Most off-road worthy crossover?

If I'm not mistaken manual transmission Subaru center diff can go up to 50:50. Vs CVT viscous center diff is up to 60:40 or something like that. Too lazy to search now, just checking the forum before sleeping. LoL..

 

Ok, I’m feeling a little surly this evening, but WTF does this have to do with 4Runner.

 

Oh that's interesting, one of my neighbors has a MGM Highlander of that generation. I actually think it's a pretty good looking vehicle. From a distance it looks like an early mini 200 series. Approach and departure angles don't look terrible for a crossover, and I bet it would probably look cool with a 1-2" lift and some Toyo AT3s or similar on it.

I was scrolling through Facebook earlier, and this company that makes parts for the Renegade popped up in my feed. I definitely wouldn't spend my money on this, but it does look kind of cool.

 

If crossover can included anything with IRS, then probably a Trailhawk JGC or a Range Rover.

 

Hello,
I made an account just to reply to this thread.

I'm considering letting my dirtbike do all the hard offroad and switching over to a crossover for better MPG and "softroading". Here's my incomplete list of what I came up with so far.

Highest Ground clearance 20+ mpg vehicles
UTVs ~20mpg ~14” ground clearance
XC60 (3.2) 21 9.1” 08-16
Cherokee (3.2) 22 8.8” Trailhawk 2014+
Outback (3.0) 23 8.7” 2004-09
Colorado (3.5) 20 8.5” GC
Outlander (3.0) 20 8.3” GC
CRV (2.4) 26 8.2” GC 2012+
Sorento (3.5) 21 8.2” GC 2003-2009
CRV (2.0) 24 8.1” GC 97-01
Patriot (2.0) 24 8.1” GC 07-17
Santa Fe (3.5) 21 8.1” GC
Highlander (3.5) 20 8.0"
Sportage (2.4) 21 7.7” 2004-10
Rav4 (3.5) 22 7.5” GC 05-11’
CX-5 (2.5) 27 7.5” GC 2014+
RX350 (3.5) 20 7.5” GC
Rogue (2.5) 26 7.4” GC 2012-20


UTVs in my state are not highway legal therefore must be trailered
XC60 3.2 liter is naturally aspirated, the turbo version wears out faster/less reliable.
Outback/Forester EJ motors are notoriously bad (eat head gaskets and rod bearings) generation 3 Subarus (2004-09) have improved approach/departure angles than gen2; gen4 Subies/Crosstrek/Foresters are paired to crappy CVT trannies. Outback 3.0 2004-2009 is okayish
Highlander, Rav4 and RX350 have one of Toyota's most reliable motors, the 2GR-FE 3.5 liter.
Rogue is paired an unreliable CVT

Stipulations: Just because it has high ground clearance doesn't mean it's good. For instance my old Outback would direct most all power to any wheel that was floating thus you would have one wheel spinning and the other three doing almost nothing. Some AWDs have the ability to wheel lock. This list is targeted at 10ish plus year old vehicles and misses the new stuff I can't afford.

 

I think it's pretty much a question of features and looks. Here on the "dry" side of Washington, we get 3-4 months of snow and maybe 2-3 more months of icy conditions. Wife's 20113 AWD RAV4 woks fine=have the 4Runner for deep snow. People here definitely favor the various Subs and RAVs for all-round driving=Jeeps a third and mostly young kids as mall cruisers..

Years ago, we had a 2WD Rav that we took everywhere in Central Cali (we also had a pre-Taco 4WD). Took that Taco EVERYWHERE while in grad school: rock-crawling stream beds while hunting mulies in Utah & climbing washed out roads doing my thesis on bears. It is always more the driver than the rig! My uncle rode with Bill Strope while pre-running the Baja one year for Dick Cepek and Mickey Thompson. They used a 2WD pre-Taco with a winch! For "light" off-roading, either the RAV AWD or the better Subs should be sufficient

 

The new Honda Pilot if you can go a little larger, they have tested quite well.

 

Ground clearance might be a problem. All trims get 7.3in clearance except for trail sport get 1in extra. Onroad focus Highlander already got 8in clearance or even my Venza got 8.1 even though it's onroad vehicle.

