725
>Best power band for small turbodiesels is usually 5000-6000
Completely wrong. Have you ever driven a diesel?
Peak torque is 1800-2500rpm
>>
>>1100664
AFAIK it's not specific to Toyotas, but I'd do it regularly if you see any buildup on the wires, they make a spray cleaner that you can get at pretty much any auto parts store that works well, and I find it significantly improves the idle and starting in my Taco.
>>
>>1100729
>Yeah it's not a patch on heavy standard license tow vehicles
Uh. Hm. Could you translate that into non-Aussie English? Sorry, I really don't know what that's supposed to mean.
>>
>>1101105
I was trying to say vehicles which are heavy, given that vehicle weight is a large factor in determining tow weight but can still be driven on a normal car license, where I am that's 4.5t GVM.
>>
>>1098500
My 2000 TJ Sport was built in Toledo.
>>
>>1098711
I've replaced the fuel pump and put some tape on one injector wire on my 2000 TJ Sport in 17 years.
>>
>>1101259
>civilian license
>weight restrictions
Here in America the only difference in licenses are
>civilian (cat D)
You can drive anything anywhere as long as you're not doing it for hire or primarily within the conduct of business. No restrictions on what, where, or how much as long as you abide placarding rules.
>commercial (cat B)
Exactly the same as civilian except you're doing it for hire or primarily within the conduct of business, except you can't haul hazmat
>commercial with hazmat endorsement (cat A)
Exactly the same as civilian except you do it for money.

Motorcycle endorsements, where those exist, are technically cat E. But not every state has a separate motorcycle license or endorsement. I still haven't figured out if there's a Cat C or not.
>>
File: Oka1.jpg (66 KB, 800x600)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>1101451
Interesting, in Aus you can use the license for whatever purpose you want but we have categories based on the vehicles weight/seating capacity. So we have as the general cutoffs,
>4.5t and 12 passengers
>8t and over 12
>8t+ with a single rear axle
>8t+ with dual rear axle
Both of those 8t+ classes are rigid bodies, so things like tautliner trucks
>9t+ with a single trailer
>9t+ with combination trailer assemblies
And these are semi's/roadtrains
And ofc motorbikes and the like.
>>
>>1101610
I like your setup better. I've seen too many clueless schmucks driving things like 10 ton class A motorhomes.
>>
File: FB_IMG_1505484613028.jpg (41 KB, 720x540)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>1094543
>>
>>1100482
Gas engines are the smallest they've been since the sixties and make more power than ever. I don't even know what you're point is. Keep price down? A fully loaded truck can be 75k
>>
>>1100493
Crosstech and Impreza are cheaper than forester
>>
>>1100538
>Driving a midsize truck
>tow capacity of a midsize car and fuel economy of a full-size truck.
>>
>>1102001
You're not wrong.

I need the truck bed and ground clearance, don't really need the towing. I wish it got better mileage but I'm willing to put up with it.

Would be nice if someone did a modern version of an El Camino I could throw a 3" lift on though.
>>
>>1100477
Actually, a lot of people do which is why they keep buying tacomas, rangers, hiluxes, and s-10s and why the prices are holding pretty steady
>>
File: cd5054900462128298344.jpg (131 KB, 933x700)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>1102006
>Would be nice if someone did a modern version of an El Camino I could throw a 3" lift on though.
Thankfully that's something we've had available in Aus forever although out local car industry is coming to an end in the next few years so they will die. You can get them in standard weight which is about 1000lb or in 1t capacity.
>pic related is a 1t
>>
>>1102107
>2 door
eeehhhh....
>>
>>1100482
>trucks need to have massive displacements because...
They're intended to be able to tow up to 4.5 tons at US interstate speeds (70+mph) safely and efficiently. That requires both torque and horsepower, something small gas engines can't produce.
>substandard components
Compared to what? This is a bullshit statement and you know it.
>why do modern cars blow up so often and have horrible efficiency
In the 1960's you simply were not going to get 100,000 miles out of ANY vehicle, regardless of make, model, country of origin, or anything else. Period, end statement, full stop. Fuel efficiency is the best it's ever been at any engine size, we have big V8's getting better mileage now than the 1970's 2L 4bangers got and that's WITH less-ideal fuels (unleaded, high-ethanol-content gas and low sulfur highway diesel).

I'm going to assume you're both young, and not really a car guy. I'm certainly not old (mid 30's) but I collect antique cars. I've got two from the early 60's, one a big V8 (1964 Chrysler 300K) and the other a small flat-4 (1962 Karmann Ghia). They get very similar fuel economy even with period-correct, leaded, non-ethanol gas. The 300K gets 16mpg with its enormous 360hp 6.8L 413 wedge head, and the Ghia gets 17mpg with its measly 34hp 1192cc (1.2L) "volkswagen" flat-4.

