You forgot one thing: With every new restyle, the price has jumped exponentially. Tacomas and ****ans are edging closer to
$30,000. Have you seen what Toy wants for a ****ing RAV? Give me a break! The auto mfgrs. know that these vehicles (SUVS in
particular as opposed to pickups) hardly ever see dirt. So don't expect any positive changes. The few of us who do go offroad are
the .05% percentile; hence we are overlooked and forgotten. Sad but true. I'd like to just have an old 68 Bronco and Land Cruiser
rather than anything new today, including the Tacoma. Forget Nissan; it's strictly all show and no go.
It must have been back in 1999 I was reading an offroad mag while having a stereo installed in my truck and the big news was that
Jeep was going to dump the Wrangler for something called an Icon. It looked very SUVish with the jellybean shape, eunuch body
construction and diminutive ground clearance. I almost **** when I thought the Wrangler was going bye bye. Well, something must
have obviously changed because the Wrangler stayed and instead we got the Liberty, which looks like a fat RAV. I hope Jeep
doesn't **** with the Wrangler because its one of the few left that has any offroad balls.

"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message oups.com...
: This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
: like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
: range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
: in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
: capability.
:
: Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
: low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
: RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
: forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
: 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
: they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
:
: The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
: over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
: while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
: have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
: went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
: wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
: drivetrain.
:
: Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
: Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
: potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
: mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
:
: A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
: done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
: to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
: less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
: pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
: perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
: needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
: lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
:
: My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
: wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
: usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
: Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
: low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
: car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
: dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
:
: C.T.
: