|
nostalgia
Sep 8, 2004, 11:43 PM
Post #26 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2004
Posts: 793
|
Most of my working-age life was spent managing an auto parts store. If I had to choose, it'd be the Tacoma. We were always astounded by the tales of reliability and ruggedness of these little devils.
When it came time to replace my aging '93 S-10 Blazer, I bought an '04 Tacoma. I bought the cheapest thing they had on the floor and I'm pleased as punch with it. I spent $200 to get a soft tonneau cover for it, and off I went.
Edited to say: That's not to say that you can go wrong with a Forester. We're considering one to replace our Protege5. Subaru makes a very good car. You should check out Consumer Reports. In the end, I think it'll just come down to which car you feel gives you what you want for what you want to pay.
-Joe
|
|
|
|
|
dm
Sep 8, 2004, 11:43 PM
Post #27 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2004
Posts: 90
|
Well, a Toyota or any pickup truck, a 4-runner etc. can take some real beating without serious consequences. I've seen people taking Forresters on pretty rough trails but you have to be a very careful (and skillful) driver to avoid damage. Gas mileage is the only issue with trucks as far as I'm concerned (if you don't care how comfortable the ride is). If this is going to be your second car and you are keeping your Corolla, I'd go with a truck.
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Sep 8, 2004, 11:53 PM
Post #28 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: yeah, forester is classified as mini SUV, my insurance comp quated it the same, only slightly more though, and that was the XT....VROOOOOOOOOOOM OH BABY THAT THINGS A SCREAMER.....pant pant, sorry got a little carried away there with my 1/3 life fantasy.....
I don't recall any insurance difference for mine (vs Outback wagon), but my Forester isn't a turbo. I think I checked, because I was considering both. People "know" that SUVs cost more to insure, and that the Forester is an SUV. SUV label is pretty vague though.
IIRC, the Forester is the only SUV approved by the SCCA for autocross. It's probably the most common at the dragstrip too. Gotta be more fun than a Taco on the pavement...
|
|
|
|
|
jerrygarcia
Sep 9, 2004, 12:02 AM
Post #29 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 837
|
98' Subaru Imprezza Outback Sport. Handles really well, 400+ miles to a 15 gallon tank, no major problems @ 90k miles, perfect for 2 people, offroads well accept for the height travel but dont let that discourage you.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=32862
|
|
|
|
|
hosebeats
Sep 9, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #30 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 83
|
El Camino!!!
|
|
|
|
|
addoil
Sep 9, 2004, 1:03 AM
Post #31 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 14
|
The rangers I met in South Africa swore by Toyota--and these cars took a serious beating.
If you could find a diesel land cruiser pickup in the states you would be set. BTW I would encourage everyone to consider going diesel for money and the environment (bio-diesel, mpg etc).
|
|
|
|
|
buckmanriver
Sep 9, 2004, 1:06 AM
Post #32 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 45
|
check out the new 2005 Toyota Tacoma X-runner
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/04february/21_2005tacoma.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/04february/toyota_tacoma_xrunner.asp&h=186&w=280&sz=13&tbnid=E6QnCYUQGAcJ:&tbnh=72&tbnw=108&start=16&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2005%2BToyota%2BTacoma%2BX-runner%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG
i want the truck
|
|
|
|
|
walllizzard
Sep 9, 2004, 1:13 AM
Post #33 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 119
|
go for the Subaru Legacy Outback. With the current trends in gas prices you wont go wrong. Subaru completely redesigned the 05. I wish i would have waited. I have a 04 Legacy Outback wagon, bought brand new. I had a 96 legacy wagon, got rid of it with 185,000 and no significant troubles. Just so ya know some figures, the new 05 Outback have 8.4" of ground clearence, are larger than last yrs models, have tons of cargo space, hadle like a dream, get anywhere from 24-32 MPG and if ya want more power you can get the 250 HP turbo and let me tell ya they are a kick to drive. well ill get off my subie soapbox. I guess my point is Outback wagon is a great choice of form/ function, good MPG at a reasonable price $21-26,000.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Sep 9, 2004, 1:35 AM
Post #34 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Here is an e-mail I sent to my brother asking about the Forester:
In reply to: The[Outbacks] are a little more expensive, but from what I have read, they are more reliable [than the Forester]. Basically, the Forester has only been around since '98, while the Outback is just a variation on the Legacy which has been around forever. Any time a car manufacturer comes out with a new model there are always bugs. I found a couple websites where people can write in about cars they have purchased, and I found a whole bunch of complaints on the Forester. I got the impression that the Forester has not been around long enough for them to work out all the bugs. http://www.carsurvey.org/...facturer_Subaru.html http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/.../recalls/results.cfm The Forester does have the advantage of more ground clearance and better driving visibility, but aside from that, the Outback is superior in all categories. I'm not sure what you would need the extra ground clearance for anyway. I'm really satisfied with the Outback, so far. Ours is a '99. It has pretty good power for a rice burner, and handles very well on snow and ice. We also have four wheel, anti-lock disk brakes, which you don't get with the Forester, unless you get the "S" version. If you're looking at used ones, make sure that all the tires are matching. This is very important. All four tires need to be the same brand and model and have roughly the same wear. This is a consequence of the AWD system. This is also something to think about when considering one of these vehicles. If you blow a tire and the tire can't be patched (happens when the hole is in the side wall), you will have to replace all four tires at once. Apparently, the AWD system can be severely damaged if the tires are not all matching. Also look to see if there is irregular wear on the tires. One of the cars I looked at had very bad wear on the outside edge of both rear tires. I took that as a sign that there was something wrong with the AWD system. I may have been over reacting, but at a minimum, it meant that vehicle would burn through tires and get reduced mileage. If you still want to go with the forester, some common problems are faulty wheel bearings, and leaking automatic transmissions. You can read about that on the carsurvey.org webstie. It was enough to make me run the other way. On the other hand, the Legacy/Outback has a long history of great reliability, but you will pay $1k-$2k more for an Outback over a Forester. Hope that helps...good luck
Those Toyotas seem nice, but I think you should really consider your usage of the vehicle. What percentage of the time will you be driving on roads that a subaru can't handle? I would argue less than one tenth of one percent. For the money you save on gas annually, you could probably rent a jeep for your once a year trip into monument basement. All the rest of the time you will be annoyed by the louder ride and lousier handling. Furthermore, if you drive in snow, a 4wd truck handles like crap. If it's a pickup, you will have to load down the back to keep from fishtailing, the suv's you will have to be constantly switching in and out of 4x4, no problem with a suby.
Considering that people are dying around the world so that we can pump more oil into our SUV's, I think every patriotic american should sacrifice some capability to conserve gas!!!
|
|
|
|
|
tyify
Sep 9, 2004, 2:27 AM
Post #35 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 905
|
I would go with the Toyota. Simply put they make vehicles that will run forever and take a hell of a lot of abuse. I have a 88' Toyota Tercel Hatchback that has 186,000 miles on it and works AWESOME. I've never had any problems with it. The new 4runners are great and I would suggest you get one of those.
|
|
|
|
|
buckmanriver
Sep 9, 2004, 2:36 AM
Post #36 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2004
Posts: 45
|
I plan to live out of a Toyota Tacoma. For 18 it is like a house on that moves to the entire climbing places. I know a few climbers that just live by there favert climbing place all summer. If you like off roading you will spend much more time on roads that the Subaru cannot handle. In Colorado winters you cant drive through a foot of snow in a Subaru that car will hi center so fast.
|
|
|
|
|
rockbel
Sep 9, 2004, 3:28 AM
Post #37 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 90
|
Well, I promised myself that I would respond to each of these threads because I honestly think Forresters are great vehicals. We walked away from a potentially fatal crash without a scratch because of it's solid construction. I've also taken a couple of nation-spanning trips in it (prior to the crash) and was perfectly comfortable the entire time. I would say go Forrester...but Toyotas are my second choice: roomie has had hers for 10 years and it's going strong.
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Sep 9, 2004, 3:44 AM
Post #38 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
These are the kinds of roads for which I am considering said purchase: sand/mud/snow or rocky / rutted jeep trails
so far, it's narrowing down between 4runner and tacoma. i like trucks more (i'm from texas - what do you expect), but i also worry about fish-tailing. (again, i'm from texas - what the hell do i know about driving in ice/snow). i dont want to rent something because that's one more logistical concern for planning a trip.
someone brought up insurance, and that's a good point. no need in buying something that i cant afford to insure.