Technological advances simultaneously increased horsepower and fuel efficiency. One of my other cars, a 1968 Chrysler New Yorker, gets 23mpg with its 7.2L 440 wedge head despite weighing nearly 700lbs more than the 300K and using the same automatic transmission. Jump a few more years to my '75 Dodge Dart and its 3.7L slant six and I'm getting 29mpg with the 4 speed manual.
>>
>>1102199
It's been a decline since the early 90s, nothing but plastic trim and fiddly electronics that are designed to shit out.
>>
File: DSC00123_-L.jpg (160 KB, 800x600)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
>>1102199
Transmission and gearing/differentials has a lot to do with fuel economy too.
The 5.7L Hemi in my pickup is used in a lot of Dodge's pickups and SUVs.
Transmission shift map and 4.56 differentials is a major factor in why my pickup gets 14mpg highway/unloaded, and an SUV with the same motor gets 25.

Different setups for different purposes.

And when you consider mpg/lb moved, those big motors are more efficient than most cars.
Semi tractors and locomotives even more so.

>Pic extremely related.
>>
>>1102166
Not sure what you mean, El caminos were 2 door.
>>
>>1102239
Yeah, as was whatever that El Camino pseudo-clone abomination Ford made.

When you said modern I was really hoping for "took a Subaru Outback wagon and lopped the top off behind the rear doors". That'd be cool.
>>
>>1102216
Again with your non-answer feel good bullshit.
>it's been a decline since the early 90's
WHAT has been a decline? Certainly isn't horsepower or torque, certainly isn't fuel economy. In the early 90's if you wanted an efficient vehicle you could buy...a Civic, with its 80ish horsepower, and it still only got like 32mpg. Now you can get any number of small hatchbacks with 200+ hp that make 40+mpg and they're bigger than the early-90's Civics.
>uhh m-muh plastic trim!
Reduces weight, doesn't rust, and is easily and cheaply replaced if you hit something and break it. Try that with a 300lb chromed steel bumper (yes those will still bend enough to cause body panel damage when you back into a tree at 2mph...ask me how I know)
>>
File: baja.jpg (52 KB, 620x414)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>1102386
It's called the Baja and it's real. Pretty rare though.
>>
>>1102220
This is very true, and one of the reasons we're getting away from 4-speed autos/5-speed manuals. More and more people are spending significant amounts of their lives commuting on interstates at 70+mph, and interstates and state highways keep going up in speed limit so we pretty much need an "over-overdrive" gear for good efficiency at those speeds.
>tfw my '64 300K has a 3-speed auto in it, and taking your foot off the gas at anything over 35mph almost feels like stepping on the brake because it IMMEDIATELY bogs the fuck down
>>
>>1102388
>2 foot bed
Goddamn that's even more worthless than a Chevy Avalanche
>>
File: baja2.jpg (44 KB, 640x360)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>1102390
Yeah. It even has a little trap door in the back so you can feed longer cargo into the cab so it'll fit.
>>
>>1102387
Longevity, dipshit, try to drive any of the modern cars for longer than 4 years without rebuilding anything
>>
>>1102399
...I and almost everyone else that has owned a car since the early 90's does that. It's RARE AS FUCK for a relatively new vehicle to have a catastrophic parts failure not related to getting hit by another car.

That wasn't true 20 years ago. And if you think old cars last better than new cars you're a young little shit looking at a past you didn't personally experience through rose-colored glasses.
>>
>>1102386
Well we do have that also, called an Crewman or Cross 8 depending on the spec, fair bit bigger than an Outback though.
>>
>>1102918
Picture in profile to show the tray, they're around 210"/17.5' long, do you guys measure car length in " or ' ?
>>
>>1102922
Now that's more like it!

And we use both as well as metric, car makers here can't agree on what to use.
>>
>>1100725
>5000-6000rpm
Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Most turbodiesels redline at or below 5000 and definitely don't produce maximum torque there.
>>
>>1103693
>most turbodiesels
Volkswagen Golf tdi. Redline is 8800rpm.
>>
File: IMG_14437.jpg (58 KB, 574x441)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>
>>1103721
Whether or not the redline on it's gauge is 8800 is irrelevant, the engine will make peak power below 4k and peak torque below 3k.
>>
>>1103724
>most turbodiesels redline at or below 5000
>this one doesn't
>THAT DOESN'T MATTER BAWWW HAWW BAWWW
Most turbodiesels sold on the US market (okay, that's like 5 total) redline over 7000 and several go over 8000. They advertise peak hp as being in the high 6000 range.
>>
>>1103721
Bullshit. Post proof. No, your gauge cluster doesn't count.
Also, redline aside, there is no VW diesel engine in existence that produces peak power or torque above 4500 rpm.
>>
>>1103730
That's pretty cool if true, but the Golf isn't one of them. Which other cars are you talking about?
>>
>>1103730
Sorry mate but you're wrong, the TSI does the TDI most definitely doesn't, you cannot burn diesel fast enough to make power at 6k.
>>
File: IMG_8205.jpg (71 KB, 1000x550)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
The only option
>>
File: fark4.jpg (6 KB, 181x172)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>1103738
A 200 series with too low profile tyres?
>tfw
>>
File: Capture.png (53 KB, 1269x949)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>1103732
>Also, redline aside, there is no VW diesel engine in existence that produces peak power or torque above 4500 rpm.
Proof that you're wrong and retarded. Volkswagen Golf tdi. Peak power at 4700.
>>
>>1103742
Fuck nm that's the TSI. Sorry.
>>
>>1103744
Oh, full marks! Now please, enlighten us as to which other diesels get max power in the "high 6000 range", will you?
>>
File: lada niva.jpg (118 KB, 900x596)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
>nobody posted this yet
damn is this place really full of americucks?
>>
>>1103800
See >>1103723
>>
File: Snapchat-147792353.jpg (280 KB, 720x1280)
280 KB
280 KB JPG
Is there anything worse than city dweller Subaru fags who think their car is the epitome of off-road capability.
>my car can go most places my friends truck can't.
>Driving in winter I see trucks in the ditch all the time, but I do just fine. When will pickup cucks learn
>What do you mean going on national park roads doesn't count as offroading?

