From: johnc@yuma.acns.colostate.edu (John Cooley)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: 4wd sports utility recommendations sought
Summary: Consider a 4wd car rather than an SUV
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:12:54 GMT
Followup-To: rec.autos
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Jul21.030053.11793@cheshire.oxy.edu> traiger@cheshire.oxy.edu (Saul Traiger) writes:
>My father is moving to ski country and seeks advice regarding full and smaller
>sized four wheel drive sports utility vehicles.  His concept of the ideal
>vehicle would be one that is not so high off the ground, that does not have
>such oversized tires, that holds four passengers, that will be used on paved
>surfaces almost 100% of the time, and has anti-locking brakes.  Any ideas on
>models which meet these conditions?

Soapbox mode on:
4wd SUVs are rather specialized vehicles, and it doesn't sound like your father
really needs one.  They are built to have high ground clearance, they generally
(with only one exception that I know of) have high and low range, the 4wd 
system is usually part-time (rear-wheel-drive the rest of the time), they are
fairly heavy, their interior space efficiency is mediocre, and they ride and
handle like little trucks.  High ground clearance and low range are not
required for the usage you describe.  Gas mileage is poor relative to the
interior space and acceleration you get.  Operating expenses are higher.
These things are popular and stylish.  They are probably not the best solution
for most of their owners.
Soapbox mode off.

Instead of an SUV, I would suggest:
Plymouth Voyager/Dodge Caravan minivan.  Automobile-like entry height, large
convenient doors, good ride, large interior capacity (more than *any* SUV,
except a Suburban), available full-time 4wd and anti-lock brakes.  3 liter V-6
gives gas mileage and performance comparable to most "small" SUVs.  No low
range.

Chevrolet Astro or Ford Aerostar.  Many of the same characteristics as Plymouth
Dodge twins, but more trucklike in handling and ride.  Front seat entry not as
convenient on Chevy.  Can pull good-sized trailers.  Ford has 4 liter V-6 with
155? hp and over 220 lb-ft of torque.  Chevrolet has available high output
4.3 liter V-6 with 200 hp and about 260 lb-ft of torque.  Both consume a little
more gas than Chrysler Corp twins.  Available 4wd and anti-lock brakes.  No low
range.

Toyota Previa van.  Again, plenty of interior room.  Only engine is a 2.4
liter inline 4 that may prove slow in the mountains and inadequate for a 
trailer.  Gas mileage is better than the others, though.  4wd without low range
and anti-lock brakes are options.

Any of a variety of 4wd automobiles, mostly of Japanese and German manufacture.
Part-time and full-time systems are available.  Subaru is the only one to offer
a low range in an automobile.  Costs range from $12K or so for a basic Subaru 
Loyale to $60K+ for a Mercedes with a 4-Matic drivetrain.  Much less room
than vans, of course, but you can still carry 4 comfortably and get better
ride, handling and gas mileage.

If skiing really is the priority, keep in mind that 4 people can require an
astonishing amount of stuff to get through a weekend, especially if you're
staying in a cabin or condo and doing your own cooking.  This may make a van
more attractive than a sedan.  A rooftop box, such as those offered by Yakima,
relieves the pressure inside but still keeps the skis safe and grit-free.  At
$600 or more for the rack+box, though, these are not cheap.  Many SUVs are very
short behind the back seat.  They have less luggage space than you might think.

Also, note that the mountain roads, at least in Colorado, are well-maintained.
Many people go skiing just fine in ordinary automobiles.  Front-wheel drive
and a set of cable chains will get you there every time without the expense
and compromises imposed by a sport-utility.  If the road is closed, it doesn't
matter what you're driving.  They still won't let you on it.  No street-legal
4x4 can climb over a mile or two of stalled cars anyway.

I own a utility vehicle.  I have a set of needs which match its capabilities.
It is, however, an unusual set of needs brought on by where I live and the
things I do (and require my vehicle to do) year round.  I am convinced that
most sport-utility owners are paying extra and putting up with shortcomings
and compromises to have capabilities that they use rarely, if at all.  If your
father wants an SUV because it makes him feel good, fine.  But a purely
functional decision will point elsewhere.

    John Cooley

P.S.  I have not updated my voluminous SUV posting lately, but will do so and
repost if there is interest.  In case the address in the header has ".uucp" or
something else appended to it, mail requests to:
      johnc@yuma.acns.colostate.edu