REAL Off-road built like a tank that doesn't break the bank?

REAL Off-road built like a tank that doesn't break the bank?

Author
Discussion

DH01

820 posts

167 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all


MK1 Cayenne. 4.5s (with Air Suspension) or Turbo. Simply awesome as an everyday car and unstoppable off road with the right tyres.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Stu R said:
Patrols are bombproof if you don't mind the agricultural engine and box. I've had 2 of them, amongst other things. Land cruisers are better but more complex, neither has form for breaking.
More agricultural than a Defender? Hehehe.

Joke aside I don't know what you mean. I have now driven a 2001 Patrol Y61 and don't find it agricultural at all. To the contrary, it's quite comfortable, more so than I thought it would be. Pity it was too rusty and had more on the clock than I'm looking for.

By the way, can anybody tell me if I should be afraid of high mileage Y61 Patrols? What's considered high mileage for them?

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Howitzer said:
No rock, the rear shackle snapped, the back axle turned through 45 degrees and it flipped onto its roof. No more than 60kph when it happened.



I've certainly not got a downer on these cars, I just think safety has come a long long way and the way modern 4X4s are built compared to older styles makes them far safer.

Dave!
Ok if you fall on your head not even crumble zones would have saved you anyway. Totally different situation and quite rare in an urban scenario.

nitrodave

1,262 posts

137 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
mk2 shogun/pajero

Had one for a year and took it off roading every weekend and still used it through the week for commuting.

Never missed a bit and I rolled it on it's side, dunked it 5 feet in water regualrly and grounded it out over boulders often

Impasse

15,099 posts

240 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
J4x4K said:
Totally different situation and quite rare in an urban scenario.
But you're basing your entire purchasing process on an extremely rare situation in an urban area.

SHutchinson

2,040 posts

183 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Impasse said:
J4x4K said:
Totally different situation and quite rare in an urban scenario.
But you're basing your entire purchasing process on an extremely rare situation in an urban area.
Yeah, but a different very specific rare situation. He can exclude the one highlighted above because he isn't planning to encounter that very rare situation.

OP, pick a car, one that you like the look of, then buy it. Unless of course your hobby is asking questions about Y61 Nissan Patrols.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
Fundamentally the only safety advantage ladder chassis 4x4s have is size, weight and height. A current Range Rover (equivalent size, weight and height) with its Monocoque chassis, safety cell and crumple zones etc will be safer in every form of collision than an old ladder chassis 4x4 with no crumple zones. A 4x4 is more likely to ride up over another car (and less likely to suffer the same) but otherwise I maintain a large luxury car like the S-Class, Phaeton etc is safer (I believe the statistics back this up too).
The topic was getting too loaded and people were just ignoring my points. So I decided to speak to a professional, specialist. He confirmed what I was thinking. It just makes sense.

It's all about momentum. A larger and heavier car will generate more momentum at same speeds than a lighter car. Like he said, crumble zones help immensely, but there are types of crash that you would rather be in a car like a Patrol. An exaggerated example is a bus vs a car. The car can have as many crumble zones as it wants, you will be better off in the bus. Now the difference between a bus and car is much larger than between a Patrol and a car. But the example holds to debunk the myth that crumble zones trump all.

Also the height counts. He was saying how there is pressure for manufacturers to make SUVs closer to normal car heights because the higher SUVs although safer for the SUV riders is more dangerous to the car driver. This is probably why we have so many of them useless crossovers. They can be lower. So as he said, in a car as high as the Patrol you also have an advantage over the huge majority of the vehicles out there. The hit will come from the bottom rather than head on. If you have a plate the Patrol will lift up, acting as an absorber of sorts.

In his words, ultimately, crumble zones help but they are there, well, to crumble. They won't help if they crumble till they reach you and smash you. And when colliding with a heavier and larger vehicle this is more prone to happen because the other vehicle has more momentum. So it's again the story of the Patrol using the Ford Focus as it's own personal crumble zone. And he continued...as in the motorway everybody tends to be going at the speed limit, at the same speed the larger and heavier vehicle will always have more momentum.

He also confirmed to me that vehicle vs vehicles is by far the most usual type of collision or auto accident, which I already suspected and tried making the point here but was ignored.

