|
chazc
Apr 21, 2006, 12:10 AM
Post #76 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2006
Posts: 16
|
my 2000 xrtrra with 100,000 miles does just fine for all my climbing
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 21, 2006, 5:38 AM
Post #77 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: I am no uber hiker by any means, but when i used to back pack a bunch in high school, we would average about 3.5 mph over the course of the day with all our food, camping gear etc... we hardly had flat terrain either. Most of it was in the sierras. Usually closer to 3mph when we averaged in breaks or stops. 2.5+ is not unreasonable, but nevertheless, I'd off road in if given the choice. I guess i'm just lazy. To continue a perhaps pointless discussion (hey, I'm at work)... I used to think I could hike in the 3~3.5 mph range also--based on trail mileage and what not. That was before I spent time on a treadmill. Maybe the treadmill speeds are incorrect (though I rather doubt it). When the treadmill is flat, I can go a little above 3.5 without breaking into a jog, but not much. 3.5 is still a "high speed" walk. At 3.5, you would be passing most of the other people walking through an airport (who are mostly also in a hurry). If you can really average 3.5 mph over the course of a day with all your food, camping gear etc., then I say you be an Uber hiker. I'm certainly not trying to talk you out of hiking vs driving (sounds like your like me anyway). But I don't think most hikers move as fast as they think.
thread drift
treadmill vs. trail
i'm slow but on the tmill i can walk at 4mph at a 15% grade for 20-30 minutes (more if i wasn't completely bored out of my mind). if i'm feeling good i might go 4.2mph at a 15% grade. racewalkers walk over 5mph and i can perhaps walk 4.5mph but above that i start jogging (uncomfortably because it's still in between speeds for me).
anyway, on the trail i average a stout 2.5 mph summer or winter. i'm just not a fast hiker. but i've noticed on the treadmill i have no issues averaging 3.5+ at any incline.
likewise, i'm a hell of a runner on the t-mill. 5-8 minute hill intervals are my favorite. the #'s i rack up are rediculuous compared to what i can do even on pavement let alone the trail. <8 minute miles with a 6%+ average grade, no freaking way on the trail.
what i'm saying is don't be fooled by the treadmill.
on the trail people averaging over 3mph for the day are pretty impressive and not the norm. so i'd gladly take the 4wd up the Hi-Clear road at 5mph and arrive at the trailhead fresh so i can perhaps shoot for a 2.7 average for the remaining few miles.
|
|
|
|
|
fleshwater
Apr 21, 2006, 5:52 AM
Post #78 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2005
Posts: 49
|
i got a 2002 VW Passat wagon. great for comfortable highway drivin' at 30mpg, lots of room in the back (can sleep in it with seats down) and haven't had any problems. Not good for offroad tho. little expensive too.
|
|
|
|
|
lazyjammin
Apr 21, 2006, 6:13 AM
Post #79 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 200
|
you ought to get somthing with good gas mileage, Ive noticed that fear of the gas bill has kept me away from good climbing more than any kind of 4wd access...
|
|
|
|
|
omerdimsum
Apr 22, 2006, 2:30 AM
Post #80 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2004
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: sorry about the loss of you taco. Don't mean to demean, but not the best move. Even Edmund's gave it less than par reviews. Be careful in that thing, they're known to be more tipsy than the average ute. in 98, was deemed along with the blazer, lowest vehicles in initial quality and in 2001, had rollover issues serious enough to become a public issue by consumer reports. Not a good reputation. Be careful bro. It seems versatile, but be aware of the consequences.
Actually, Mitsubishi proved in court that the Consumer Report slander was misguided. But just to be safe(er), Mitsu added really good stabilitrack and anti-skid. The 2006 Monty is waaay better than the Monty of old. I believe this truck has won the grueling Paris-Dakkar desert rally NINE YEARS in a row. In fact, I believe this year it came in first, third and fourth, respectively.
Nontheless, if I didnt have the need to sometimes cart work clients around the city, I would have another 4wd pick-up truck (2 or 4 door) with a topper. And preferably a bed long enough to sleep in.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Apr 22, 2006, 2:44 AM
Post #81 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
Any vehicle towing a travel trailer...that would be the shizzit for road trips.
|
|
|
|
|
pornstarr
Apr 22, 2006, 2:56 AM
Post #82 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 824
|
Actually, Mitsubishi proved in court that the Consumer Report slander was misguided. But just to be safe(er), Mitsu added really good stabilitrack and anti-skid. The 2006 Monty is waaay better than the Monty of old. I believe this truck has won the grueling Paris-Dakkar desert rally NINE YEARS in a row. In fact, I believe this year it came in first, third and fourth, respectively.
seems i can't find one of those juiced up models for sale.
perhaps they were running stock models????????