In reply to: Commuting in Long Island with a stick shift truck isn't a blast but you get used to it. Out west its more fun.
In reply to: Get a Taco, you need a truck that climbs as hard as you do
In reply to: you have to be a very careful (and skillful) driver to avoid damage.
In reply to: I think you should really consider your usage of the vehicle.
In reply to: More or less you are just gonna need a truck bed when you need to move a ton of mulch or gravel-that I wouldn't put in the outback
PS - For those concerned with having fun on pavement, it will likely be time to replace the commuter vehicle by the time I pay off the play vehicle. I'll get something with zip then. Right now, I just need something with enough kick to get up Vail pass without feeling like I'll slide backwards if I go higher than third gear. :?
maybe i'll get the subie then. ;)
so, duke it out between 4runners and tacomas now. on your mark, get set, go!
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Sep 9, 2004, 4:35 AM
Post #39 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Well I can definitely weigh in on this topic. It's no secret that I own and love a '95 Toyota 4Runner, fondly known as the "Epic Mobile." It's a perfect match for me and my driving needs on the weekends. Like you, I was looking for a vehicle that was tough as nails and could be my road trip sanctuary. It's not just a ride -- it's my trusty climbing companion , and we never go anywhere without each other.
I plan to keep it in the family for many years to come and have already sunk THOUSANDS of dollars into it to modify it into the road-tripping-off-road-monster that it is today. This isn't to say you should follow in my foot-steps, but the aftermarket products that are available for modifying 4Runners and Tacomas are just mindboggling. There are several websites devoted to nutbags like me who just never know when to stop building out their ride.
As for which model of Toyota to get, there are some important facts to understand. The second generation 4Runner was built from 90-95 and is powered by the notorious 3.0L (3.slow) V6. No one buys one of these vehicles for the horsies under the hood. They buy them because they are reasonably cheap and they are more "utility" in their function than the 3rd generation 4Runners. The 2nd gen engine is also notorious for blowing a head gasket, resulting in very costly engine repairs. The 3VZ-E engine is widely known as the worst production engine Toyota has ever built. They did have a recall for most of these engines that were manufactured from 90-94 and will still, to this day, repair or replace the engine if the original head gasket fails. If you buy one of these, run a Carfax report to see (1) if it has had the recall work done, and (2) if the VIN number for the vehicle you're looking at falls in the range of VINs that are covered by warranty. My '95 was not, and when the head gasket failed I had to put a new engine in with my own dollars.
This same model engine was also an option for Toyota trucks from 91-96. It wasn't until 97 that Toyota started building the first "Tacoma" trucks and dropped a new 3.4L engine into those. This is the same engine that is in the 3rd generation 4Runners starting in the '96 model.
So here's my recommendation -- I love my 2nd generation 4Runner, but it has taken me a lot of time and dollars to get it some horsepower (and it's still a dog, frankly). If I were you, I'd look into buying a 3rd generation 4Runner (96-02) or a 1st generation Tacoma (97-03). The added horsepower and reliability will cost you more bucks, but will probably pay off in peace of mind and increased performance for those mountain drives. In particular, the '98 model of either vehicle is considered an optimal value in todays market.
As to which one? Get the 4Runner if you like have quick, easy access to your gear and you want to accomodate the occasional adult + gear/animals. Get the Tacoma if you like living out of the back of a truck and fishing for gear in the rain. Both perform capably off-road and have similar ground clearance, but the truck can be found with a variety of off-road performance packages. If you do go with the truck, at least make sure you get an extended cab for added versatility.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
bbziger
Sep 9, 2004, 4:42 AM
Post #40 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 92
|
In reply to: ... so far, it's narrowing down between 4runner and tacoma...
Looking strictly at off-road performance for the more current model years, the Tacoma 4x4 is superior to the 4Runner in its stock form. The 4Runner has been seriously yuppiefied in recent years.