So it basically goes like this:

-Vehicle vs vehicle, which is again the most common type of collision, the Patrol vs 90% of cars driving on European roads, you are probably safer in the Patrol or at least as safe. In the U.S. where a car considered large in Europe is a mere medium-sized car the picture would be only slightly different but still hold. But their roads are not full with Smarts, Lupos, Golfs, Fiestas, Focus, 308 and other Hatchbacks and small-medium cars, which constitutes the majority of the European fleet.

-Against another large vehicle like a truck or SUV, the Patrol is better than in a car or crossover which are lighter and lower.

-Rear ending a lorry or large truck stopped at a red light? You want to be in the Patrol. Your crumble zone won't help you as the rear lorry bumper will hit straight at your windshield.

-Against a tree, if it's a very large tree, the car with crumble zones is better for sure. If a smaller tree, the Patrol could go through it and still drive home with you unhurt. The crumble zone car would need the be tolled but the occupants would off course be safe too.

-Against a concrete wall, the crumble zone car, no doubt! Here the extra momentum becomes your enemy.

-Roll overs you are probably better of in the Patrol too.


Most common accidents is order:

Vehicle vs vehicle in motion
Vehicle vs vehicle with one standing still (rear endings I'm sure)
Vehicle vs stationary objects

Another thing to consider depending where you live is vehicle vs animal or pedestrian. You hit a cow with your car and you will be safe but your car is gone. With a Patrol and a bull bar, you will still be unharmed and you can drive home. There are several reports of this online.

If you research online you will find several reports of Y60 and Y61 hitting all sorts of things like cars, cows, kangaroos and smaller trees at speeds like 100 and coming off unharmed and being able to drive home because their car didn't crumble to the ground. Being rear ended and being able to drive home and not the hospital and with barely a scratch on the Patrol.


As for crash tests and points, like he said, the crash tests also take into consideration how much damage your vehicle inflicts. Crash tests also normally only test hits against stationary objects and here we know the Patrol suffers.

No car will bee 100% great in everything. You have to consider integrity of the car, integrity of the car occupants and integrity of the other car, integrity of the other car occupants. All this counts in those safety scores you see. A Patrol won't score well when it comes to integrity of the other car and integrity of the other car occupants. This will affect the Patrol's score and make it lower. But I would rather be in the Patrol. Sorry for the other occupants. But just don't hit me then. smile

So it bags the question, why not just have the best of both worlds and get a 4x4 which is also heavy but has crumble zones? Well, can you recommend one which fits by budget and is not a wuss or poser?

After searching and searching I have settled on the Patrol as the best option for me.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Impasse said:
But you're basing your entire purchasing process on an extremely rare situation in an urban area.
Which situation is that exactly?

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Impasse said:
Up your budget and buy a Discovery 3.
Now why would I want to do that?

SHutchinson

2,040 posts

183 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
J4x4K said:
Impasse said:
But you're basing your entire purchasing process on an extremely rare situation in an urban area.
Which situation is that exactly?
This one

J4x4K said:
The reason it needs to be built like a tank is because we just had a baby and there are way too many idiots driving out there. We have a case in the family of somebody who was turned into a vegetable by an idiot who hit their car in the back while standing on a red light. So I want to ditch my current car to by a "road tank". I thought an off-road would be the best idea since I also enjoy off-roading.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
S10GTA said:
Has nobody mentioned an XC90 yet?
No. But I would never consider it either. It's a luxury crossover build on a sedan platform with an option for front wheel drive. It's the definition of a poser, a wuss on my book.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
skyrover said:
A defender is your best bet...

They can be soundproofed and upgraded to a fair degree of comfort.

Can bolt on a fair bit of armour as well

Honestly I don't think it can be upgraded enough to not ride like a tractor on asphalt and to be at least as comfy as a Patrol or Land Cruiser. Besides what do you do with Land Rover's horrible track record for reliability? I don't want to be in the shop every other month and pay a fortune for it on top.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
DH01 said:
MK1 Cayenne. 4.5s (with Air Suspension) or Turbo. Simply awesome as an everyday car and unstoppable off road with the right tyres.
To me it's a Chelsea Tractor. Never saw a single one which didn't have Ferrari tires on it. Besides the design is horrible. If I want a Porsche I would buy a real Porsche instead of something that tries to look like one and fails. I would never touch the Cayenne or Panamera. As an off road even less so, just like I would never touch anything from Audi, BMW or Mercedes (apart form the G of course). They are all luxury crossovers/SUVs/off road wannabes.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
SHutchinson said:
J4x4K said:
Impasse said:
But you're basing your entire purchasing process on an extremely rare situation in an urban area.
Which situation is that exactly?
This one

