The Big C word, and even though all of our vehicles are compromises of some sort, none of us like to own up to it at first. Myself, I drive a Subaru, and I'll be the first to tell you that it is a compromise. I can't clear rock ledges or boulders, I have no low range, and my suspension articulation is limited, but the creature comforts, the safety afforded by Eye Sight and RAB, the adaptive cruise control, the relative (more on this below) efficiency of even the 3.6R make up for a lot of the downsides.
I got to thinking about this when I was surfing the web with a friend and we stumbled upon the recent unveiling of the 2019 Chevrolet Blazer.
Now the one thing that I would dearly love would be an SUV version of the Duramax ZR-2. That would be a minimally compromised overland vehicle for me. But when I saw the unveiling my hopes evaporated. That Blazer is not a Blazer--it is a fancy. . . Equinox. Why would Chevy do that to a storied nameplate when they have the ZR-2 on which to base an SUV named 'Blazer?'
That of course got us talking. What would be the ideal overland vehicle with the least amount of compromise? He chose a 4-Runner, but as much as I want to like them, I couldn't buy one. My body doesn't fit 4-Runners/Tacomas, and let's just say that coming from a TDI that I sold back to VW (damn them for that cheat!), I just can't go back to sub-20 mpg 'economy.' My 3.6 Outback gets 27-28 on the highway, although what I have planned for it will see that number drop to 25 maybe. Not good. But at least not horrible. Once you get used to a diesel's 600 miles of range, it really is hard to go back to filling up every 400 or so miles. Ouch.
So I'd have to go with a diesel. But I really do love the SUV body style. And we here in the US know full well that there ain't no such thing as a diesel SUV unless you fancy overloading in a poncy Jaguar F-Pace.
"In that case," I told my pal, "I'd consider an old Land Rover Defender 130 or Mercedes-Benz model 461 G-Wagen (the LWB from 1990) with a retrofitted Cummins 2.8." And from then on the wish list grew. He'd want a Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Troop Carrier like Andrew St. Pierre White has. That huge V-8 diesel is, however, heavy, thirsty, and really fills the engine bay. I prefer light, efficient, and small. I do like that AluCab Hercules ASPW has, though. I'd put one on, certainly, even if it meant ripping the roof off of a Defender 130. I believe they call it the Icarus for LRs.
Of course Chevy could've just made a real Blazer out of the ZR-2 . . .
But all of that raises the question: where do you run into compromise with your overloading vehicle? What did you have to give up to gain what you wanted? What's your idea of a least-compromised overloading rig?
I got to thinking about this when I was surfing the web with a friend and we stumbled upon the recent unveiling of the 2019 Chevrolet Blazer.
Now the one thing that I would dearly love would be an SUV version of the Duramax ZR-2. That would be a minimally compromised overland vehicle for me. But when I saw the unveiling my hopes evaporated. That Blazer is not a Blazer--it is a fancy. . . Equinox. Why would Chevy do that to a storied nameplate when they have the ZR-2 on which to base an SUV named 'Blazer?'
That of course got us talking. What would be the ideal overland vehicle with the least amount of compromise? He chose a 4-Runner, but as much as I want to like them, I couldn't buy one. My body doesn't fit 4-Runners/Tacomas, and let's just say that coming from a TDI that I sold back to VW (damn them for that cheat!), I just can't go back to sub-20 mpg 'economy.' My 3.6 Outback gets 27-28 on the highway, although what I have planned for it will see that number drop to 25 maybe. Not good. But at least not horrible. Once you get used to a diesel's 600 miles of range, it really is hard to go back to filling up every 400 or so miles. Ouch.
So I'd have to go with a diesel. But I really do love the SUV body style. And we here in the US know full well that there ain't no such thing as a diesel SUV unless you fancy overloading in a poncy Jaguar F-Pace.
"In that case," I told my pal, "I'd consider an old Land Rover Defender 130 or Mercedes-Benz model 461 G-Wagen (the LWB from 1990) with a retrofitted Cummins 2.8." And from then on the wish list grew. He'd want a Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Troop Carrier like Andrew St. Pierre White has. That huge V-8 diesel is, however, heavy, thirsty, and really fills the engine bay. I prefer light, efficient, and small. I do like that AluCab Hercules ASPW has, though. I'd put one on, certainly, even if it meant ripping the roof off of a Defender 130. I believe they call it the Icarus for LRs.
Of course Chevy could've just made a real Blazer out of the ZR-2 . . .
But all of that raises the question: where do you run into compromise with your overloading vehicle? What did you have to give up to gain what you wanted? What's your idea of a least-compromised overloading rig?