A/T tires and skid plates might definitely tempt Honda lovers to buy it. Direct injection only and Cylinder deactivation is a red flag for me personally.

 

Coming in here to blab about my '16 Sorento that I just traded-in.

I think folks would be surprised where I was able to take it, but not at all surprised where I couldn't.

Traction control was able to completely stop slipping wheels and get me over things but you'd need to get into the throttle and wait/hope a little. A 30mm PU spacer lift did not affect ride and brought approach angle to ~20-ish degrees and total minimum clearance to just under 9". With Wildpeak AT Trails it tackled sand, dirt, some mud, some rock, snow, etc. The aluminum skid plate I had put in work too.

The biggest constraints I'd say were approach angle and departure angle since my hitch is mounted under the rear bumper. A crawl ratio of 16:1 isn't amazing but it worked. But transmission cooling may be of concern as well for sand use.

The Dynamax (H-Trac) AWD system is hydraulic and works well. A lock button lets you approximate 4H. But it doesn't seem to be as long-lasting nor is it user-serviceable. You can't change the fluid, it's always being used proportional to throttle so its sure-footed in all-weather conditions but more wear.

I did consider a crossover to replace it but options vary widely. It's neat seeing what folks have been doing to Honda's midsize family but they're too wide for my personal taste.

Other than the usual frame, low-range, dimensions, etc. features - smaller factors that ended up sealing the deal for the 4Runner, and you'll notice the Passport was runner-up along a last-gen Highlander were:

• Softer suspension, don't need to think about/plan for downsizing wheels. I can go over the same bumps with less cringing.
  
• Space for full-size spare (the Sorento only fits one without a tow hitch, the Passport doesn't have space under the floor so JonDZ has a hitch mount - only the Ridgeline has a place to mount one in the bed)
• Thinking it's better to have more capability rather than run near the limit all the time - not sure how happy my axles are at being outright stopped to send power the other way. A tow would definitely eat into any fuel savings in a year.
  
• Hill Descent Control
  
• Conventional gear shift lever and big controls (Honda understandably removed the VTM4-Lock button to idiot-proof it but the electronic transmission control on the 9 speed + the shift-lock release requiring a special tool are things I'm not into.)
• Ease of maintenance (I have to drop the donut spare to get to the Sorento's rear diff fill plug, I can slide around too without a jack)
• The skid plate I got was a big pain compared to the 4Runner's. I would have to buy one.
  
• Not being the first person to take a specific model somewhere and trying to research and compare to say, how someone did in an Outback, is a lot less worrisome.
  
• No stop/start or only-direct-injection.
• Recovery points.
• Badlands/Tremor Bronco Sport/Maverick look neat but aren't far behind in cost.

Of course smaller compromises that popped up are...

• No rear under-floor storage
• No fold-into-the-floor third row. The Sorento's packaging sure was great. I considered an R51 Pathfinder or Borrego since you got the frame, low range and a fold-flat third row (independent-rear suspension) but options were few.
• I chose the two-row/no tray model so with the seats folded I don't have access to the 2nd row footwell for storage. (not a big deal and I know they can be removed)
  
• It's a bit bigger in all dimensions.
• No more AWD to help out in wet conditions - I just can't hit those u/left-turns like before. (Couldn't find a 4th gen I liked near me plus I don't fit if there's a sunroof so no Limited)
• Greasing the driveshaft and joints is new!
• Bigger turning circle
• A little less "length" for cargo.
• No lane-keep assist but I didn't have it anyway.
• If I went for a model with multi-terrain select/crawl control, no more sunglasses holder.
• Less range.

 

First hand accounts may be anecdotal but enough can form a data base!

 

What are your thoughts on Kia reliability vs Toyota?
What are your thoughts on direct injection motors long term? My understanding is that direct injection motors want to carbon up on you.

A Pilot is certainly a lot cheaper than a 4Runner! Interestingly gen2 Pilot (2008) gets roughly the same fuel economy as 2008 4Runner according to Fuelly.com. I was hoping to average at least 20mpg if I went AWD instead of 4x4. The new Pilot (looking at 2017) shows a ground clearance of 7.3 inches but sometimes that is measured by one thing that hangs a little low like the tailpipe. I think I trust Honda reliability more than Kia or Hyundai

 

DO NOT GET HYUNDAI/KIA!

