Is [can] off-road making a comeback?

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 08/14/2013 at 13:11 • Filed to: on my mind

3

19

I started my driving career in the heart of the SUV craze with excellent suv's like the pathfinder, explorer, cherokee, 4runner, Rodeo and so on; in fact I owned a Rodeo and a Cherokee at one point and I loved them. I live in Utah and try to make it to Moab at least twice a year and so I actually used them as off-road vehicles so when I read about cars like the new range rover sport, Cherokee Trailhawk, Grand Cherokee ecodiesel as well as faithful's the power wagon, raptor, TRD Tacoma and Off Road Nissan's meant for real off-road use in addition to FP teasers from Ford Australia in the everest and the positive feedback in the comments I have to wonder aloud: Is true trail capability making a comeback? Have we reached the crossover backlash point where crossover buyers have grown weary of how car-like and un-utility the sport utility has become?

I recently sold my 2005 Subaru Forester XT 5 speed to buy a 1997 Toyota Land cruiser, as many of you know, because I felt a desire to get some utility back in the sport utility. Despite the lack of power, a proper transmission and high[er] fuel bills I don't regret a thing. I have only been off-road 3 times since I bought it but each mile off-road feel like it sweeps away a week of dreary commuting. There is something about turning off the pavement that's as liberating as driving a disneyland car off its tracks would be. And its addicting. In addition there is the added utility that such cars give, higher towing ratings for example as well as more utility the low range gearbox offers in the mundane such as pulling out old rose bushes (satisfying!)

Playing devils advocate its easy to see why the golden days of the off-road vehicle are behind us; more and more of our world is paved and car accessible, or at least crossover accessible which means that even for off road adventurous types you still spend the majority of your time on paved roads where a quite ride and high MPG's are more important than articulation and torque multiplication. Is there enough demand, or is the demand coming back to justify more off-road capable models? Is there enough unpaved trail to support a comeback? or is it all a little too late. After all the explorer and pathfinder are essentially dead, izuzu is gone and FJ cruiser/xterra sales are slumping. Crossovers advantages are typically; better fuel consumption, better ride and better use of interior space. If you have driven a lambda crossover back to back with a tahoe you know what I mean in regards to MPG and interior space.

Right now these are the only offroad ready (offroad tires and suspension and low range) and tires cars and trucks you can buy as 2014 models in the US.

Wrangler (many variations)

Grand Cherokee

Cherokee trailhawk (only one "trail rated" version)

Xterra (pro4x)

Frontier (pro4x)

4runner (trd)

Tacoma (trd)

FJ cruiser

land cruiser (or lx570)

land rover ds4

range rover sport

range rover

Chevy/gm trucks including GMT900 suv's (Z71)

ram trucks (powerwagon)

ford trucks (raptor/fx4)

Don't forget that GM is bringing the Colorado/Canyon Compact trucks back next year as well. Is that enough for the market? too many? or not enough?

The crossover rules and will continue to rule the lions share of the market for several reasons, least of which is the fact that people need car like attributes but not truck like utility. Other key reasons include:Interior space, Refinement and good (relative) mileage. Looking at each of these factors is it possible to get the same from a vehicle that actually makes use of its size and height? Interior packaging is hard to solve, body on frame vehicles use space pretty badly, but does it have to be body on frame? The unibody jeeps and range rovers seem to work pretty well offroad and interior space, though not as good as low floor height crossovers, is pretty good. As far as refinement, take a ride in a new ram, or grand cherokee, or Tacoma TRD for that matter, these are getting very good in terms of ironing out the bumps while still maintaining decent driving dynamics as well as capability. That leaves us with mpg. This is the easy one, at least in my eyes: diesel.

