Need New Geocache Vehicle.

[Bobthearch]

re: Joefrog

 

I had a 94 Mercury Cougar with the V8. It did get 26-ish. That car was much heavier than the earlier Cougars and it didn't have the quality electronics of the Mark VIII. And the Mark VIII takes Premium, which is part of the equation.

 

The '95 Mark VIII, '95 Cougar, and '95 Thunderbird all weigh about the same. The Cougar and T-bird were mostly identical; the Mark VIII is similarly styled and sized, but shares few parts.

 

-Bob

Edited March 10, 2004 by Bobthearch

[Bobthearch]

HaHaHaHaHaHa.

 

A sweet V8 Mustang with 28 mpg, or a new Honda-thingy that gets 25. That's a no-brainer. I'll take the Mustang and invest the extra $15,000 in a kick-a** GPS!

 

Gotta Go,

-Bob

[+Mopar]

Why do you think a V8 shouldn't get good mileage?  A smaller engine has to work a ~lot~ harder.  For instance, at 75 mph the Lincoln's engine is barely turning 2000 r.p.m. 

 

I drove a loaner (truck was hit by old guy) Hyundai this week and the poor engine ran over 3000 r.p.m. continuously....  And that thing had a ~tiny~ tank.  Darn nearly ran out of gas just going on a five-hour drive.

 

Best Wishes,

-Bob

I gotta agree with this. Take the MPG on bob's 4.6L 280HP V8:

MPG (city) 18 

MPG (highway) 25 

MPG (combined) 20

Now, compare that to my mid-sze luxury car's 3.0L 140HP V6:

MPG (city) 20 

MPG (highway) 28 

MPG (combined) 23

Pretty close, considering Bob's car weighs more and has 2x the horsepower (interestingly, my Labaron is only 1 cubic foot behind the Lincoln in total passenger/storage volume ) as my car.

 

Now, look at Geo Ho's Honda CR-V with a 2.0L 4 cyl 126HP(our primary caching vehicle)

MPG (city) 22 

MPG (highway) 25 

MPG (combined) 23

Even with the overdrive, that little engine has to work hard to move the CR-V. Whereas most cars/trucks I've owned (and I've had some serious gas guzzlers) really come into their own at high speed, the CR-V's mpg at 75-80mph is probably WORSE then around town. You can almost watch the fuel gauge dropping as you drive.

 

All that aside, the CR-V is our cache car. The AWD, the higher ground clearance, and the storage room for packs and stuff makes it a no-brainer when caching.

Edited March 10, 2004 by Mopar

[+SamLowrey]

Ughhh!

 

Every time I drive around I wonder "Who buys all these ugly station wagons!" Now I know - it's Geocachers! You know the station wagon your parents had in 1975 and it was the least-cool thing on the entire planet? SUVs and mini-vans are a modern re-incarnation. Un-cool!

 

In many cases, they are more like minivans but most men don't want to be caught driving a minivan. Apparently, even calling it a "Honda CR-V" is enough of a fig leaf. J/K Brian - just some good natured ribbing.

[+Halden]

I'll take:

 

MPG 60 city

MPG 51 highway

MPG 55 combined

 

Toyota Prius

[+SamLowrey]

Very interesting about speed and MPG. I've often mused about what the "milage" was if you just ran a tank of gas through the car idling. ZERO! As mentioned, the "slower is better" concept does not tell the whole story. When discussing it with others, it seems they get to the point where increase fuel consumption is shown and then jump to the conclusion. Well, even though you increase fuel consumption, you are also increasing mile "consumption" with higher speed.

[Bobthearch]

Don't forget, an early Mark VIII was driven 180 m.p.h. at the salt flats! Try that with an s.u.v ~or~ a LeBaron. The later Mark VIII have a govenor at 125 m.p.h.

 

I like the Lebaron. Test drove one, but bought the '94 Cougar instead. The LeBaron was smaller and sportier and the V6 got that thing going pretty quick. What nearly had me was push a button, and the LeBaron roof slid into the trunk! Way cool. Was just coming off a lemon Dodge truck and didn't want another Chrysler product right away...

