[Marmot]

Michael, Otter and I have had Subarus for years. We're fans of the outback. The ground clearance has not yet been a problem for us, but there have been a couple of places I'd have been less nervous about bottoming out if we'd had a pickup with us. As far as Subarus go, the Forrester has 7.5 inches min ground clearance, and the Outback 7.3 inches. Those both beat the minimum ground clearnace of the '03 Rav4. The Outback's a nicer drive, and would likely be more comfortable to sleep in, as it has more space with the back seats folded down. Of course, you could also look at that new Subaru Baja!

[NavandWife]

[MtnGoat]

"How about a fuel-efficient vehicle to get to the trailheads " this assumes one only goes to trailheads, does not need to haul gear or people or wishes to sleep in the vehicle, or *all* of the above. Which is a lot of assumptions, but is a common position for folks who wish to assume they know what others choose to use their vehicles for and further, how OK it is. For me, I go to trailheads, and non trailheads, and very bad roads and vey good ones, and move lots of people sometimes, and lots of gear other times, and sleep inside it sometimes and not others, and this works out great with enough rig to do everything I want it to do. If Mcaver feels his usage justifies whatever he chooses, that's good enough for me, because judge and jury of his needs, is him, not me. as for your logging in as a guest, I really don't care about that myself because what's important about your post is it's content, not who you are. continue as a guest as you like, I'll continue to engage your ideas and not your choice of identity!

[MCaver]

Off topic but... My only concern with guest posting is that registered members might be doing it to launch attacks on other members anonymously, or at least more anonymous than their well-known login. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I know for a fact it has happened in the past, and in those cases it's pretty cowardly. And because of it, I tend to be skeptical of guest posting. As far as this topic itself goes, it's fair game for discussion just as most other topics. I learn something every time we have these little debates. What I object to is the attitude from Planet Earth's posts.

[MCaver]

[MtnGoat]

Second that on the Sube's, I've heard a lot of good things about them and if you don't need to go on any really nasty roads but only moderately nasty ones, and don't haul a ton of gear it could be just the ticket. I'd be surprised if they weren't long enough in back to move gear to the side or the front seats and get enough space for a comfy sleeping spot

[Marmot]

Mtngoat, I don't think nasty roads would be too much of a problem. Just would rattle the car a bunch. If any current model "mini-suv" could get you there, so would a subi. I did a check, and found that the outback wagon is less .7 inches lower to the ground than the '95 ram 4x4 pickup we just sold. And we've only been on one road (even in my running around for search and rescue) where the Subaru wouldn't have cut it, and on that one we turned around when the front bumper of the truck was plowing the road trying to reach the Mowich entrance to rainier last December.

[Dante]

If I recall correctly, the RAV-4 has also got 7.3 inches of clearance and the EPA rates the subes at 21 mpg city and 27 or 28 highway--about the same as a Ford Escape with the 4-banger. Ford's supposed to be selling a Hybrid Escape this year . . .

[Newt]

I've got a '01 Forester with 83K on it. Gets 28-32 mph. 5 speed. You can sleep in it if you're not 6'10". Has enough clearance to get me most anywhere. Well, I couldn't make it all the way to Mineral City. If I remember right it has a touch more clearance than the Rav 4 and a skosh more cargo area. But not all that much. NN

[Backpacker Joe]

I have been researching this vehicle for a few months now. Ive spoken to four people, two in the U.S. and two in Canada. They all say that they get from 30 to 33 mpg with either the BJ-60 (3.4 liter 4 cylinder) or the HJ-60 (4.0 liter inline 6 cylinder) Toyota land cruiser. This series of vehicle ran from 1980 to 1987. I can get years from 1980 to 1986 imprted into the U.S.. The thing is you only want the '85 and '86 models. They had the upgraded steering and brakes. I'm in the process of buying a 1987 ( I dont know how he imported it) HJ-60 from a guy in Utah. This rig already has the AXT turbo kit installed. I met a guy in Victoria B.C. that rebuilds and restores land cruisers. Then he imports them into the U.S. Here are some links for Cruisers. http://www.sor.com http://www.man-a-fre.com http://shop.store.yahoo.com/coolfj40/abcoolcruis.html http://www.bitwalla.com/cruisers/info/ http://www.acme-outfitters.com/library.html http://www.4xforum.co.za/vguide/cruiser_sw.html

[Dante]

Those Diesel Land Cruisers are tempting. There's not much more room in the back of the Forester than in my Golf (half an inch more shoulder room and an inch more legroom according to Consumer Reports). The Land Cruisers on the other hand seat six adults with luggage. I could buy a restored '86, sell the Golf and put the change in the bank (although with an older vehicle I'd probably need it eventually for repairs). Hmm . . .

[Planet Earth]

hey Mcaver and MtnGoat, Somehow my "devil's advocate" comments went too far and were interpreted wrong. Not trying to attack people, just ideas. The original subject was about trailhead cars. I'm sure you both will actually use them, unlike most owners. My comments were for the billions of readers of this website who (like many Americans) will jump on the bigger-car-is-better bandwagon. In other places of this world, such a vehicle is extremely uncommon. And I'm talking about first world countries. For everyone else out there except you two: Have you considered the minimum requirement to meet your needs? Driving a large car does leave a trace in our environment. If you are carting around lots of people, a large car is appropriate. If you are going solo... is it? Can you get to the places you enjoy with less technology? And why is the simplest activity in the world -- walking -- such a high tech sport? Why do we need fancy gear to hike in the woods? What's wrong with wool shirts, surplus pants, a poncho, an old pack? OK, a digital camera because it's cheaper, so that makes sense. I hope you can step back and try to understand my point. We live in a techno world... some go hiking to escape from that... but we are too scared to let go of the comforts of big city life. We should not be scared. We should embrace the simpleness, the beauty of living with less, the purity of human-powered travel to lonely places.

[MtnGoat]

fair enough, I appreciate your post Planet Earth. As for those of other first world nations and their vehicles, it's not as simple as them just choosing smaller vehicles, for one thing they are coerced by the countries they reside in with respect to tax policy and such, they are products of the thinking of different cultures, and also live largely in nations densely populated for millenia which lack the wide open spaces and oppotunity to travel long distances in sparsely populated areas. I could go further with respect to the aspect of social coercion but in the interest of brevity I will not, unless provoked! I find the assumption of reasons why other people choose their vehicles highly problematic and often based on much innuendo. Those who choose large vehicles and do not find them useful eventually rid themselves of them anyway, for any number of reasons, expenses, fuel mileage, parking, manuverability. I cannot bring myself to believe anyone stays with a large vehicle unless they actually find it meets some standard they use for it's usage. Thanks for the illumination contained in your post, it helps a lot.

[#19]

[Dante]

Some people golf. Some people think that is silly in and of itself. Lots of golfers spend lots of money on golfing books, magazines, tapes, equipment, clothing, etc. not to mention memberships and greens fees. Some think that is silly. Some people spend lots of money on boats, 4x4s or snowmobiles and others think that's silly. Some people hike. Some hikers spend more money on gear than others. Their money, their choice IMO. Maybe those of us who spend more on gear should quit hiking and take up golfing or another sport/hobby whose members are more tolerant of gear freaks