"how many yukons, jeeps, wranglers, go off road-<5%"
How many AWD vehicles stay home in a snow storm?
"AWD--traction is where it's at, suburu, audi have been teaching us a new religion. wet dry, etc, traction matters and it matters a lot."
That is sure true. Don't forget Porsche (I guess it is covered under Audi!). But SUV's aren't about just going on the road. I wouldn't take an Audi Quattro off road, or BARELY take it on a dirt/fire road!
"people want room, people want traction, features smart design, ease of use for a family the market wants it all."
Hey, my Wrangler does that, plus off road and tow!
...
The Wrangler is... a huge success!!!
"those gloomers why don't you put your money where your mouth has been,"
Been there!
"spend a fortune on a car"
Can't. Jeeps just don't cost that much.
"... and put it out there just as you suggest and let the market remind you of your "forsight" "style", and that "suv low gear" any takers..."
Done that.
"...people don't go off road, most don't see a soft shoulder..."
So the Pilot is not a real SUV because it has no low range? Who cares?
I own a Suburban, mainly because my wife needed something to haul the kids and didn't want a minivan. Do you think we bought it because it can go boulder hopping? Do you think I am going to take a $42,000 vehicle there. Get real.
I like Honda products, and as usual Honda shows late to a design party but with a better idea. Lots of room with car like ride, Honda reliability, sign me up.
"If you were a car buyer and you needed more 'cargo room' you bought the station wagon version."
No. A family from our church down the street had an International something or other which was bigger than today's suburbans (wider and longer, maybe not taller)
"Why? AMC introduced the Jeep Cherokee and Chrysler the Voyager/Caravan. The Jeep was the first real SUV that wasn't the size of a tank and the voyager killed the stationwagon.... the ride of a car, the cargo room and sliding doors of a van. They both changed the world. Fast forward the late 1990's."
Yeah, but I worked in a nursery, and think the old wagons still can hold more cargo (don't get me wrong, minivans are nice and serve a good purpose). Not to mention the Country Squires and Grand Monaco wagons could meet the critical 4X8 cargo bay dimension of builders and do it yourselfers.
"I own a Suburban, mainly because my wife needed something to haul the kids and didn't want a minivan. Do you think we bought it because it can go boulder hopping? Do you think I am going to take a $42,000 vehicle there. Get real."
Who is being real or not?
What is wrong with a taurus or taurus wagon for the kids since you don't go off road anyhow???
Your Wrangler has "the room, smart design, and ease of use that a family wants"?
What planet do you live on? And do they have a Wrangler there that fits more than two people and their gear? And gets any of them where they are going comfortably? And can tow anything bigger than a jetski or a lawnmower?
Because the Wranglers we have here on Earth have none of these traits.
Hey don't get me wrong, I love Jeeps, but they are nobody's family car.
Why can't you give these owners the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that they "do" know what their needs are, and what vehicle best fits the bill.
"Your Wrangler has "the room, smart design, and ease of use that a family wants"?
What planet do you live on? And do they have a Wrangler there that fits more than two people and their gear? And gets any of them where they are going comfortably? And can tow anything bigger than a jetski or a lawnmower?"
My family consists of myself, my wife, and 2 dogs. It carries these just fine whether through the mountains or on vacation camping. It tows my 1500 lb boat no problem.
A neighbor down the road has a Wrangler and I love seeing him and his baby with 2 bald heads cruising topless up and down the hill on Saturday mornings. It makes me smile every time, and I look forward to that day myself!
"Because the Wranglers we have here on Earth have none of these traits."
Have you tried one?
"Hey don't get me wrong, I love Jeeps, but they are nobody's family car."
"Why can't you give these owners the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that they "do" know what their needs are, and what vehicle best fits the bill."
Well I'm glad your Wrangler works for you and your dogs. Luckily for you they have a higher tolerance for, and limited ability to complain about, your Jeep's rough and tumble ride, class-leading road noise, and limited interior space (see, I have tried one!).
For folks who actually have to truck PEOPLE around, be it their kids, friends, in-laws, etc., that Wrangler just doesn't cut the muster.
Like I said though, Jeep's are fun if you don't have (human!) passengers and you don't mind being saddle-sore after a long drive. Enjoy it!