 

The thing about SUVs is that they suck at all the things a car is good at, and they suck at all the things a truck is good at. It's a poor compromise...

 

A Mog truck would be ~perfect~ for caching!

 

By the way: The e.p.a. for an '04 Ford F150 with four-wheel-drive and a V8 is 19 m.p.g. You can put ~way~ more hobby supplies and caching gear in one of those than ANY suv. The fuel economy difference is a small price to pay, when comparing the capabilty of a real truck to a mini-suv.

 

If an F150 can get nearly 20 m.p.g., there's no reason those CR-V/Forester/Rav4/ things can't get at least 40!

 

-Bob

[+maleki]

Hyundai Sante Fe

 

10 year warranty

[+xenophon10k]

As for the ugliest SUV, didn't Pontiac have the lifetime achievement award with the Aztec that was out a couple of years ago ??

That was an SUV?? I thought that was just an over-inflated Le-Mans!

 

My wife is interested in the Hyundai Santa Fe.

[Bobthearch]

Toyota Prius: what can you do with that?

 

At 51 mpg highway and an 11 gallon tank, you're not going to get any further between stops than I am. I drove a Metro (rental) one time, and those are supposed to get good mileage. But to get that thing to keep moving at highway speeds, the revs were maxed out all the time and it ~drank~ the gas. I bet it only got half of the e.p.a. estimate. And because the tank was a small goldfish bowl I had to refuel every 2 hours!

 

I bet the Prius has a niche market in some areas, but like everything Toyota model, they'll mass produce it at such astounding rates it'll become completely blah - like the PT Cruiser and the Exterra.

 

And the msrp is $20,000! That seems disproportionately high considering the poor performance, styling, comfort, and features. Seems like they should be closer to the two-hundred dollar range.

 

What do you do when you're cruising on the Interstate at 80 mph and some old Ford in front of you is poking along at 75, and you're on a steep mountain climb in Colorado. Do you punch it and fly around?

 

-Bob

[+SamLowrey]

Don't forget, an early Mark VIII was driven 180 m.p.h. at the salt flats!  Try that with an s.u.v ~or~ a LeBaron.  The later Mark VIII have a govenor at 125 m.p.h.

 

My Dad had a '71 Mark III. Lead sled with a big engine and huge trunk....huge everything. Rock solid at 70 MPH. My dad claims it had anti-lock brakes, but I'm not sure about that.

 

I like the Lebaron.  Test drove one, but bought the '94 Cougar instead.  The LeBaron was smaller and sportier and the V6 got that thing going pretty quick.  What nearly had me was push a button, and the LeBaron roof slid into the trunk!  Way cool.  Was just coming off a lemon Dodge truck and didn't want another Chrysler product right away...

 

Convertable hardtop? I think the '58 Chevy had that. Some car in the late 50's did.

 

The thing about SUVs is that they suck at all the things a car is good at, and they suck at all the things a truck is good at.  It's a poor compromise...

 

My point is that with all the stuff we oo and ahh about today have been in cars for a while and if the industry had kept up, we might have something with variable wheelbase that might better compromise between highway and off-road. Or what about those flying cars......

 

By the way:  The e.p.a. for an '04 Ford F150 with four-wheel-drive and a V8 is 19 m.p.g.  You can put ~way~ more hobby supplies and caching gear in one of those than ANY suv.  The fuel economy difference is a small price to pay, when comparing the capabilty of a real truck to a mini-suv.

 

If an F150 can get nearly 20 m.p.g., there's no reason those CR-V/Forester/Rav4/ things can't get at least 40!

 

-Bob

 

Yeah, and have it sliding around, rained on or stolen..... SUV's have a place. But that is a good point about the disparity in MPG - I don't get it.

[+Mopar]

Bob, notice I refer to the CR-V as a car, not a truck OR SUV.

I've owned several "real" SUVs, only back then only the federal govt called them SUVs, we called them "trucks".

FWIW, my old '78 Ramcharger, with a worked 440 V8 from a '69 Roadrunner, full time 4x4, 4:56 gears, 9 inch lift, and 40inch ground hawgs only got about 3mpg city, and maybe 5-6mpg highway on 93 octane fuel. But it sure was fun blowing away those Trans Ams at a traffic light while towing my boat!

[+Mopar]

Convertable hardtop? I think the '58 Chevy had that. Some car in the late 50's did.

Ford Skyliner

 

[Bobthearch]

I'm sure my Mark VIII has very little in common with it's Mark III ancestors. Here's some photos of the '95:

 

http://www.markviii.org/LOD2/1995m.htm

 

The LeBaron was a soft-top convertable, but at a push of the button it folded up into the back.

 

We have a camper shell on our F150. Plus it's a super-cab. You can put valuables in the back seat, where they'r just a secure as inside any other vehicle. Personally, I hate the camper shell. It looks like some old people on vacation. But it's wife's truck and she won't let me throw it away. The supercab is wonderful to have, especially for the dogs.

 

-Bob

[+TotemLake]

Ease up dude. They're good vehicles for what they were designed for.

 

Yes, sorry.

 

The Subaru does do well on ice, and they are very popular with the Santa Fe hippy-yuppie types. But I saw one blow up once on a steep hill in the snow. Plenty of traction, but not enough clearance to get over the snow and not enough power to push through. Something burst...

 

If Subaru had a touring-sport coupe with a V8, all-wheel drive, and a classy interior, I'd not dog on 'em so much.

 

400 lbs is really nothing, about the weight of the average non-geocaching American.

 

Later,

Bob

Yah - I know... you do have to stay within the limits of the wheels you're driving. 400 lbs was the max I could do with the little room I had. I missed my mini-van for that very reason, but where the mini-van had to have a good running start to make it up one very steep and loose grade, I felt very comfortable stopping and starting in the middle of it in the Subaru. Now I have my GC Jeep Laredo 4x4 and I'm very pleased with its capabilities that I intended it for.

 

I agree about a bigger Subaru. I called them on it several months ago... alas noting in the works except the Brat remake they already released.

[+TotemLake]

My point is that with all the stuff we oo and ahh about today have been in cars for a while and if the industry had kept up, we might have something with variable wheelbase that might better compromise between highway and off-road.

Two words...

 

Porsche Cayenne.

 

Or what about those flying cars......

 

The issue is they have to be fully automatic so they will stay in the designated highways in the sky. Nobody is willing to release full control to a machine yet.

[Overland1]

My wife and I drive Jeep Grand Cherokees; hers is a Laredo 6-cyl, and mine is the Overland (H.O. V-8). On trips they both get very good gas mileage, and are comfortable. No problems with either one, except for a few minor things that the dealer took care of quickly and correctly. We bought them from a dealer (Patrick in Rochester, NY) located 90 miles from where we live, and their service is worth the trip (makes the local dealer service departments look like the amateurs that they are. One of their Service Advisors is a GPS'er and checks in here every so often (say hello, Chris! ). Their Service Manager is a definite motorhead who seems to have every service bulletin and the Factory Service Manuals committed to memory.

 

A lot of the decision on which vehicle to buy should be based on the dealer service available for that vehicle. I know people around here who stopped buying certain brands because of the dealers involved. I like the Jeeps and have no problem with driving a bit farther to get things done right the first time.

 

If you are looking for better fuel economy, hold out for the Liberty with the CRD (Common Rail Diesel).... it is said to be a Mercedes design and is bulletproof as well as a great performer that will do close to 30 MPG with the torque of a V-8, the power of a V-6, and the economy of a four-cylinder engine. The Liberty has become quite popular over the last few years; one of the people at work bought one and loves it dearly.

 

For a better look at what many people think of Jeeps (and what they do with them), check out the I Love Jeeps web site.

Edited March 11, 2004 by Overland1

[+SamLowrey]

Ford Skyliner

 

http://www.gpfn.sk.ca/hobbies/fordclub/covt4.jpg

Nice! Thanks.

[Bobthearch]

Overland1,

You sound like a real Jeep fan.