J4x4K said:
The reason it needs to be built like a tank is because we just had a baby and there are way too many idiots driving out there. We have a case in the family of somebody who was turned into a vegetable by an idiot who hit their car in the back while standing on a red light. So I want to ditch my current car to by a "road tank". I thought an off-road would be the best idea since I also enjoy off-roading.
Rear endings is a rare situation? In which planet?

S10GTA

12,645 posts

166 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
J4x4K said:
S10GTA said:
Has nobody mentioned an XC90 yet?
No. But I would never consider it either. It's a luxury crossover build on a sedan platform with an option for front wheel drive. It's the definition of a poser, a wuss on my book.
More utilitarian than poser imho

Impasse

15,099 posts

240 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
J4x4K said:
Impasse said:
Up your budget and buy a Discovery 3.
Now why would I want to do that?
Because if you remove your bewildering prejudices about more modern vehicles, the Disco 3 fulfils your brief perfectly.

K7900

36 posts

191 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
J4x4K said:
DH01 said:
MK1 Cayenne. 4.5s (with Air Suspension) or Turbo. Simply awesome as an everyday car and unstoppable off road with the right tyres.
To me it's a Chelsea Tractor. Never saw a single one which didn't have Ferrari tires on it. Besides the design is horrible. If I want a Porsche I would buy a real Porsche instead of something that tries to look like one and fails. I would never touch the Cayenne or Panamera. As an off road even less so, just like I would never touch anything from Audi, BMW or Mercedes (apart form the G of course). They are all luxury crossovers/SUVs/off road wannabes.
O.K it's a Touareg but practically identical so I'll just leave this here -



IroningMan

10,154 posts

245 months

Tuesday 2nd June 2015
quotequote all
Impasse said:
J4x4K said:
Impasse said:
Up your budget and buy a Discovery 3.
Now why would I want to do that?
Because if you remove your bewildering prejudices about more modern vehicles, the Disco 3 fulfils your brief perfectly.
Yep.

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
S10GTA said:
More utilitarian than poser imho
To me utilitarian would be something like a pick up tuck. But how utilitarian can a car with the option to switch to front wheel drive be?

J4x4K

Original Poster:

235 posts

106 months

Wednesday 3rd June 2015
quotequote all
Impasse said:
Because if you remove your bewildering prejudices about more modern vehicles, the Disco 3 fulfils your brief perfectly.
Look, the problem is not being modern. The problem is the loss of focus. Why does an off roader need plastic body work that severs no purpose and sports tires? I just think an off roader should be tough. We are talking about a type of vehicle that should be built to scrap and scruff. So there is no bewildering prejudices against more modern off roaders. Just objectivity. Why does an off roader need to look like a Range Rover Evoque for example? Answer, it doesn't! If I want that level of fanciness I would just buy a luxury sedan or station wagon. The only reason to buy a fancy SUV over that is to pose, because they are lager/bigger.

It's about keeping the focus and objectivity. Patrol, Land Cruiser etc real off roaders that can be used in the city, Defender is a real off roader that is not a good fit for the city. An Evoque is a Chelsea Tractor which has no real use but to look "good", if you think that looks good. I do not.

To be honest lots of Patrol Y60 and Y61 owners feel the latest Patrol lost the focus too and became too much of a luxury vehicle. Apparently even Nissan knows so as they still see the Y61 new in countries like Australia. People who need the tough and real of roader which is the Y61 buy a new one. People who want more of a Chelsea Tractor buy the latest generation Patrol.

Problem with the Disco is that it is a Land Rover and I don't want to be in the shop every other month or put up with the costs of it. You need to look no past the opinions of Australians about Land Rovers vs Nissans, Toyotas or Mitsubish. They have no national pride tied to neither and they will say Land Rovers are unreliable.

Second problem is that I find the Disco dog ugly. I have said this before. The only Landy I would consider besides the Defender is the Range Rover, the real one, not the Evoque. Third problem is that it is in the small side for me. So just not a good fit for me. Understand?