Hey we already agree that the Wrangler is fun - you can hop rocks and put the top down, cool stuff. But I'll bet your parents didn't run out and buy one after that trek, did they?
And you think it's more comfortable than a Civic? Well, what isn't? lol
It's dull....drab....unexciting...pontification on the merits of what?.....lifestyles are different and vehicle needs are different....can we spend less time on the dull-- stop the pontifications and scrounge around about more Pilot stuff, if they say "june" then they have to produce by april/ may that's pretty close, they should be getting some ordering info, color options etc. Let's spend more time on the pilot, for other discussions move over to "why buy an suv" or start a subject "low range for the masses" or " if it ain't got a ladder (frame) it doen't madder" some of you could make a song out of those subjects....let's here it with a Britney Spears beat "ah eee ah eee ah eee, oh baby baby give me your low range ah eee ah eee ah eee two speed ah eeeee ah eeee two speed transfer ah eee cases, oh baby baby" or "I'm not a van,..... not quite.... a real offroader....i need my open spaces, ah eeee ah eeee and time to make up my mind"
I've been reading your exchange with spy and varmit. I know you're loyal to your Jeep and would defend it to your death, but just ask your parents to trade in whatever they are driving and get one. See what they say. After my friend comes for one of his semi-annual visits, I tell him his kids are fun too. But I sure wouldn't want to take them in full time! The Wrangler is for outdoorsmen, or college kids, or people who wish they were still either one. They're not for anyone with a real family.
This is where vehicles like the RX300, MD-X, BMW X5, M-Class, Highlander, Aztek, Forester and now the Pilot come into play. These are vehicles that are unibody, drive like cars... Good post. I would just add that Jeep Grand Cherokee also uses a unibody for the rest of us who might have missed it.
"What is wrong with a taurus or taurus wagon for the kids since you don't go off road anyhow???"
Good question, actually. Import wagons do have some appeal to me, with a sense of style and drivabilty. Domestic wagons do not.
Specifically in my case, my wife is a loyal Chevy owner. Chevy has no attractive wagons. She absolutely refused to drive a minivan. The burb had the room, and honestly has been a great vehicle. I have done some light 4-wheeling on the beach and through snow, but again don't need the heavy duty frame and rail suspension for that. There is a trade off in rider comfort.
I believe the Pilot hits the spot better, a large vehicle with lots of functionality and the SUV look. If one vehicle fit all, there would be only one vehicle. Different styles for different people.
My thought was based on an assumption that automakers will usually share platforms across models, car or trucks. Since Nissan makes body-on-frame trucks, it was just a guess that they would choose to use that platform.
I just wanted to clear up the unibody thing. A true off-roader CAN be unibody. I really meant to point out that the unibody models I mentioned were built off of car or minivan chasis... sharing more car-like underpinnings (suspensions) than off roaders. I've driven a unibody QX4 and while luxurious (and unibody) it's Pathfinder underpinnings can't be hidden. It's not a car... it's quite bouncy and trucklike.
If you don't go off road... and drive quite a bit on the highway... these hybrids are great because they are comforable and car-like in their handling. If you don't go off road and don't drive very much (second car) a truck will suffice, of course. But if you go off road at all (4-wheeling I mean), you NEED a truck with 4wheel low..... or at the very least, real 4wd NOT awd.
I would love to talk about more Pilot stuff. Unfortunately, I have nothing more at this moment to add, that already hasn't been discussed. The same must be true with some of the others here—hence all the off-topic discussions.
If you have something new to add regarding the Pilot, be my guest...
"If you don't go off road... and drive quite a bit on the highway... these hybrids are great because they are comforable and car-like in their handling. If you don't go off road and don't drive very much (second car) a truck will suffice, of course."
Both probably quite true.
"But if you go off road at all (4-wheeling I mean), you NEED a truck with 4wheel low..... or at the very least, real 4wd NOT awd."
Also probably true.
But in the second example, isn't this really an SUV? What does that make the Pilot? A minivan/SUV hybrid? A repackaged station wagon?