Here's my little ranger up near Humbug mountain in Oregon. This picture doesn't capture how breathtaking the view was
>>
>>1104153
Anybody who brags about how good their vehicle is at off-roading is pretty terrible imo. That being said, Rangers are awesome. Half the ones where I live are only RWD for some reason though.
>>my car can go most places my friends truck can't.
>>Driving in winter I see trucks in the ditch all the time, but I do just fine.
These are both true though.

t. drove an old Outback most of last winter
>>
File: 1505083177753.jpg (34 KB, 567x565)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>1104153
You sound assblasted af, faggot. What's wrong, a Subaru driver fuck your girl or something?

>t. city-dwelling who wants to buy an Outback
>>
File: DSC00257-L.jpg (94 KB, 800x534)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>1104160
>Anybody who brags about how good their vehicle is at off-roading is pretty terrible imo
fite me fgt
>>
File: oh gosh scoob.jpg (35 KB, 418x352)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>1104173
B-But I don't wanna fight you
>>
File: Toyota_FJ_Cruiser_2007.jpg (733 KB, 1920x1278)
733 KB
733 KB JPG
Anyone have experience with these?
>>
>>1104194
Bend over then boy
>>
File: thatfeel.png (4 KB, 205x246)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
>>1104281
Can't we just be friends?
>>
I have a 2009 Honda Civic. It's a shitty 4 door but the backseat isn't very spacious. I've been wanting to get a better setup inside my car for overnight sleeping as I usually play poker night before then wake up and hike.

Right now I just use a sleeping bag and a blanket to cover my face. Anyone have any extra tips? I just park at a rest stop but I've been surprised the last time or two how cold it's gotten at night and how stuffy it gets
>>
File: oh lawd.jpg (200 KB, 791x1024)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
>>1104380
Why else does he want you to bend over?

>>1104153
Nice Ranger! Bend that pic over.
>>
>>1104892
Remove the back seats and see if you can punch a hole through the trunk to fit in an extended fold bed / platform. See >>1098895
>>
>>1104153
Yes.

City dweller Jeep fags who get a Liberty or Compass and go OMG ITS A JEEP ITS AUTOMATICALLY THE BESTEST OFFROADER EVAR!!! even though it's got an open diff FWD system and less ground clearance than a conversion van.
>>
>>1104153
I might be thinking of elsewhere, but I am 99% I got to that same place in my shitty old Focus.
>>
>>1105344
Yeah it wasn't any off roading spot. Just a forest service road in Rogue River Siskiyou national forest. I was able to drive my ranger down a creek bed near Pacific city which was cool.
I was also able to drive on the beach where other trucks were getting stuck because mines lighter. Really scary at times when your tires start spinning in the sand and you think you're gonna be stuck though.
>>
>>1104233
Good but shit visibility, get a 4runner
>>
Bump
>>
I've been thinking about picking up a Dodge Grand Caravan as a camper van. The stow and go seats all lie down flat and make for a big area to throw a bed/pack/cooler/etc.

Considering doing something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmaQXeM_yk

My question is, exactly how /out/ are these able to go? I'd probably be ok if it can at least get me to the mainstream campgrounds but I also want something that would work for urban camping too. These look like some of the most boring and unassuming vehicles on the market (good) while being a lot cheap than all the Eurovans people buy for this purpose. Anybody doing something similar?
>>
>>1107294
Being fwd and heavy I wouldn't take one into soft/rough stuff but it's got decent load and tow rating so it'd work fine for light trails and highway work.
>>
>>1096087
Fuck this would be an amazing meme pic
>>
>>1097223

Unless you already own the class 8 truck, its not worth it.
>>
>>1100277
post boat
>>
>>1107294
Well, they have shit ground clearance and are open-diff FWD so they're going to be all but worthless in loose dirt/rock/mud/snow/ice.

That being said they'll get you to most trailheads or almost all mainstream campgrounds. And you're correct on their roominess and unassuming appearances.
>>
File: ferarri-365-gtc-1.jpg (220 KB, 960x640)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>
>>1108353
Very much not an /out/ car.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

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.