I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's
(i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into
4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD. I
would qualify this statement by saying that I have owned 4 different
Subaru wagons spa
: 203-254-4000, ext. 3465
Fax: 203-254-4253
--
Please consider wise use of resources
prior to printing this email
> From: Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:23:34 -0400
> Subject: field-worthy SUV
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This is a fairly general ques
gt;
>
> Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
>
> 08/13/2007 12:29 AM
> Please respond to
> Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> To
> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> cc
>
> Subject
I respectfully disagree with Eric on most points in his post. In my job we
are constrained by time and other budgetary matters not to hire enough
porters to carry our stuff into every site in the field, although I have
clambered down enough talus slopes with sixty pounds on my back AFTER a
twenty
x (804)828-0503 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
08/13/2007 12:29 AM
Please respond to
Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Field-Worthy SUV
Eric:
I
Eric:
I have more than a little sympathy for your point; I used to backpack
at one point in my life too, and have only had a 4wd for a few
years. There's no doubt that they can do a lot of damage in the
hands of fools.
But they help us crips get to where we otherwise could not go. I
have a
I still contend that most of us using 4-wheel really do not need it.
Unless you are actually going off road, there is essentially no need for
it. yet, I see tons of biologists who never leave the pavement driving
these things around. Its a status symbol, or it provides a sence of
atmosphere but
I have to concur with the idea of 4 wheel drive being unneccessary for field
work. It tends to make one go where they shouldn't. If you're using 4wd, you
probably degrading a road or trail, and aren't we all here to protect
resources?? I've worked in temperatures and environments from Northern
> ... a differential lock in the rear differential ... would
> make the truck nearly as capable as a 4WD.
This is not really true. My truck has Detroit automatic locking differentials
front and rear, and the rear differential does make a substantial contribution.
But without the front axle e
0 kilometers, perhaps 1/3 of it on unsealed
> > (unpaved) roads of various degrees of roughness, had no breakdowns (well
> > ,the clutch was slipping the last 600 km), one flat tire, and came away
> > loving our vehicle, which we sold to a friend. You must not need to go
> >
We probably don't need 4WD very often, but in my experience, finding out
you need 4WD when you are out in the remote field in a 2WD proves very
inconvenient.
Safe driving!
david
David Baker, Ecologist
Central Oregon Interagency Ecology Program
Deschutes National Forest
1001 SW Em Kay Dr.
Bend, OR
riginal Message-
From: Malcolm McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Field-worthy SUV
Doesn't it strike anyone kind of strange that this discussion about which
SUV to choose popped up right amidst a discuss
Robert (and listserv members),
Here is my two cents worth after years of working (and playing) in the western
US.
My recommendation is that if you need to move mainly people with little gear
over good dirt roads with little actual 4WD use, get a hybrid SUV and try to
stick to a Japanese brand.
bject: Re: Field-worthy SUV
Doesn't it strike anyone kind of strange that this discussion about which
SUV to choose popped up right amidst a discussion about wastefulness? I
suggest that 90% of us using 4-wheel drive SUVs for research really don't
need them. How often do you actually ne
breakdowns (well
> ,the clutch was slipping the last 600 km), one flat tire, and came away
> loving our vehicle, which we sold to a friend. You must not need to go
> fast, as the fuel economy drops. With 2 fuel tanks you have 400+ mile
> range.
> Mike Marsh
>> Subject:
>> Re
ast 600 km), one flat tire, and came away
>loving our vehicle, which we sold to a friend. You must not need to go
>fast, as the fuel economy drops. With 2 fuel tanks you have 400+ mile
>range.
>Mike Marsh
> > Subject:
> > Re: field-worthy SUV
> > From:
> > Willi
ust not need to go
fast, as the fuel economy drops. With 2 fuel tanks you have 400+ mile
range.
Mike Marsh
> Subject:
> Re: field-worthy SUV
> From:
> William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:
> Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:16:59 +0100
>
>
> I'm no expert on this, but
I have worked in the field both in the US and in Central and South America.
Of all the vehicles I have used, the Toyota Tacoma would be the best option.
Small truck, reliable the engine is not that big so mileage is not that
bad and excellent in the mud> I have made the diesels go trough stuff
th
AM
Subject: Re: field-worthy SUV
>I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's
> (i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into
> 4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD.
Our botanists have a Ford Escape Hybrid that gets about 34 mpg and has been
able to handle moderate 4wd conditions. They are very happy with it so
far, although hybrids do come with a price premium.
David Baker, Ecologist
Central Oregon Interagency Ecology Program
Deschutes National Forest
1001 S
I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's
(i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into
4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD. I
would qualify this statement by saying that I have owned 4 different
Subaru wagons spa
Some questions and suggestions based on a long experience with off-highway
travel for professional purposes:
Are you going to be driving on snow-covered or muddy roads? If so, then you
need something with higher road clearance such as a compact 4WD pickup or
2WD pickup with chains -- some of the
There was a hybrid produced by chevy I think.
All the SUVs get crappy mileage.
You might be better to get a light pickup as they will get better mileage.
Throw on a camper shell and you are set.
Unless you need 4 wheel, two wheel small trucks get average to poor mileage.
The fact is, all current
I'm no expert on this, but colleagues who have worked in Africa swear by the
Toyota pickups. They run circles around Land Rovers and the like.
Bill Silvert
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:23 PM
Subj
Hi folks,
This is a fairly general question, but I'm looking for a small- or mid-sized
SUV to serve as a field vehicle. It will be used extensively both on- and
off-highway, although need not be capable of truly ruggged off-roading. A
good amount of rear cargo space would be best (which elimina
25 matches
Mail list logo