Four Wheeler magazine compared a stock Tacoma, Jeep TJ, Hummer, and Land Rover Discovery. Guess which one offered the best all around off-road performace? That’s right. Go Yota! The new Jeep Rubicon would probably win that comparison now, but you're not considering that one... Anyway, here’s the article:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/...sts/16558/index.html
If you’re buying new, spring for the TRD off-road package. You get an electric rear locker that can get you out of some sticky situations (or help you avoid them). With the package, you also get slightly better shocks/coils, although serious four wheelers normally end up upgrading their suspensions anyway.
My Tacoma is still 100 percent stock, and I'm continually amazed by what it can do off-road. It's a great vehicle.
BBB
|
|
|
|
|
cgailey
Sep 9, 2004, 5:54 AM
Post #41 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 585
|
Own a Sub Legacy...want a Yota Tacoma. I love my subey...211,000 miles and still going strong. I can load the thing up with gear, but I just have too much anymore. Climbing gear, skis, boards, 3 bikes...I need more space. Anyone wanna trade for a pickeyup?
Honestly I don't think you can go wrong with either subaru or toyota...they are both excellently manufactured vehicles...after all, they are made in the states... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
hema
Sep 9, 2004, 8:14 AM
Post #42 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 251
|
For my 0,02 pence I would forget those SUV (Toytota, Subaru) and get a real 4X4, like Toytota Land Cruiser, Range Rover, Land Rover Defender or Jeep Wrangler.
If after something a bit more sophisticated a Mitsubishi Pajero might be an option (whenyou get it with locking diff, and hydraulic hub locks).
Then again I have often hear the frase "How did you get that car there?", when driving with my 20 year old Saab. Oh and that car has over 350 000 km onit and still running on original parts (not counting brakes).
|
|
|
|
|
climballnight
Sep 9, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #43 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Posts: 102
|
Hi amber_chk,
My roommate has a V6 2WD 2002 Tundra and he's been pretty happy with it. He's extremely practical and really did his homework in making that decision. It gets decent gas mileage, but I wouldn't really take it off road in sand with 2WD or try to pull a boat too far with it. I just don't think it has that kind of mass or power. (If you'd ever consider that.)
I know some folks at work (more than one, can you believe it?!) that have the TRD Off Road V8 Tundra's, and one with a TRD Tacoma. For either one (depending on size preference) I'd go with 4WD and TRD if you're looking at getting a truck. They don't get quite the gas mileage with 4WD, but it's a must in the desert where they go to ride motorcycles and you'll appreciate the power and suspention of the Off Road Package.
I have a 2003 4WD Trailblazer LTZ that I've been really happy with, but they are a bit pricey and the extra mass it has has both benefits and drawbacks.
Sounds like you'll have fun with whatever you end up getting... if you don't get coal this Christmas. j/k :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
calamity_chk
Sep 9, 2004, 3:24 PM
Post #44 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 7994
|
Ed - WOW. I'll be posting some follow-up questions about engine stuff on my lunch break.
Also, a couple of people have commented about getting a 'real' off-road vehicle. Off-roading isnt my sport; climbing is. I just need something strong and reliable to get me to some of the more remote climbing destinations that I foresee in my future. I've already been in a couple of dicey situations with my Corolla, and I'd rather not get stuck in the middle of the desert with no one around - which is likely to happen if I dont get a vehicle with better clearance and 4WD and/or AWD.
Speaking of, can anyone break down the 4WD vs AWD thing for me? Do any of you have strong opinions about either/or?
If I end up getting the truck, it will definitely be with the TRD package. If I'm gonna drop (err, Santa is gonna drop) $20k (or more) for a vehicle, I'm not gonna get something that "might" work "most" of the time. I dont want to go overboard with a bunch of stuff that I dont need, but I do want something that will get the job done for years to come.
PS. You guys rule. You deserve free beer!
|
|
|
|
|
euroford
Sep 9, 2004, 3:34 PM
Post #45 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 2913
|
under the context of what your looking at i would definitly vote for the tacoma, if you can live with the comprimises of a truck and/or get use out of its bed. i've seriously contemplated getting one and doing the bed topper/bed shelves modifications. for whatever reason, the 4run has never appealed to me, but i know allot of poeple have been very happy with them.
on the other hand, for simular needs i've been seriously looking at getting a land rover disco II. i just really like them, and they have an impressive aftermarket. they are also small, so would be easier to drive here in chicago. (i'm not a suberban person, i actually live in the city, so driving is kinda crazy).
i've also considered a mitsubishi montero. many of the older ones seam to have a real cult following, they are capable, and can be had for CHEAP.