A diesel engine was pretty much designed for off-road use. Rugged, with low end torque and decent consumption in a vehicle that has the space and character to fit well with the size and personality of the diesel combustion cycle. Jeep is the only light duty off road diesel vehicle in the US and they are eagerly awaiting to see if its a hit like the ecoboost trucks and TDI cars and i suspect it will be, especially when it makes it to the ram lineup. If it sells well it may even trickle down to the wrangler. In addition, sources say that the new GM Colorado/Canyon trucks are slated to get the very good 2.8 Turbo diesel inline 4 available in many markets. Would a smooth riding, well packaged 22-26 mpg vehicle be enough to get you to stop thinking mall ready and start thinking trail ready again? I know it would work for me, but I'm in the minority that is willing to sacrifice a few comforts already for capability.

Coming back to the first question -

Is off-road making a comeback?

What would get you to consider an off-road vehicle over a crossover?

These are just a few of things on my mind

William Byrd > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 13:19

0

It's all about MPG for me. We had a Wrangler Unlimited and it was one of the most fun vehicles I've ever owned. Prior to that (and at the same time for a period) we had a Range Rover Sport. I was amazed at how much better the Jeep was off of the pavement. It was partially based on tires, the RRS had pretty sporty tread, but the Jeep had the base Sport model tires so they weren't anything special.

Anyway, I'm getting slightly off topic. Neither got over 15 MPG and that was a problem since we have an hour commute each way and need to drive separately sometimes. Add in the lack of a 3rd row and it eventually became a problem. Oddly we traded the Jeep for a used Suburban with the smaller of the V8 engines. Gets almost 20mpg and has more room than either by many many cubic feet.

So yes, if I could get something that gets good MPG (over 20) was cool, goes offroad well, and has 3 rows I would be interested!

Battery Tender Unnecessary > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 13:20

1

I'm guessing there are some people that would take a new Range Rover or Range Rover Sport off-road, but I never would. Taking a brand new $90-150k SUV that's riding on factory 22's with summer tires is the wrong side of wasteful for me...and that's saying a lot coming from someone that has no hangups about someone buying a $300k supercar and flogging it on a track. The difference being that a supercar (most of the time) is designed to go on a track first and the part where it has to be road legal and comfortable is secondary, while a modern SUV tends to be designed to be comfortable on the road and being able to go off pavement is just a bonus. Especially in the case of the RR where it's basically a luxury hotel on wheels. I cringe at the thought of someone wearing muddy waders and boots getting in a factory fresh Range Rover and taking on a rock crawl.

HammerheadFistpunch > William Byrd 08/14/2013 at 13:21

1

it kills me that gm didn't follow through with the Duramax 4500 for use in light duty trucks like the suburban. Can you image how awesome a 20/28 mpg (city/highway) suburban would be?

William Byrd > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 13:22

0

That. Would. Be. Awesome.

HammerheadFistpunch > Battery Tender Unnecessary 08/14/2013 at 13:23

1

thing is, if you are spending 100 grand on range rover, whats $5000 in an alternate set of wheels and tires and some weathertech floormats? Granted, I think you are right that people generally dont...but then again you do see a lot of late model DS4's and range rovers in moab.

HammerheadFistpunch > William Byrd 08/14/2013 at 13:24

0

the real kicker is, its 95% developed and ready to go.

desertdog5051 > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 13:26

0

When I go off-roading, a couple times a month, I see less and less other people out there. Good thing and bad thing. Good thing cause less busy. Bad if you have a problem and there's nobody out there to help you. No cell service in most of the places I go. I always make a map of where I am going and tell someone when I expect to be back.

BJ > Battery Tender Unnecessary 08/14/2013 at 13:29

0

Of course street tires don't really do the job off-road, but the RR is a very capable vehicle from what I understand.

If I had the money to own a new RR, I would definitely buy a set of proper off-road wheels and tires for it. I would get all muddy winching it about, and then feel not at all bad about having to pay someone to clean it out at the end of the day.

