I’ve had my eye on the 4runner for some time as a replacement for my ‘96 Bronco, although honestly the fuel mileage and off-road capability are not much better.
Zaskarx
zaskarx
Ok, phew, was getting worried there for a minute.
Slash sucks?!?! Let me guess, you also hate Miatas, Panthers, and any wagon that also has a manual transmission!
Funny, I always assume that CUV owners must be too old, fat or infirm to get in an out of a car in the same way I never think that someone in beige, velcro, orthotic shoes is preparing to climb Mt. Everest. The last thing I think of is active lifestyle.
There has never been much love the Evoque on this site, convertible top or not. I think people are mostly surprised/disgusted that Land Rover could make such a lame vehicle even worse.
This is a CUV, not an SUV, thus it should not be compared to SUVs that can actually do SUV things. An SUV need not be BOF but it does need to be designed from the ground up for heavy duty use in rugged environments, should be able to tow a reasonable amount etc. BTW there are plenty of BOF SUVs still on the market and…
That’s why people on this site are “butthurt,” should be no surprise to anyone who has spent 5 minutes here. Present a sorry excuse of a car, on a truck site no less, that offers few redeeming qualities and what other reaction would you expect? Come on man.
Best news ever! Looks like my ‘96 Bronco will only have to soldier on for another 5 years. I was starting to worry that I might have to buy a Jeep!
Back to my original point, why would anyone compare this to a Wrangler or Bronco? I don’t know why people are treating those vehicles as a precedent for this abomination. It isn’t an SUV, it is a tallish, horrifically ugly and impractical car.
Because it is the ultimate expression of tacky form over function, misguided style over substance. These are generally abhorrent characteristics to car enthusiasts - more specifically truck enthusiasts.
Yup, you got me, why would anyone want durability, ruggedness, off-road capability, and clean, classic lines in an SUV?
What does a pretentious, porky, tall-car have to do with the most iconic, capable SUVs of all time?
The problem is this isn’t an SUV, it is an unnecessarily tall, tubby car without a roof. It looks ridiculous and has about as much in common with a Bronco or Wrangler as it does a piece of cheese.
Great read, can’t say I am surprised by the results. In sum, don’t send a car to do a 4x4’s job. Hopefully Jeep understands this for the next revision of the Cherokee.
Funny, I was getting tired of the motorcycle stuff interfering with my car and military news.
That’s fine, I’m all for it as long as people are realistic about a car’s capabilities. That said encouraging someone with a sedan or CUV to tackle anything tougher than a well maintained dirt road is irresponsible. It could mean a serious breakdown or accident and a major rescue effort or medevac, not to mention…
It is all relative. Even a base model Wrangler would breeze though trails that stress every component of a crossover. Of course you can find examples of Wranglers and Raptors where failures occurred, but generally that threshold is much, much higher than it is with a crossover or car.
In a word: nope. Just for starters the axle shafts, steering rack, suspension arms, an transmission would be crying for mercy within minutes. Not to mention the bits of body plastic and shards of aluminum from the undercarriage that would trail this thing wherever it went.
Estes rocket