STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
The ML looks pretty embarassing now. It's never been the toughest looking SUV, but it's latest iteration has just abandoned all pretense and is styled like a taller Honda Odyssey
My coworker replaced his 8 year old Honda Odyssey with a 2013 ML450. It's a nice family car.
The 4Runner isn't in the same category as the LR4 (which starts at $50k for the base model and runs north of $60k). I was just trying to pick something in the same price range, as a 4Runner Trail goes for around $40k. So yes you're correct that it (the 4Runner) isn't nicer. But I'll take the 4Runner Trail over pretty much any other stock vehicle off-road (save a Wrangler Rubicon, which is fantastic off-road and terrible everywhere else), including the LR4. The LR4 is way too heavy among other weaknesses. The 4Runner Trail is the perfect compromise and the best 4x4 at $40k in my opinion.
Exactly...it's a car. "SUV's" like the Acura MDX and new ML and new Pathfinder, etc. are all just thinly disguised mini vans/station wagons nowadays. Which is fine for 95% of Americans who will never take them off the pavement.
It just amuses me to watch the Pathfinder commercials where they go on and on about the off-road heritage and imply that it's capable of going anywhere, when it's pretty obvious that they just turned it into a mini van. Any moderately difficult "path" would be littered with muffler and bumper parts if someone really wanted to take that thing off-road
Exactly...it's a car. "SUV's" like the Acura MDX and new ML and new Pathfinder, etc. are all just thinly disguised mini vans/station wagons nowadays. Which is fine for 95% of Americans who will never take them off the pavement.
It just amuses me to watch the Pathfinder commercials where they go on and on about the off-road heritage and imply that it's capable of going anywhere, when it's pretty obvious that they just turned it into a mini van. Any moderately difficult "path" would be littered with muffler and bumper parts if someone really wanted to take that thing off-road
You did not give price as a metric. And as far as "category" you said something about the "nicest out of the box off roader." We both seem to agree the LR4 is highly capable and nicer. Also, I'll put a stock LR4 up against a stock 4Runner Trail. I'll put it up on the trail and I'll put it up pulling up to a nice restaurant.
As for actual off-roading as a sport/leisure activity - have to say it seems odd to me when I think of people taking cars and doing rock crawls with spotters. I love hiking and mountain biking but offroading at low speed for sport as opposed to necessity is something I've never wrapped my head around. I certainly have enjoyed my time on safari and getting into some gnarly areas in order to see cool stuff, but there was always a goal in mind and offroading was necessary to achieve that goal. On the other hand - I get dirt biking and ATVs - both are a blast.
I'm not knocking in any way people who offroad for sport - I just don't see it as something I would pursue.
True. I was just subconsciously picking a vehicle that would cost about the same as a Raptor (which would be low $40's) but I didn't specify that.
For the sake of argument, I'd take the 4Runner Trail over the LR4 off-road for two reasons. Late model Rovers have excellent traction control systems, but with the 4Runner's rear locker, almost 1,000 lbs less weight, and wider tires (the 265/70/17 vs. 255/55/19 will offer a much bigger contact patch especially when aired down), I think the 4Runner has the edge on traction. The laws of physics almost demand it. Approach/departure/breakover angles are very similar so it's a draw there. The one place where I think the Rover is pretty weak is ground clearance through the length of the undercarriage, so for highly rocky terrain and/or ledge work it's at a disadvantage as the lack of a rear axle keeps the goodies closer to the ground. And again with a vehicle that heavy you can't bang the bottom up continuously or something's going to break. The LR4 might be better in water fording, but I don't drive off-road in water as our place is desert. The other stuff is very relevant to me.
Good answer. FWIW, the Rapter is 50k. Also, you really think .2" ground clearance is that big of a difference? I'll leave someone else to talk about the laws of physics, weight, and traction but I always thought weight increased traction (Usable Traction = coefficient of Traction x Weight). Oh, and the LR4 has a rear locker available so you can get that out of the box with it too.
MBWorld (mbworld.org/forums/)Got a good MB forum to visit for some more detailed info?