We use the old Cherokee Sport with the straight-sixes almost exclusively at work. But they don't make 'em anymore. How do the Liberties compare? As much torque? Cargo space (never was a Cherokee high point)? Back seat comfort (a definite Cherokee low-point)?

 

-Bob

[Overland1]

Overland1,

You sound like a real Jeep fan.

We use the old Cherokee Sport with the straight-sixes almost exclusively at work. But they don't make 'em anymore. How do the Liberties compare? As much torque? Cargo space (never was a Cherokee high point)? Back seat comfort (a definite Cherokee low-point)?

 

-Bob

I am definitely a Jeep fan. My wife got the first one; she traded a Honda Accord EX on a 1995 GC Laredo, then I inherited that when she got a new 1998 Laredo. I then got a 1996 Laredo, and we traded that for her current Jeep, and I got her 1998 (I know.... what a husband! ). I then traded the 1998 on the 2002 Overland, and have never regretted any of the Jeeps. We were introduced to the current dealership several years ago by a physician with whom I worked; his brother-in-law is the Service Manager (Jerry K.) whom I referred to in my previous post. I had a problem with pinging in my 1996 Jeep, and the local shop told me it was "normal" and to use higher octane gas . The physician gave me Jerry's phone number. I called, and set up an appointment. The fix took less than 30 minutes, and it worked. Needless to say, they made me a customer because they do business the way I do business - do the right thing for everybody involved.

 

We live in an area where there is plenty of ice and snow, so the Jeep 4WD systems prove themselves quite well. We occasionally go off road, and have fun with them as well. By the way, Jeep windshields do not cause attenuation of GPS (or other) signals.

 

While I have not personally driven the Liberty, it is taller (but with a slightly shorter cargo area) than the Cherokee. The V-6 is smoother, although the I-6 is a tough act to follow - the 4.0 Six is being phased out due to federal requirements. The V-6 has a decent amount of torque and has been very reliable, according to those I know who own them. Having IFS, the ride and handling is more like that of many cars, although the Liberty does very well off road, provided you have reasonably good tires (true with any 4WD vehicle).

 

A couple of friends (locally) have Liberties; she has one for a "company" vehicle, and he has one for his personal vehicle. Both are totally pleased with them and will buy the same again when the time comes, unless Jeep offers something even newer and better, which is entirely possible. Daimler Chrysler appears to be adopting the 'new model every several years' approach.

 

The 4WD purists will stick to their support of the Solid Front Axle Jeeps, and they definitely have their place. The Liberty was first thought to be a cheap, incapable "fake Jeep"; it has proven itself repeatedly, both on and off road. That Diesel option really sounds intriguing (C'mon, Chris N. - jump in here!).

 

I have no reservations about recommending the Jeep brand; the price may (or may not) be slightly higher, but the cost of owning one is usually less. The enjoyment is something extra that cannot be easily measured.

[+SamLowrey]

I had a problem with pinging in my 1996 Jeep, and the local shop told me it was "normal" and to use higher octane gas . The physician gave me Jerry's phone number. I called, and set up an appointment. The fix took less than 30 minutes, and it worked. Needless to say, they made me a customer because they do business the way I do business - do the right thing for everybody involved.

 

We live in an area where there is plenty of ice and snow, so the Jeep 4WD systems prove themselves quite well. We occasionally go off road, and have fun with them as well. By the way, Jeep windshields do not cause attenuation of GPS (or other) signals.

 

While I have not personally driven the Liberty, it is taller (but with a slightly shorter cargo area) than the Cherokee. The V-6 is smoother, although the I-6 is a tough act to follow - the 4.0 Six is being phased out due to federal requirements. The V-6 has a decent amount of torque and has been very reliable, according to those I know who own them. Having IFS, the ride and handling is more like that of many cars, although the Liberty does very well off road, provided you have reasonably good tires (true with any 4WD vehicle).

 

A couple of friends (locally) have Liberties; she has one for a "company" vehicle, and he has one for his personal vehicle. Both are totally pleased with them and will buy the same again when the time comes, unless Jeep offers something even newer and better, which is entirely possible. Daimler Chrysler appears to be adopting the 'new model every several years' approach.