I have a 2016 Tucson... it burns a hell of a lot of oil. Stick with Subaru or Toyota for "off-roady" crossovers.

 

Buckle up.

Hyundai and Kia are separate entities but share a lot of engineering so I’ll speak to both of them in that regard.

They’ve definitely made vehicles of varying owner experiences but I consider that their inconsistency, finickiness and cost-cutting decisions make them a poor bet.

They struggle to make a consistently reliable DI 4-cyl, the V6’s are better but not flawless, the decision to skimp on immobilizers combined with a trivial-to-break-off ignition lock is a huge penny-wise-pound-foolish choice that they tried to get away with for years and now that every bored kid without supervision knows the customers are paying the price whether in insurance hikes/drops, poor resale, theft/window repair costs, rentals, anti-theft measures, etc. Even Nissan included immobilizers on their bottom-end vehicles for quite some time.

Add on problems where things seem underbuilt like overheating charging ports (Sorry your Hyundai EV won't get advertised charging speeds anymore in certain conditions), undersized ABS wiring (fire!), low pay for warranty work so if you get a new engine from one of however many lawsuits they settled, better hope the high pressure fuel pump was secured properly (fire! it's happened), poor EV gear reduction box design in some earlier/lower-end EV models means it fouls it's oil with metal at incredible speed compared to say, a Bolt which doesn't.

Of course, I get that not every automaker is perfect. Toyota's bz4x wheels falling off, Honda's recent V6 crankshaft recall (but I will note that those engines are not dropping like flies nor do I believe it's in response to a huge lawsuit), GM and their ignition switch and the new Colorado has touchscreen headlight controls, Ford's Fiesta and Focus Powershift transmission are famously bad and now we're seeing concerns of their use of a wet belt to run the oil pump in the 3-cyl EcoBoosts. I just feel that being knee-deep in Kia-land the potential problems seem pervasive that one can't easily avoid like suggesting someone just buy a manual transmission Focus or get an Escape instead. Maybe the Telluride is fine.

I'll recognize that my Sorento ran to 130k miles without much issue (albeit the windshield washer fluid leak and new AWD coupler dampen the experience) and it was in my opinion a comfortable cruiser with good packaging, interior design and controls. (Nothing hanging down to get caught on something either unlike the Highlander's exhaust) They have a bulletproof 6-speed automatic but that's offset by their wet-clutch DCT use which has had early issues but the jury is out on their long-term. (The dry ones I'd avoid unless in a hybrid. Not sure about their CVTs.) It also was in better condition than a '15 Outback I looked at. At the time Subaru's seemed to be prone to parasitic power draw and the one I looked at had a busted fuel gauge, headgasket and cam carrier leaks at 10k less mileage but that's also just one vehicle.

But I'll also point out that not many car-forums seem to have people posting that it was "their turn" for engine failure and CarComplaints + CR also have more negative results. Personally, I'm outright tired of watching my oil level like a hawk, changing it every 3,750 miles as the manual dictates (my parent's local Hyundai dealer had them coming in every 3,000 miles for their 2012 Sonata with the same engine - they got free oil changes as part of the deal), worrying if my engine will seize in the middle of nowhere (I had a 2.4L) and if it does seize will I have to wait months for parts assuming the free engine is approved and the dealer can get to it in a reasonable time (but I'll still have to pay for belts, rental and stuff), worrying if it's going to be broken in and vandalized by someone looking for a joyride obtainable with a screwdriver and 60 seconds of time. (and then the same parts, rental, etc. wait) Oh and I could not find barely any 4-cyl 2015/2016 Sorento on Fuelly that had more than 140k-ish miles while a number of similar age Highlanders were past that.

The best warranty is one you never need to use and I am not convinced Hyundai/Kia have improved beyond "whack-a-mole-ing" the most egregious problems since they're still selling their cars like mad. Stylish and nice bang-for-buck if you're not owning it long-term though.