|
|
|
|
|
ropeguy
Apr 22, 2006, 3:37 AM
Post #83 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 19
|
I'm driving a 2001 chev tracker...4 door 25mpg and it will go anywhere...true 4wd with hi/lo range transfer case,back seats flip down if you want to sleep,4cyl 127hp and 5 speed...you can get parts anywhere,all the drive-train and engine are Suzuki.8000lb winch just in case it and small enough for the tight trails.
|
|
|
|
|
yakiman
Apr 22, 2006, 5:41 AM
Post #84 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 43
|
2002 Dodge Caravan is working great. Decent mpg, can sleep in it, and great acoustics with a good deck. Its also pretty generic (I mean its a frickin' minivan). Nobody has broken into it because they don't want to steal a bunch of soccerballs.
I used to drive a huge 66' Landcruiser to the crags, but it drank too much fuel. Its gone and so is the ego boost it gave me, but my wallet is fatter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
climb512
Apr 22, 2006, 9:32 AM
Post #86 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2001
Posts: 468
|
Jeep Cheerokee Sport. You can find them all over for 2500-5000 pending yr. I just sold a 91. I had 276,000 miles on it. It is still going strong. 4.0 engine is bomber. No problems other than normal wear and tear.
Stay away from the Grand Cheeerokees, they have a problem with rear ends and the quad trac binding in the front wheels.
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Apr 25, 2006, 4:37 AM
Post #87 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: Actually, Mitsubishi proved in court that the Consumer Report slander was misguided. But just to be safe(er), Mitsu added really good stabilitrack and anti-skid. The 2006 Monty is waaay better than the Monty of old. I believe this truck has won the grueling Paris-Dakkar desert rally NINE YEARS in a row. In fact, I believe this year it came in first, third and fourth, respectively.
Any rally vehicle is pretty much completely rebuilt, with maybe an original mitsu decal. I must say, the decal did hold up well those years. :wink: Consumer reports printed a pretty convincing argument against the company's claims. However, i'm glad that yours is not the same model and safe driving to you.
|
|
|
|
|
nedsurf
Apr 25, 2006, 6:35 AM
Post #88 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 387
|
In reply to: In reply to: Actually, Mitsubishi proved in court that the Consumer Report slander was misguided. But just to be safe(er), Mitsu added really good stabilitrack and anti-skid. The 2006 Monty is waaay better than the Monty of old. I believe this truck has won the grueling Paris-Dakkar desert rally NINE YEARS in a row. In fact, I believe this year it came in first, third and fourth, respectively. Any rally vehicle is pretty much completely rebuilt, with maybe an original mitsu decal. I must say, the decal did hold up well those years. :wink: Consumer reports printed a pretty convincing argument against the company's claims. However, i'm glad that yours is not the same model and safe driving to you. |
|
|
|
|
carp
Apr 25, 2006, 8:12 AM
Post #89 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2006
Posts: 20
|
As a truly hardcore car dork, I must chime in (but it's a long one :oops: )
My suggestion:
Ford Bronco II! Two people with a weeks worth of gear for mt biking, hiking, and climbing can fit in there and still be able to cruise at freeway speeds. Short wheelbase, high clearance, and 4wd get anywhere you should want to go. This makes it nice for finding the free, secluded campsites out in the desert :). Even loaded for trips, a properly running BII will get 20mpg.
If you plan to really wheel it, get a '90 and make sure it has the bigger front axle and manual transfer case. (www.broncoii.org for reference)
No matter what, get a stick shift. The autos are weak. If you need to use it for a few years, accept nothing that: ticks, leaks, or shows signs of contamination in the oil or radiator.
For more space, reliability, and durability, get a 91-94 Explorer. These are based on the Ranger, which is also a good choice if passenger carrying is not important. Being American vehicles, they are also drastically more comfortable than the 473 Subarus at your local crag.
...
As far as drive vs. hike approaches, I usually drive if it's reasonable. If I'm out there to hike a trail, or ride Bartlet Wash, etc., I don't really want to waste half a day walking for miles on a logging road if a stock 4x4 could get up. I was still going up some of the same roads in my Golf, but it was so stressful it was ridiculous. I have not yet needed 4wd specifically for climbing, but use it constantly for hiking/mt biking/work/fun. (Edit: My trip list shows I understand the value of long winter approaches. Walking a legal, driveable road is not what I signed up for.)
Going to a truck means truck tires, too. Oh, how I love having durable tires. I absolutely thrashed on a set of used BFG all terrains for 3 years and they died of old age. With less abusive use in the previous 3 years, I popped 6 passenger tires. These are available in 215/75R15 which fit all SUVs, trucks, Astro/Safari, VW van, etc. Try them, you'll love them!