Who needs sway bars anyway > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 13:56

1

Me and Ramblinrover, had a good discussion about this a week or so ago about the sake of the Off-Road Community and while the marketing aspect of the auto industry likes to present the capability of Off-road to its customers the actual section of vehicles and the actual capabilities of the vehicles themselves are well below what they were 20 years ago, 10 years ago even. Of the list you presented ( besides the pickups), the capabilities of the vehicles are greatly diminished due to weight increases, size increases and the weighty hand of safety regulations and a smoother ride. Lower approach and departure angles, less articulate independent suspension and flimsier body construction makes for vehicles that are not only harder to drive off road, but more damage prone and more costly to repair, which is a Huge part of taking a vehicle off road. In short the added complexity of newer vehicles has drastically diminished the off road worthiness of new market Off-roader.

Another thing to consider with this is the reliability of the "marketing" that advertises these cars as "trail rated". what kind of trails are they rated for, what does the fine print state, and how much of the car are you weakening through taking it to extreme conditions. You will often see in off road tests with newer trucks and SUV's one of the wheels popping up in the air due to a lack of articulation over a relatively tame obstacle or hill climb. While this may look cool, the reality in an off road situation is the exact opposite. The vehicles that are trail rated may be able to complete an industry standard off road test, but at the end of the day I wouldn't trust half of them in a situation off road as much as I would trust a vehicle 20 years older.

The final thing that I think puts a nail in the coffin for the "Off Road comeback" is the extreme difficulty and expense involved in modifying or upgrading ALL modern SUV's. Due to the addition of independent suspension systems, complicated traction control devices, FWD drive train layouts and complex safety systems. The most simple off road modifications are rendered impossible or too expensive. This is especially important in the USA where modification and customization are a HUGE part of the Automotive market. On top of which is that a majority of the people that are looking to take vehicles off road are budget minded younger people. where on an XJ Cherokee you could install a lift kit for less than $200 in an afternoon in your driveway, the New Cherokee will be virtually impossible to lift at all due to the angular restrictions of the FWD based drive train and independent suspension. and the lift kits that will be available will either be very costly or put excessive stresses onto the drive train via the steeper angles of the joints. This factor is the big one for me. There is an immense community of people out their that modify vehicles for greater Off-road capabilities and they are being driven away from using a newer car as a base point because of this. Even 20 year old range rovers could have been lifted and re-geared with bigger tires and look awesome when they do! Can you imagine someone in 20 years lifting and adding bigger tires to a 2013 range rover it would take a fortune and a complete redesign of the suspension, and that goes the same for the new Cherokee grand Cherokee, frontier, 4runner, explorer, escape, range rover , range rover sport etc. in short time vehicles like the XJ,WJ, full size broncos, bronco IIs, blazers, gen1 and gen2 explorers are going to be the HUGE majority of what people are taking off road and there will be a whole generation of vehicles that are just going to get ignored.

The only thing that I can see that will make a comeback happen is if companies start making small, lightweight and most importantly SIMPLE off roaders that will appeal to the typical off roader. The main thing standing in the way with that is car companies bundle the two types of people that purchase vehicles like this into one vehicle and design the vehicle around the group they think will sell more. There is the Off road enthusiast like me, who just wants a simple rugged vehicle that I can lift and re gear without re-mortgaging my house and Hiring 2 more engineers ( besides myself) and there is the daily commuter that just want to sit up high, have a decent amount of room for their junk and be able to have the feeling that they can un-clench their butts when there is an inch of snow on the ground or they have to drive down a dirt road to get to the lake house, and its pretty obvious who is getting the attention by the manufacturers.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 14:04

0

Great article and discussion piece.

1) I don't think that rugged off-road vehicles are making a comeback. 54MPG by 2025 virtually assures that more of these vehicles will be killed off in the future.

2) While I do agree with you that there are many decent factory off-roaders on the market right now, the aftermarket for off road vehicles is quickly shrinking. What I mean by that is the simple truck based construction of SUVs continues to shrink. Soon that 17 year old kid who wants to lift a cheap beater truck will be looking at the independent suspension of his 12 year old 2009 grand Cherokee without any options.

