Small SUVs for backcountry travel?

[sixstringsteve]

This discussion came up in Cascadia's expedition rig thread, I thought I'd continue it here. It's a fun discussion. Try to put your stereotypes/preconceived biases aside...


Do small sport utility vehicles (like a CRV, Rav4, Kia Sportage, Ford Escape) make good backcountry travel vehicles? What are their biggest limitations? Anyone have any experience taking them on extended trips through the backcountry?

 

[Houndoc]

No personal experience with any of those, but the first things that come to my mind as far as limitations with that list are ground clearance and lack of low range.

 

[sixstringsteve]

It's obvious that a small suv would suck in the following conditions:

- needing to carry a super heavy load
- hauling a trailer
- very rocky/extreme terrain (like Hole in the Rock trail) that requires low-range


...BUT on most of the backcountry exploring trips I do, I don't encounter any of those things. The p-rated tires are definitely a weak link that would need to be addressed. And I'd think you'd want an automatic so you can "crawl" at least a little bit if needed. Am I going to sell my rig and get one? No way, but if I wasn't really into rock crawling and I liked exploring Utah on its backcountry roads, I think it'd be a great option to get into the sport for cheap. I see several benefits to these vehicles:


Some of the pros include:
- cheap initial purchase price
- very reliable
- awd
- great MPG
- independent suspension, great ride on rough terrain

Cons
- p-rated tires
- small offroad aftermarket (slider, bumper, lockers, etc)
- car drivetrain, not super heavy duty
- no low-range

 

[Greg]

IMO, assuming all IFS vehicles ride well over rocky/bumpy terrain isn't always correct. Most small SUV's simply aren't designed for miles and miles of rough offroad travel. I'm talking about stuff like Lockhart, the White Rim, etc.

If you can upsize the tires and run something like a BFG AT that won't come apart and has enough sidewall that you can air down a bit to smooth out the ride and gain traction, you're off to a good start.

I would require low range, there are times when you will need the torque and control.

I think a 4 door Sidekick with a small lift and bigger tires would be a good vehicle to start with.

 

[skeptic]

No experience with them, but to me the biggest limitations, which have been mentioned already, are:
- Limited ground clearance - not aware of any lift kits, but I'm sure something could be done.
- No 4-Low - perhaps not an issue depending on where back country travel is.
- Limited cargo room - pack small and light, no worries. If people (myself included in my younger years) can make it a week or more with just a backpack, a small SUV is fine. Creature comforts would just be more limited.

Another concern would be how well they stand up to offroad abuse.

 

[Rot Box]

You've probably seen my CRV report from awhile back http://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?85748-First-Gen-Honda-CR-V-report

I love my little car but like Kurt mentioned in the other thread there is a time and place for them. Two friends of mine drove their 84 Subaru (similar size/drivetrain) to Prudhoe Bay and back stoping everywhere in between with little stress. I guess it depends on your needs but I would pass if you're thinking endless miles of dirt and/or rocky trails in poor conditions. Not that it wouldn't do those things (within reason obviously)--there's just better options. If I had better tires I personally wouldn't think twice about the GSL loop, PET, White Rim etc. but I wouldn't recommend this car to a newbie wanting to take his family out on such outings :-\

They really shine when it comes to exploring the National and State Parks and other points of interest where there is a lot of highway trekking and isn't a lot of difficult off-road access. Its a lot of fun on those minimalist type camping trips and I would not want to burden it with a bunch of heavy camping equipment and exotic EXPO rated equipment. Pack these cars with the same mentality you use to pack your hiking pack and you're set

 

[Spork]

I would require low range, there are times when you will need the torque and control.

I think a 4 door Sidekick with a small lift and bigger tires would be a good vehicle to start with.

My wife used to have an XL7 and it was actually pretty decent for the light stuff, it had low range, lots of space for kids/equipment and it rode nice on the road. I think the road up Israel Canyon was the most difficult area I took it but it got up to the top without an issue.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Steve, although it's not a small SUV I am looking at replacing my black ZJ with an Isuzu Trooper in the next month or so. Reasons being they have a decent amount of support and come cheap, you can sleep in the back of them, fit 31's stock, and are one of the few on the market with a manual transmission. I am leaning toward the 95-97 models, but there are guys with the early carbed motors getting 22-26 mpg out of them.

 

[JL Rockies]

KJ CRD. I miss it everyday, went everywhere I wanted to go and had plenty of power to rescue those who shouldn't have gone.

Real t case, gobs of torque and turbodiesel awesomeness.... the ultimate Jeep.

 

[UVRUGBY]

In that list I would have to go with the escape. I have seen aftermarket support for those when it comes to a small lift. Like everybody is saying the problem being the 4low, and ground clearance. But, I don't see the older 1-2 gen 4runners on the list. They are just as small as a escape and they have a huge after market and have that ground clearance with 4low. The bad side of it-the older gens don't get as good of mpg that the rest of the suv small pack does.