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
Sep 9, 2004, 4:51 PM
Post #46 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 354
|
As other people have mentioned, there are other options. For example, my '94 Cherokee Sport has a 189K and runs like a champ. Haven't had any major repairs. I get about 400 miles to a tank (22 gallon). Cherokees are more comfortable then Wranglers and can still do some serious 4bying, and they kick ass in the snow. Yes, I know, Tacoma's are the coolest trendiest truck to have now (for many legitimate reasons), but there are other options.
|
|
|
|
|
bbziger
Sep 9, 2004, 5:05 PM
Post #47 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 92
|
In reply to: ... Speaking of, can anyone break down the 4WD vs AWD thing for me? Do any of you have strong opinions about either/or? ...
I’m not a mechanic, I just like to play with my truck. That being said, here is my understanding of the two systems.
AWD = All wheel drive. This is what Subaru uses. It means that power is provided to both the front and rear wheels nearly all the time. You normally cannot manually disengage an AWD system. AWD systems have a center differential that allows the front and rear wheels to turn at different speeds. This prevents tension from building up in the drivetrain when you’re making turns on dry pavement. Generally, AWD systems are designed more for street use than for serious off-roading. They provide you with increased traction on wet, snowy, or dirt-covered roads and you don’t have to hassle with engaging or disengaging the system. However, this system has some limitations on serious off-road trails.
4WD (or 4x4)= Four wheel drive. This is what the Tacoma and 4Runner use. This system has a transfer case that lets you engage or disengage the 4WD system as appropriate. Traditionally, for street use on dry pavement, the 4WD system is not engaged so power is only provided to the rear wheels. When you go offroad or encounter slippery driving, you engage the 4WD system. Most newer models let you engage the 4WD from the comfort of the driver’s seat with a simple push of a button. I’ve been told that the newer 4Runner models have an option for “full-time 4WD” that lets you keep the 4WD engaged even on dry pavement if you choose to. I’m sure this adds to the cost of the vehicle.
Most 4WD vehicles (including the Tacoma and 4Runner) have a “4-low” gearing that provides you with increased torque for very rough terrain. 4-low will help you crawl up a steep, rutted, and rocky jeep trail, where you could stall out in 4-high. You’ll be impressed by where you can go with the 4-low engaged!
With a basic 4WD system, you have open differentials between the right and left wheels. This can create a situation where only one of your front wheels and one of your back wheels is turning (for example, if you’re stuck in deep sand, or on a deeply rutted trail where your tires might be off the ground at times). A few people have mentioned the locker that comes with the Tacoma TRD. This allows you to lock the rear differential, so that both of your rear wheels are turning. With the locker engaged, power will be fed to at least three of your four wheels at all times. This gives you significantly improved traction over an open differential system.
Some vehicles come with limited slip differentials (maybe an option on the newer 4Runners?) which function like automatic lockers. The disadvantage to this system is that it does not let you manually lock the differential as a preventative measure on a rough trail. It only locks once your wheels have already started slipping.
BBB
|
|
|
|
|
mmckinney
Sep 9, 2004, 5:17 PM
Post #48 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 113
|
i have a 92 4runner... and i am really happy with it. i can sleep in the back, plenty of room for gear...and it gets me everywhere i want to go. the rig has lots of miles on it and is going strong.
|
|
|
|
|
nnichols
Sep 9, 2004, 5:17 PM
Post #49 of 103
(7430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 800
|
Hey Amber,
Just another opinion. I test-drove the Tacoma last fall when looking for a new vehicle. I loved the way it drove and I'm sold on Toyota's reliability and performance; however, I decided the inside was just too small for what I was looking for. I would have loved to buy the 4-Runner but it was a little out of my price range. So, I ended up purchasing an X-terra SE Supercharged. I truly enjoy it and have taken it off-road (down in Mexico, no less). BUT, if I had the $$$$, I would get a 4-Runner without hesitation.
Have fun :). By the way, how's CO? The weather down here has been stangely cool this summer and it is fantastic. Of course, the climbing still bites, but hey, you learn to live with it. Or, just drive to Mexico as often as possible :).
|
|
|
|
|
|