There are several types of 4WD, but they all fall into two basic categories: Part-time 4WD (for slippery surfaces only) and Full-time 4WD (can be used on any surface). AWD (of which there are several types) is just a full-time 4WD system—only minus the low range. The assumption is that "AWD" is intended to be used on-road, not off-road, whereas 4WD is to be used of-road, because "4WD" vehicles also have a "Low" range, whereas AWD vehicles don't. That's it. Period.
Consider the following:
• In just about every other market other than North America, Subaru markets their vehicles as 4WD—not AWD.
• In the new Dodge Dakota and Durango, with full-time 4WD, the full-time position on the transfer case shifter is marked "AWD," not full-time 4WD.
All it is guys is: M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, nothing more.
Question. If you have only 2 adults in your family and no kids, what attracted you to the Honda Pilot forum? It does not seem that an 8-seat SUV is what you're looking for. I also think you're going to have a tough time convincing those of us who are interested in a vehicle that can haul lots of people plus cargo that the Jeep is a better choice. They just seem to be aimed at 2 completely different markets. Not that I've not enjoyed the conversation while we wait for more news on the Pilot...
Unless the marketing guys confuse everything, I usually assume that AWD are full time systems with some kind of differential or viscous coupling between the front and rear axle. 4WD are usually rear wheel drive with the possibility to engage the front axle also. Usually, in 4WD mode the front and rear axles are locked together.
Altough 4WD will give you better traction in extreme off road conditions at low speed, my experience driving on snow and ice covered road is that 4WD will give you terrible understeering when engaged compared to a AWD vehicle. These are the vehicles I either owned or had the chance to drive extensively in these conditions:
AWD: 1988 Toyota Celica turbo 1990 Audi 90 quattro (road test) 1997 Honda CR-V 1999 Audi A4 V6 (2 day road test) 2001 Hyundai Santa Fe
Best handling on snow covered roads: 1- 1999 Audi 2- Santa Fe (with Bridgestone Winter Dueler tires) 3- 1990 Audi 4- CR-V 5- Celica (understeer until the turbo quick in, then oversteer) 6- 4 Runner 7- Tercel
(Sorry, I have no news on the Pilot....) We will have to wait and see...
OK, maybe a lot off-topic, but didn't one of the car mags do a comparison test of snow traction between FWD, 4WD, AWD, FWD with traction control, etc.? I'd be interested to know if there is a functional advantage of a system such as the RT4WD on the CR-V compared to a traction control FWD system such as on the Accord.
I have traction control FWD on my Volvo S70 GLT. The CR-V Real Time AWD gives you much better traction. Acceleration from a stop sign on snow/ice much better in the CR-V.
But has the Volvo always managed to get you "unstuck" from most any situations? I'm not too concerned with standing start acceleration on snow/ice. I just don't want to be stuck spinning my tire(s) somewhere.
Well, I never got stuck with the Volvo. A traction control FWD is only marginally better than a regular FWD. The Volvo system will apply the brake to the wheel that is slipping and reduce the engine power. What helps with the Pilot, CR-V and other cross-over's is the additional ground clearance and the larger diameter tires usually found on these vehicles.
By the way, I also once owned a 91 Nissan Stanza Se with a viscous coupling in the front drive axle. That was the best FWD I ever had as far as traction is concerned. I'm surprised no other manufacturer ever came up with this solution. Simple and efficient, almost as good traction as the CR-V.
I also had one. I agree, great winter traction. I never knew about the drive axle, just great in the snow. I bought a 95 Altima expecting the same. While good, not as good. 4WD is much better in snow than fwd. In this last snow storm that hit the east cost, We drove around a fwd volvo (while still moving) struggling to get up a hill. Maybe it has more to do with engine position in relationship to the wheels in fwd cars? Too far back, no hill traction due to weight shift?
Only the SE model had the vicous coupling. Same for the Altima and Maxima. That may be why your Altima (was it a SE?)was not as good.
Tires have a lot to do with traction also. I'm always amazed to see some high price cars (BMW X5, Volvo T5, etc) running around all winter on 4 seasons or regular tires. There was a X5 at the ski resort last week-end on regular tires. I guess the guy did not have any money left to put decent winter tires on. (In our part of the world they are needed!) I could have run circles around it in my modest Santa Fe with the Bridgestone Winter Duelers.