My "has any real value at all" list:
Truck/Van:Ford Bronco II, Ranger, Explorer; Dodge Dakota, minivan (get a skidplate made for the oil pan!); Nissan Xterra, Frontier, Pathfinder, P/U; Toyota P/U, 4Runner (for the previous two, the 4cyl gets better economy, but the V6 has a stronger axle and is still underpowered), Landcruiser (my dream rig, but overpriced and too thirsty for the power it provides); GM Astro/Safari, S10 Blazers with the 4.3L but for the most part people who know avoid them :); Isuzu Trooper, Amigo, Rodeo (avail. as Honda Passport) < great, underrated;
Jeeps are overpriced and overrated. Not bad rigs, but I've spent time with them and would almost guaranteed buy something other than a Jeep. Grand Cherokees are the exception to the rule, though. Jeep got that one right.
Car:VW anything (Gen 1 Passats are roomy, nice, and still get 30mpg); Toyota anything; Honda Accord (surprisingly not the soul killing experience of the Civics I've driven); Subaru (the newer the better)
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Apr 25, 2006, 1:02 PM
Post #90 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I just roadtripped 2,200mi in my 2000 Grand caravan AWD I built a bed in the back with storeage underneath and installed curtains. we got 20-23mpg and it was pretty comfortable. sucks cooking outside in the rain. We have an 86 westy but it sucks driveing that thing long distance. Cruise control dosen't work, wind blows it all over the place and it dosen't go up hills and not great gas mileage. also anything can and will break at any moment. If the Westy had a total rebuild complete with new audi motor I would trust it on a long trip. as old as it is now I don't trust it on a long trip. The new bed in the Grand caravan is way more comfortable than the beds in the westy!!!
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Apr 26, 2006, 4:24 AM
Post #91 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: For more space, reliability, and durability, get a 91-94 Explorer. These are based on the Ranger, which is also a good choice if passenger carrying is not important. Being American vehicles, they are also drastically more comfortable than the 473 Subarus at your local crag.
I don't usually like sleeping in the front seat of my ride, though i've done it in plenty of rides, I loved sleeping in the front seat of my wrx. The seats may not be the plushy cadillac like interior you speak of, but it contours to you so well and is so lumbaricly correct, its like sleeping in heaven. Gotta chime in that the explorer is a great ride too though.
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Apr 26, 2006, 5:07 AM
Post #92 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: My "has any real value at all" list: Truck/Van:Ford Bronco II, Ranger, Explorer; Dodge Dakota, minivan (get a skidplate made for the oil pan!); Nissan Xterra, Frontier, Pathfinder, P/U; Toyota P/U, 4Runner (for the previous two, the 4cyl gets better economy, but the V6 has a stronger axle and is still underpowered), Landcruiser (my dream rig, but overpriced and too thirsty for the power it provides); GM Astro/Safari, S10 Blazers with the 4.3L but for the most part people who know avoid them :); Isuzu Trooper, Amigo, Rodeo (avail. as Honda Passport) < great, underrated; Jeeps are overpriced and overrated. Not bad rigs, but I've spent time with them and would almost guaranteed buy something other than a Jeep. Grand Cherokees are the exception to the rule, though. Jeep got that one right.
People who buy wranglers have something to prove but don't know anything about cars :wink: :D . The cherokee and grand are decent vehicles though. Wranglers aren't bad, but don't make sense to own.
Ahh, how cars move me.
edited to add: I did not intend for last sentence to be a pun. :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
saulokin
Apr 26, 2006, 8:36 AM
Post #93 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 20
|
I currently drive a '92 pathfinder which has worked out great. It has been a reliable 4x4. It has only a little rust for such an old SUV. We all gather a little rust as we get older, don't we?
I purchased this one because of the nicely laid out cockpit, and the smallish 3.2 litre V6. This makes it reasonably fuel efficient, about as good as a similar year minivan. Both the front and rear seating is comfortable, and the rear seats fold down for quite alot of gear space. I have trekked alot of gear/friends out for a weekend camping or climbing trip. If you are looking for a SUV, it will still haul 5500 lbs. I have pulled many cars from the ditch in winter. Also, I find the rear tire rack a huge plus.
|
|
|
|
|
lucander
Apr 26, 2006, 11:37 AM
Post #94 of 94
(6664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2003
Posts: 274
|
2005 Honda Civic Hybrid. 40-43 mpg to crags, I've done six weeks in sedans on western road trips and other than a fiasco trying to get to Black Velvet Canyon at RR have never had an access problem. Cars are made to roll through blizzards, rain, and hail - very few people need a SUV to get around. Make some sacrifices, take a third job, have it paid for in under two years and climb outdoors 100+ days this year.
Time to renew my Sierra Club membership :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
|