Like Greg said the other option could be the sidekick. I don't have any experience with them, but I have heard good things about them.

 

[jentzschman]

I would go older gen runner if it were me.

Love the look of them for one, and as uvrugby said, huge aftermarket support. Ya, they do not get as good as mgp, but as it goes in life, there is always a little give and take.

 

[Cherokeester]

A two door Jk or Tj is a small suv in that class, why are they not on the list? Is the anti jeep bias too strong? You get what works imo, who cares if lots of others have it.

 

[JL Rockies]

FWIW, my KJ did much better on the trails than my 4Runner does even tough the 4Runner has better ground clearance.

 

[sixstringsteve]

I was talking more car-based SUVs with no 4-lo, that's why 4runners, jks, tjs, wjs etc weren't on the list. It's not an anti-jeep thread or bias. I hate KIAs more than any other vehicle, but they're on the list because they have something in that realm. Everyone knows that a true 4x4 with 4lo would be an excellent candidate for backcountry, I'm just brainstorming on the overlooked sport utility cars as some have called them.

 

[skeptic]

A two door Jk or Tj is a small suv in that class, why are they not on the list? Is the anti jeep bias too strong? You get what works imo, who cares if lots of others have it.

I noticed that too, but decided the question was more about small economical car-like SUVs than small offroad intended SUVs. Cheap, AWD, great MPG, independent suspension - not qualities of a wrangler. I suppose you could lump a Liberty/Patriot/Compass in the group, but then I personally would take a Jeep over the rest.

edit: Wow, I was late on my post. What sixstringsteve said.

 

[Cherokeester]

I guess my question would be then, why would you spend the money on a Rav4 etc when you could get the same mpg plus all the benefits of a Wrangler? I love my TJ and JK around town and on long travel road trips. The Wrangler does all the things those others do but they, in turn, cannot do what the Wrangler does. My Jk 4 door Rubicon pulls 23 mpg and sometimes higher, it rides great and is a convertible as well. Also, what is the big whoop about ifs? It is all headache to me, cv joints and all that, I will take a solid axle any day.

 

[Gravy]

I had a lot of fun in my friends old early subaru loyal with a low range transfercase. Man that thing could take a beating.

same with those ugly as sin 4wd toyota tercels... only problem is they like to lawn dart when you jump them.

 

[skeptic]

Don't take my comments the wrong way, I've been a long time Jeep owner and if I decide I don't need a truck bed my next vehicle may be a 4-door Wrangler Rubicon..

I guess my question would be then, why would you spend the money on a Rav4 etc when you could get the same mpg plus all the benefits of a Wrangler? I love my TJ and JK around town and on long travel road trips. The Wrangler does all the things those others do but they, in turn, cannot do what the Wrangler does.

Agree completely. I'd take a wrangler over the other options every time.

My Jk 4 door Rubicon pulls 23 mpg and sometimes higher,

If so, you are getting above EPA ratings. New Wrangler EPA ratings are actually pretty good for what it is, but the car-like SUVs are better. Assuming your "better than EPA" driving style transferred to the other options, you'd be close to (over?) 30mpg for some of them.

it rides great and is a convertible as well.

As much of a fan as I am of Wranglers, they do not ride great. Much better than previous models, but they ride rough and are loud compared to car SUVs.

Also, what is the big whoop about ifs? It is all headache to me, cv joints and all that, I will take a solid axle any day.

ifs = better ride, better handling, less offroad ability. It's all about compromise.

 

[jentzschman]

ifs = better ride, better handling, less offroad ability. It's all about compromise.

Define less off road ability? You taking Area BFE, then ya. I have taken my ifs tacoma on 33's through pritchett canyon.

Never broke a ifs axle in my truck and I have wheeled almost all of Moab.

Just sayin'

 

[sixstringsteve]

I guess my question would be then, why would you spend the money on a Rav4 etc when you could get the same mpg plus all the benefits of a Wrangler?

Several reasons.

1. A lot of people have never been in 4lo before and don't need a solid axle, tcase, etc.

2. These little sucs get far better mileage than a wrangler (28-33 MPG)

3. Maybe you already hav a suc and you feel like you can't experience offroading because you don't have a wrangler. Hopefully this thread can shed some light on the fact that you don't need a wrangler to get out and explore.

4. Cost of ownership is way lower, including initial purchase price.

5. The SUCs don't have their own thread and the jeeps have millions of threads. I figure it's time someone looks at them seriously to see what they offer and if they could hack it in the backcountry.

6. Tons of people lift their rigs to just drive gravel roads. For the car-camping on dirt roads that has been called an "expedition", a SUC might be a great alternative.


Does that mean a SUC is superior to a wrangler or other true 4x4? No. Does it mean it sucks offroad because it doesn't have a solid axle front and rear? Maybe, but who knows. Truth be told, they're still plenty capable enough to take a family camping into the back country.