Dunlop used to have a motorcycle tire ad that said: "At Dunlop, we believe a mortorcycle is only as good as it's tires" This applies to all vehicles; even more so on wet roads, snow and ice.
I am interested in SUV's, and like Hondas. I had not heard of this up until now.
"It does not seem that an 8-seat SUV is what you're looking for."
You are correct, sir!
"I also think you're going to have a tough time convincing those of us who are interested in a vehicle that can haul lots of people plus cargo that the Jeep is a better choice."
Never my intention.
"They just seem to be aimed at 2 completely different markets."
No. They are both (questionably) SUV's. They are just at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is for real SUV type purposes, and the other for shuttling kids to soccer practice in "style".
Does anybody know which shows the Pilot will be at? Upcoming shows in Rhode Island,Portland OR, Baltimore, SanDiego, and Richmond VA. No info from local dealer.
My 92 Civic DX hatchback was awesome in the snow with snow tires. That little thing could climb trees....
...EXCEPT it would get hung up. I remember pulling into the drugstore during a blizzard to get some medicine for my cold, and when I went to leave, I couldn't! It took me an hour or so of shoveling the snow out from underneath and in front of the car (so I could get a running start).
The guy at the tire store said that a rwd car or truck with cement blocks or sand bags in back gets just as good traction as a fwd car. He said the only difference is that the weight of the engine is over the drive wheels in fwd configurations. I believe this guy (he has seen and heard it all regarding tires and traction) and also my own experience with a 78 Dodge Magnum with 4 cement blocks in the trunk and retread snow tires (college). That thing got me skiing in Vermont and back every time no problemo.
Of course, AWD Audi would just do the same thing a lot classier! ;-)
As I said in post #584, 4WD falls into two general categories: Part-time 4WD and Full-time 4WD.
Within the Part-time 4WD, there are several variations on the theme:
• Those with manual front hubs, which need to be "manually" engaged by going to the front wheel, and turning the engagement lever on the hub. Some old-timers swear by this system. I had it on an old Ford F-150, and I swore "at" it, not by it. It's just plain inconvenient to use.
• Those with auto-front hubs, which is a step above the manual units. You have to reverse the vehicle at least 3' in order to unlock the hubs when not needed. This system was common on early Pathfinders, and earlier Explorers.
• Those with a center differential, which eliminates entirely the manual/auto hub issue. The Jeep Command Trac is an example of this system
There are also other variables such as locking differientals (front, center, rear) to, but the bottom line is that all these part-time units can only be used on slippery surfaces. Some units require the vehicle to be stopped before engaging 4WD, others offer shift-on-the-fly capability, meaning you can engage or disengage 4WD at speed up to 55 or 60 mph.
All these systems are 2-speed units, with a high a no low range. There's is one exception: Dodge, this year is offering a bottom-feeder 1-speed part-time unit on the Durango.
As with Part-time 4WD, there are several different spins on Full-time 4WD:
• Permanent full-time 4WD. This is exactly as it implys, it's in use all the time. This what the Toyota Land Cruiser and other use.
• AWD is a "variation" on the permanent 4WD drive theme. As mentioned before, here in North America, it is assumed to mean, no low range, and offered on vehicles with little likelihood of extreme off-road driving. Subaru uses this type of system.
• Selectable full-time 4WD. This offers you, in addition to the full-time 4WD mode, a part-time mode, and/or a 2WD mode. These are also shift-on-the-fly units. Jeep's Selec Trac is an example of such a system.
• On-Demand 4WD or AWD. This operates in 2WD until slippage occurs, then 4WD automatically kicks in. Some are rear-wheel-drive based, such as the Explorer's Control Trac. Some are Front-wheel-drive based, such as the CRV, MDX and Pilot.
While they are all full-time, there are various methods of engagement such as electronic clutch packs, viscous couplings, 4-wheel traction control, and/or mechanical means.
a lot of "old-timers" don't want anything to do with anything that even hints of progress.
The Trooper's "Torque-on-Demand" 4WD is a (rear-wheel-drive based) on-demand full-time 4WD unit. It's very similar to Ford's Control Trac, not surprising considering they're both Borg Warner units. From everything I've read and heard, it's an excellent system.