As for direct-injection, YMMV. I've seen folks add catch cans, I know some older European DI engines required periodic cleaning. Personally I never touched my 2.4L's intake valves - also since I didn't really expect the engine to last long enough for it to be a concern but it didn't have any symptoms. I'd say it hasn't been a big issue in HyunKia land - I believe I read somewhere they use VVT to dump fuel in to try to get the intake valves. Spinning bearings or burning oil have been much more prominent. On a related note I'm curious to see how Nissan's DI 3.8L V6 holds up compared to the outgoing MPI 4.0L in the Frontier, but for the MPG they seem to be getting I'm not sure if it's a net win. But since Toyota and others have been adding both direct and port injection I'd say DI-only is less optimal but not necessarily a deal-breaker for medium-term ownership.

TL;DR - HyunKia still not good for a used or long-term buyer, DI is IMO a negative but one that may not matter.

Anyways, to quote my BIL's friend about my purchase: "You paid more and got a better quality product, funny how that worked!"

 

Here's an autopsy of the Theta II engine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IntkTBjEx5k

 

the grand Cherokee and higher trim models have a lifting suspension and trail modes and stuff

I could not wait for the new 4runner and bought a grand,Cherokee limited for 6 grand less than the similar 4 runner in alberta Canada last month
if it holds together I am impressed
really wanted a 4 runner but 2.5 years and no specs yet, had to buy now could not wait any more, and it had the features I liked a little more modern

And didn’t want a second Highlander

 

You don't buy a 4runner because you're worried about gas mileage.

 

The Jeep Cherokee we had was the worst of a dozen or more 4WD we've had or

Our Jeep Cherokee was absolutely the WORST 4WD we've owned or I've driven in 40+ years. We bought the Jeep 'cuz the wife wanted it and it cost more in repairs than the payments totaled!

In order, decreasing value for money:
1. (Top) 4Runner (Best overall)
2. Pre-Taco 4WD truck (Best P/U)
3. FJ40 Land Cruiser (Best off road)
4. Nissan X-Terra (Tie)
5. Nissan Frontier (Tie)
6. Nissan Pathfinder (Tie)

I rate the Jeep BELOW the Subaru BRAT and full-size Bronco.!!

 

Good timing on this thread. My son is trying to decide what to get next, has a recent second child, and an extra cab Tacoma. The Tacoma is a little tight getting both car seats in the back! Wants something that can double duty as a family truckster and a hunting and camping vehicle. We're both thinking the 4R makes the most sense. It's a second car, since they already have a recent Forester for family driving, but has to be able to fit two car seats.

I feel like the compromise comes down to: what are you willing to give up to have off-road chops. The 4Runner does everything off-road better than any car-based SUV, but, car-based SUV's are just plain better on road and get better mileage. I dunno, I drive the 4R daily, but then again, I've commuted in a CJ7, so what do I know.

 

Grand Cherokee TrailHawk

 

There is no Trailhawk anymore, at least, can't find one listed on the Jeep website. I think that never made it to the new GC platform.

 

Sad

 

Oh, it's only a 4xe now, and then it's $65k. Ummmm, $20k more than a 4Runner, for 25 miles of battery range? I dunno, once I'm over $60k in price, I'd look at the 2024 Land Cruiser, or GX550.

 

It is better than the 4Runner in every way, except off-roading. The thing can tow 7,000 lbs

 

Not many SUV owners tow tho, people that actually tow always get trucks.

 

I would be comfortable pulling 5,000 pounds with the Trailhawk than my 4Runner. Some people don't need trucks, and they don't need a lot of off-roading capability. For them the Trailhawk is perfect, and it's a very comfortable and well handling vehicle.

 

HA, ha, Ha,!!!!

 

Except when it's in the shop!!! Since Jeep has reduced their prices to get them off the showroom by $20K, you better buy 2. There is a REASON a used Jeep costs 1/3 of the price of a 4Runner.

 

Oh come on, my Grand Cherokee has never been in the shop. People just exaggerate Jeeps problems. Jeeps are perfectly all right

 

You get a lot for that $65k. $10k of that is Jeep tax, I will give you that.

 

They are not separate entities. Kia's parent company is Hyundai Motor Company.