3) The Enviro's will never stop trying to shut down OHV trails all over the country. With fewer in the offroading community to protest I worry that the Enviros might gain more of an edge.

4) Diesels are awesome but add about $5,000 in costs to a vehicle. Most of that comes from emissions equipment. Yes diesels are awesome but they are painfully expensive as well.

5) FJ80s for life.

HammerheadFistpunch > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 08/14/2013 at 14:40

0

if i can make a few counterpoints -

1. 54 mpg is not what cars will actually have to reach, its more like 35 for light trucks...crazy high still but not 54

2. its hard and expensive to lift independent trucks...but there will always be an aftermarket so long as there is money to be made and money to spend

3. this makes me sad

4. the diesel is a $2400 option on the ram and ecodiesel jeep

5. yup.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 17:23

0

Seems like you mostly agree with what I am saying- in short, offroad capable SUVs will get more rare and thus more expensive in the future for reasons listed in 1-4.

As for the diesel being a $2400 option, its really $2,850 and that's over the 5.7 hemi model. When you compare it to the base V-6 its gets into the 4-5k premium range . Much like other bigger engines I'm sure chrysler will make you get a fancy options package to help defray the subsidized cost of the diesel engine even more. Trucktrend is quoting that the ram with the ecodiesel will start at $30,000, that's for a regular cab shortbed.

As far as cars go though, that is more a 2-3k price premium for a diesel motor. Of course the HD trucks carry even bigger premiums in the neighborhood of $6-7k.

Not trying to bash diesels at all (IMO their longevity and resale value make a very strong value case), they just have a much bigger up front cost premiums than most people expect.

Somethingwittyer likes noisy > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 18:42

0

Something that worry's me is low range and diff locks being an option. All new LRs are doing that, mainly for the sake of it being cheaper/a hell of a lot less heavier. I feel like almost no one is going to check them off, and in return a lot of used LRs aren't end up being picked up by enthusiasts. Lets just hope off-roading really is making a comeback.

HammerheadFistpunch > Somethingwittyer likes noisy 08/14/2013 at 18:44

0

Locking diffs as an option even are going buy buy. The land cruiser lost its locking diff option in 1998 and even the land rover/range rover is only a center and rear with software taking control of the rest. to be fair, its a deecnt compromise since a locking front diff can be a liability as well as an asset offroad.

Hayden Anz > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 19:48

0

If you're going to include full sized trucks in your list then you also ought to add the Nissan Titan Pro-4X (comes with an e-locker, low range gearing, "off road tires" (if you count the BFG Rugged Trails as offroaders), and a slightly higher ride height than other 4x4 Titans) and the Toyota Tundra Rock Warrior

MIATAAAA > Battery Tender Unnecessary 08/14/2013 at 21:08

0

If I saw a new RR with off road wheels/tires, covered in mud and dirt...

That would be the first time I've ever been impressed seeing a RR.

webmonkees > HammerheadFistpunch 08/14/2013 at 22:12

0

Plenty of clearance for hooking up the winch.

rosettaquarrier > Battery Tender Unnecessary 08/15/2013 at 00:28

0

Land Rover LR4 not DS4??

need1moreCar > HammerheadFistpunch 08/15/2013 at 07:56

1

my 1985 EFI 4Runner already gets 22-23 mpg on a regular basis. incidentally a handful of small toyota trucks received a stinky (and awesome) diesel in the 80's and those would hit the mileage discussed in the article (or perhaps even more).

the real issue is that all of the crap listed as available in this article is over-sized and seems to continue growing. Sure some of it is to be safer (and pass gov't regulations) but i don't really think that means a new 4Runner needs to be the size of an old Tahoe. Honda can make a Fit safe, so I would assume companies could build a 4Runner/Pathfinder/Cherokee... ect of old proportions and still make it safe as well. size and weight going up = fuel economy going down. it's just physics.