By the "You're right" one, do you mean the old timers referring to the putting in manual hubs?
I guess they do it for reliability and durability reasons.
Beats me, they are out of my league. I like to offroad, but I don't get into the hardcore rockcrawling and competition stuff. Some of those guys trailer their SUV's to the trail head.
I want something that can be used on the road as well as off, and also has some utility (the U in SUV!) for things like dogs, groceries, boat stuff, firewood, guns, friends, family, tools, skis, etc.
Comments
But are they?
Or are they just being sold a bill of goods and told what is right for them?
How many AWD vehicles stay home in a snow storm?
"AWD--traction is where it's at, suburu, audi have been teaching us a new religion. wet dry, etc, traction matters and it matters a lot."
That is sure true. Don't forget Porsche (I guess it is covered under Audi!). But SUV's aren't about just going on the road. I wouldn't take an Audi Quattro off road, or BARELY take it on a dirt/fire road!
"people want room, people want traction, features smart design, ease of use for a family the market wants it all."
Hey, my Wrangler does that, plus off road and tow!
...
The Wrangler is... a huge success!!!
"those gloomers why don't you put your money where your mouth has been,"
Been there!
"spend a fortune on a car"
Can't. Jeeps just don't cost that much.
"... and put it out there just as you suggest and let the market remind you of your "forsight" "style", and that "suv low gear" any takers..."
Done that.
"...people don't go off road, most don't see a soft shoulder..."
Where did you get that?
I own a Suburban, mainly because my wife needed something to haul the kids and didn't want a minivan. Do you think we bought it because it can go boulder hopping? Do you think I am going to take a $42,000 vehicle there. Get real.
I like Honda products, and as usual Honda shows late to a design party but with a better idea. Lots of room with car like ride, Honda reliability, sign me up.
No. A family from our church down the street had an International something or other which was bigger than today's suburbans (wider and longer, maybe not taller)
"Why? AMC introduced the Jeep Cherokee and Chrysler the Voyager/Caravan. The Jeep was the first real SUV that wasn't the size of a tank and the voyager killed the stationwagon.... the ride of a car, the cargo room and sliding doors of a van. They both changed the world. Fast forward the late 1990's."
Yeah, but I worked in a nursery, and think the old wagons still can hold more cargo (don't get me wrong, minivans are nice and serve a good purpose). Not to mention the Country Squires and Grand Monaco wagons could meet the critical 4X8 cargo bay dimension of builders and do it yourselfers.
Who is being real or not?
What is wrong with a taurus or taurus wagon for the kids since you don't go off road anyhow???
What planet do you live on? And do they have a Wrangler there that fits more than two people and their gear? And gets any of them where they are going comfortably? And can tow anything bigger than a jetski or a lawnmower?
Because the Wranglers we have here on Earth have none of these traits.
Hey don't get me wrong, I love Jeeps, but they are nobody's family car.
Why can't you give these owners the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that they "do" know what their needs are, and what vehicle best fits the bill.
Bob
What planet do you live on? And do they have a Wrangler there that fits more than two people and their gear? And gets any of them where they are going comfortably? And can tow anything bigger than a jetski or a lawnmower?"
My family consists of myself, my wife, and 2 dogs. It carries these just fine whether through the mountains or on vacation camping. It tows my 1500 lb boat no problem.
A neighbor down the road has a Wrangler and I love seeing him and his baby with 2 bald heads cruising topless up and down the hill on Saturday mornings. It makes me smile every time, and I look forward to that day myself!
"Because the Wranglers we have here on Earth have none of these traits."
Have you tried one?
"Hey don't get me wrong, I love Jeeps, but they are nobody's family car."
See above.
Please lead by your example.
For folks who actually have to truck PEOPLE around, be it their kids, friends, in-laws, etc., that Wrangler just doesn't cut the muster.
Like I said though, Jeep's are fun if you don't have (human!) passengers and you don't mind being saddle-sore after a long drive. Enjoy it!
His baby has two bald heads? That I REALLY want to see!
Actually, in the ultimate test, I took my parents on an hour and a half ride for a nephew's birthday, and they liked it!!