 

The 4WD purists will stick to their support of the Solid Front Axle Jeeps, and they definitely have their place. The Liberty was first thought to be a cheap, incapable "fake Jeep"; it has proven itself repeatedly, both on and off road. That Diesel option really sounds intriguing (C'mon, Chris N. - jump in here!).

 

I have no reservations about recommending the Jeep brand; the price may (or may not) be slightly higher, but the cost of owning one is usually less. The enjoyment is something extra that cannot be easily measured.

I have a '92 Cherokee, myself.

 

What is this pinging and what was the fix?

 

Personally, I think the suspension is the lowpoint. They could have done better than a straight axle in the front, couldn't they? I don't see how that could be any benefit off-road or on.

 

I vouch for the GPS not being a problem.

 

What is this Federal Regulation about the engine?????

[+robert]

The old cars just wanted to go fast...

Nice rotties. I have a 4 yo female

 

Back on topic, all cars are for going fast!

[Overland1]

What is this pinging and what was the fix?

 

Personally, I think the suspension is the lowpoint. They could have done better than a straight axle in the front, couldn't they? I don't see how that could be any benefit off-road or on.

 

I vouch for the GPS not being a problem.

 

What is this Federal Regulation about the engine?????

The pinging was caused by an "adjustment" of the timing, which is done in the Powertrain Control Module, using the DRB tool. The fix required adjustment of the timing parameters (no loss of performance or economy). It was a flash, much like we do with out GPS units ).

 

The solid front axle allow more precise crawling over some obstacles; rather than just one whells flexing upward to clear an object on the trail, the entire front end is raised to clear it. I have seen some Liberties do very well in this regard with their IFS. The next generation GC will be IFS (which weighs less - better fuel economy - and handles/rides better).

 

The federal reg has to do with overall fuel economy and emissions quality, and some engines are limited in how much they could be improved to meet the future standards. While the 4.0 is a very clean running motor, it will likely cost Chrysler less to meet the next standards with the newer V-6 and Diesel engines. This is one reason the 5.2 (318 cid) was replaced with the current 4.7, which is quickly becoming a "legend" in a relatively short time.

 

After seeing the picture of the Ford Skyliner as a geocaching vehicle, I am envious. If I had the time, the space, and the $$$, I would get something like that .

[+SamLowrey]

The pinging was caused by an "adjustment" of the timing, which is done in the Powertrain Control Module, using the DRB tool. The fix required adjustment of the timing parameters (no loss of performance or economy). It was a flash, much like we do with out GPS units ).

 

The solid front axle allow more precise crawling over some obstacles; rather than just one whells flexing upward to clear an object on the trail, the entire front end is raised to clear it. I have seen some Liberties do very well in this regard with their IFS. The next generation GC will be IFS (which weighs less - better fuel economy - and handles/rides better).

Thanks for the info. Mine has always had a bit of valve clatter or something....

 

Interesting about the axle. That is the way I always suspected it would work with a solid axle, but I was thinking it would be better to keep the tires on the ground which I picture happening with independent suspension better.

 

I haven't kept up - I was thinking the V6 you spoke of was gas, not diesel. Hmmmm.

[Overland1]

The V-6 is a gas engine; the Diesel has four cylinders and a turbocharger (Wheeeeee!!!!!!!!), similar to (but maybe smaller than) those in the Sprinter vans that FedEx and UPS are using. The Diesel will probably evolve in the next few years as a good alternative which should provide good economy and lots of power/torque.

 

Now, if they would offer a Diesel in the Grand Cherokee.......

Edited March 12, 2004 by Overland1

[+RockyRiver]

Heres my Geo cache vehicle. I've owned it since 1998. Its kind of slow and its

under powered. I have also a one of those new Mercedes Benz Sports Cars that beat the new Corvettes. My daily driver is a new Ford F350 Super Duty Diesel 4x4, thats loaded.

[+HumveeDad]

But of course a Hummer! Soft top H1 for the best GPS reception while driving, unless of course you have the built in satellite navigation system....

 

Oh to dream.....