"Like I said though, Jeep's are fun if you don't have (human!) passengers and you don't mind being saddle-sore after a long drive."
In fact, it is more comfortable on a long drive than the civic. I can't put the top down in the civic, and noise is not an issue.
And you think it's more comfortable than a Civic? Well, what isn't? lol
I don't understand what you're trying to say??
Bob
Good post. I would just add that Jeep Grand Cherokee also uses a unibody for the rest of us who might have missed it.
The new Land Rover Freelander is also unit body, but lacks a low range, and I believe(?) the new just-released Range Rover also has a unit body.
Bob
Good question, actually. Import wagons do have some appeal to me, with a sense of style and drivabilty. Domestic wagons do not.
Specifically in my case, my wife is a loyal Chevy owner. Chevy has no attractive wagons. She absolutely refused to drive a minivan. The burb had the room, and honestly has been a great vehicle. I have done some light 4-wheeling on the beach and through snow, but again don't need the heavy duty frame and rail suspension for that. There is a trade off in rider comfort.
I believe the Pilot hits the spot better, a large vehicle with lots of functionality and the SUV look. If one vehicle fit all, there would be only one vehicle. Different styles for different people.
Bob
Robertsmx - You may be thinking of the Xterra which uses a modified version of the pickup platform.
If you don't go off road... and drive quite a bit on the highway... these hybrids are great because they are comforable and car-like in their handling. If you don't go off road and don't drive very much (second car) a truck will suffice, of course. But if you go off road at all (4-wheeling I mean), you NEED a truck with 4wheel low..... or at the very least, real 4wd NOT awd.
If you have something new to add regarding the Pilot, be my guest...
Bob
Both probably quite true.
"But if you go off road at all (4-wheeling I mean), you NEED a truck with 4wheel low..... or at the very least, real 4wd NOT awd."
Also probably true.
But in the second example, isn't this really an SUV? What does that make the Pilot? A minivan/SUV hybrid? A repackaged station wagon?
There are several types of 4WD, but they all fall into two basic categories: Part-time 4WD (for slippery surfaces only) and Full-time 4WD (can be used on any surface). AWD (of which there are several types) is just a full-time 4WD system—only minus the low range. The assumption is that "AWD" is intended to be used on-road, not off-road, whereas 4WD is to be used of-road, because "4WD" vehicles also have a "Low" range, whereas AWD vehicles don't. That's it. Period.
Consider the following:
• In just about every other market other than North America, Subaru markets their vehicles as 4WD—not AWD.
• In the new Dodge Dakota and Durango, with full-time 4WD, the full-time position on the transfer case shifter is marked "AWD," not full-time 4WD.
All it is guys is: M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G, nothing more.
Bob
Altough 4WD will give you better traction in extreme off road conditions at low speed, my experience driving on snow and ice covered road is that 4WD will give you terrible understeering when engaged compared to a AWD vehicle. These are the vehicles I either owned or had the chance to drive extensively in these conditions:
4WD: 1983 Tercel Wagon 4WD (where's the engine???)
2001 4Runner 4WD (my brother's vehicle)
AWD: 1988 Toyota Celica turbo
1990 Audi 90 quattro (road test)
1997 Honda CR-V
1999 Audi A4 V6 (2 day road test)
2001 Hyundai Santa Fe
Best handling on snow covered roads:
1- 1999 Audi
2- Santa Fe (with Bridgestone Winter Dueler tires)
3- 1990 Audi
4- CR-V
5- Celica (understeer until the turbo quick in, then oversteer)
6- 4 Runner
7- Tercel
(Sorry, I have no news on the Pilot....) We will have to wait and see...
What would you see different? besides the Pilot looks longer???
By the way, I also once owned a 91 Nissan Stanza Se with a viscous coupling in the front drive axle. That was the best FWD I ever had as far as traction is concerned. I'm surprised no other manufacturer ever came up with this solution. Simple and efficient, almost as good traction as the CR-V.
Tires have a lot to do with traction also. I'm always amazed to see some high price cars (BMW X5, Volvo T5, etc) running around all winter on 4 seasons or regular tires. There was a X5 at the ski resort last week-end on regular tires. I guess the guy did not have any money left to put decent winter tires on. (In our part of the world they are needed!) I could have run circles around it in my modest Santa Fe with the Bridgestone Winter Duelers.
Dunlop used to have a motorcycle tire ad that said: "At Dunlop, we believe a mortorcycle is only as good as it's tires" This applies to all vehicles; even more so on wet roads, snow and ice.
I am interested in SUV's, and like Hondas. I had not heard of this up until now.
"It does not seem that an 8-seat SUV is what you're looking for."
You are correct, sir!
"I also think you're going to have a tough time convincing those of us who are interested in a vehicle that can haul lots of people plus cargo that the Jeep is a better choice."
Never my intention.
"They just seem to be aimed at 2 completely different markets."
No. They are both (questionably) SUV's. They are just at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is for real SUV type purposes, and the other for shuttling kids to soccer practice in "style".
Here's a link to this year's show calendar:
http://www.autoshow.aa.psiweb.com/showcal.html
...EXCEPT it would get hung up. I remember pulling into the drugstore during a blizzard to get some medicine for my cold, and when I went to leave, I couldn't! It took me an hour or so of shoveling the snow out from underneath and in front of the car (so I could get a running start).
Tires are only good if they touch the ground!!!!
:-)
Of course, AWD Audi would just do the same thing a lot classier! ;-)
Within the Part-time 4WD, there are several variations on the theme:
• Those with manual front hubs, which need to be "manually" engaged by going to the front wheel, and turning the engagement lever on the hub. Some old-timers swear by this system. I had it on an old Ford F-150, and I swore "at" it, not by it. It's just plain inconvenient to use.
• Those with auto-front hubs, which is a step above the manual units. You have to reverse the vehicle at least 3' in order to unlock the hubs when not needed. This system was common on early Pathfinders, and earlier Explorers.
• Those with a center differential, which eliminates entirely the manual/auto hub issue. The Jeep Command Trac is an example of this system
There are also other variables such as locking differientals (front, center, rear) to, but the bottom line is that all these part-time units can only be used on slippery surfaces. Some units require the vehicle to be stopped before engaging 4WD, others offer shift-on-the-fly capability, meaning you can engage or disengage 4WD at speed up to 55 or 60 mph.
All these systems are 2-speed units, with a high a no low range. There's is one exception: Dodge, this year is offering a bottom-feeder 1-speed part-time unit on the Durango.
As with Part-time 4WD, there are several different spins on Full-time 4WD:
• Permanent full-time 4WD. This is exactly as it implys, it's in use all the time. This what the Toyota Land Cruiser and other use.
• AWD is a "variation" on the permanent 4WD drive theme. As mentioned before, here in North America, it is assumed to mean, no low range, and offered on vehicles with little likelihood of extreme off-road driving. Subaru uses this type of system.
• Selectable full-time 4WD. This offers you, in addition to the full-time 4WD mode, a part-time mode, and/or a 2WD mode. These are also shift-on-the-fly units. Jeep's Selec Trac is an example of such a system.
• On-Demand 4WD or AWD. This operates in 2WD until slippage occurs, then 4WD automatically kicks in. Some are rear-wheel-drive based, such as the Explorer's Control Trac. Some are Front-wheel-drive based, such as the CRV, MDX and Pilot.
While they are all full-time, there are various methods of engagement such as electronic clutch packs, viscous couplings, 4-wheel traction control, and/or mechanical means.
Bob
??
Also, don't forget Isuzu Trooper's pretty awesome system whose name currently escapes me.
The Trooper's "Torque-on-Demand" 4WD is a (rear-wheel-drive based) on-demand full-time 4WD unit. It's very similar to Ford's Control Trac, not surprising considering they're both Borg Warner units. From everything I've read and heard, it's an excellent system.
Bob
I guess they do it for reliability and durability reasons.
Beats me, they are out of my league. I like to offroad, but I don't get into the hardcore rockcrawling and competition stuff. Some of those guys trailer their SUV's to the trail head.
I want something that can be used on the road as well as off, and also has some utility (the U in SUV!) for things like dogs, groceries, boat stuff, firewood, guns, friends, family, tools, skis, etc.
:-)