Need New Geocache Vehicle.

February 22, 2004

If you want a REAL 4X4 for decent money and its got to be american then LAND ROVER LAND ROVER LAND ROVER LAND ROVER (owned by Ford and nothing to do with those French B*****DS). If your pocket can strech then buy a Range Rover, real 4X4 performance AND the best driving position of any 4X4.

However, if it's just off road performance you want with no load carrying capability then The Wrangler is, IMHO, the only real choice for someone in the states. This vehicle is truly awsome off road but crap on it. Oh, and be carefull in the wet it's a nightmare. I shouldn't bother with the Grand - too much compromise

And I should, perhaps, add that I have owned all of the above for at least 18 months a piece. The Range Rover is now the apple of my eye Defender 90 comes second, Wrangler 3rd and Discovery 4th. The Grand Cherokee doesn't place

Edited February 22, 2004 by ashoofak

9.5k · February 22, 2004

The Grand Cherokee doesn't place

I don't know that I can agree. I just took mine winter camping and put it through its paces, fully loaded as well as empty in the off-road snow with standard street tires and no chains. I'm pretty impressed with its capabilities so far. As soon as I replace the pathetic donut they call a spare, I'll be taking it to another favorite camping spot that has a fairly rough way in. The Subaru Forester handled it like a cat but because of the clearance, I could only average 4 MPH picking my way through the rubble, so that makes me curious how well my '94 GC can handle the same "road" that's barely maintained.

February 22, 2004

and nothing to do with those French B*****DS

You mean the French who's President requested that the UN wait to invade Iraq until there was better evidence that they had weapons of mass destruction? What the heck was he thinking...

February 22, 2004

and nothing to do with those French B*****DS
You mean the French who's President requested that the UN wait to invade Iraq until there was better evidence that they had weapons of mass destruction? What the heck was he thinking...

I don't want to let this thread get off topic here but I'm sure it will. Even if we found WMD's with detailed plans and a big old stamp postmarked to their destinations the French STILL woulda had a problem with something. I wouldn't be suprised if Osama isn't sipping wine and eating snails in France this very minute.

***Edited my post because I don't want to start a fight that has nothing to do with this topic***

Edited February 23, 2004 by Team Lyons

February 23, 2004

I can tell you what I think the ugliest car is and thats a Honda Element.

20.7k · February 23, 2004

... The Range Rover is now the apple of my eye Defender 90 comes second, Wrangler 3rd and Discovery 4th. The Grand Cherokee doesn't place

I think your comment emphasizes the point that different people are happy with different vehicles. Some people love the Element. I think it looks ugly. In my opinion, the WJ is the best SUV out there. In rain, mud, or snow, I can count on mine to take me home. While it is true that I've broken it on occasion, it never let me down and everything has been covered under warranty (which is longer than that of the Land Rover).

The truth is, I've had mine on rocky, muddy trails, but haven't attempted any real rock climbing. I don't want to scratch it so I'll leave the big rocks to the Wranglers. The WJ has over 9 inches of ground clearance, 36.7° approach angle, a 28.6° departure angle and a breakover angle of 22.6° to aid it when it gets rocky. Of course, with the 30k I saved by buying my WJ instead of a Range Rover, I can buy a Wrangler for the more extreme rock climbing. Meanwhile, my Jeep is comfy in all road conditions, cradling me in heated leather.

Edited February 23, 2004 by sbell111

February 23, 2004

Hmm, interesting question.

We drive a 2001 Ford Escape 4WD, 4cyl, 5speed (not even available from Ford anymore). Big downside for us was your engine transmission choices; 5sp/2.0 4cyl or auto/3.0 V6. We would have preferred a 5sp/V6, but it's not available (last I looked they didn't even support 4WD with the 4cyl any more). As for Ford vs Mazda (they're basically the same car), there was a big difference in price, the Ford being considerably cheaper (for the same config.) here in Canada.

It's been pretty good, although it had a sticky shifter early on (but then everything is sticky compared to my Acura's). The 4cyl is a bit enemic up steep hills, but has never failed to get us there. As for the 4WD, it's impressive. We have a cabin 20km off the road, and in deep snow last christmas, not a problem. It's actually an impressive climber in 2WD, mostly due to the fact that in 2WD it uses the FRONT wheels, which is VERY VERY unusual.

I'm not big on the looks of the Saturn, BUT! and this is HUGE..

The (6 cyl) 2004 Saturns have a HONDA engine and drivetrain.

Certainly that's enough to warrant a good looksie given you wouldn't be stuck with one of GM's small engines.

Also in the US built, Japanese powered ones is the Pontiac Vibe, which is powered by a Toyota engine (same as the Celica).

What would be buy next time? Don't know, but I sure like the build quality of Honda, and the Honda Pilot (their larger SUV) would be a good consideration.

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

9.5k · February 23, 2004

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

Yah but I'd rather have that than the Honda Element. That is just one ugly car. :smile:

February 23, 2004

I would look into a Subaru, no matter what model you choose, they all have basically the same engine (2.2, 2.5, or 3.0) and same all wheel drive system. I have owned 3 and have had nothing but good luck. I have a Legacy GT, love it. Their new Forester XT has 210 HP and 235 LBS torque. You can't beat the value, lower to mid 20's.

Edited February 23, 2004 by gessner17

February 23, 2004

I can't tell you what to buy,but I can tell you what not to buy and that is a Saturn I own one and I will never buy another. The service from saturn is the *****.Take it or leave it, bottom line though it's up to you. Do your home work. Good Luck. :smile:

Edited February 23, 2004 by Shortfuse & Sidekick

February 23, 2004

The service from saturn is the *****.

Cant agree with ya. We owned one for a couple of years and the service was a highlight. They even replaced a set of tires after two years of use, for free. We brought it in for an oil change, and drove out with new shoes. Not bad.

We almost went with a Vue. Mrs. CC wanted something just a bit smaller though and fell in love with the Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix sister car with better looks IMHO). Cute car. Great gas milage. For her needs, its really the best compromise between economoy and interior space.

February 23, 2004

|JEEP|

O|||||O

Get a Jeep Wrangler.

You won't regret it.

Not in the slightest.

February 23, 2004

Mrs CC here: Have to say that I do love my Vibe. Awesome cache vehicle, it is very versatile. All it needed was a geocaching window cling and it was all set. ; )

February 23, 2004

"If you want a REAL 4X4 for decent money and its got to be american then LAND ROVER LAND ROVER LAND ROVER LAND ROVER (owned by Ford). If your pocket can strech then buy a Range Rover, real 4X4 performance AND the best driving position of any 4X4.

Edited to remove poor comments that add nothing to the thread

However, if it's just off road performance you want with no load carrying capability then The Wrangler is, IMHO, the only real choice for someone in the states. This vehicle is truly awsome off road but crap on it. Oh, and be carefull in the wet it's a nightmare. I shouldn't bother with the Grand - too much compromise

And I should, perhaps, add that I have owned all of the above for at least 18 months a piece. The Range Rover is now the apple of my eye Defender 90 comes second, Wrangler 3rd and Discovery 4th. The Grand Cherokee doesn't place"

Ok re-read my original post, above, and believe that I may have been slightly harsh on the Cherokee. It does have an excellent 4X4 system and does perform admirably off road, better than any Ford ever will I think. However, I think that the soft suspension set up and lack of internal space make it more suited to mainly on-road with occasional off road. (as is the Range Rover but this is due to cost - NB. they cost the same as a Cherokee in Oman :smile: )

So, to conclude the Cherokee is a very good all round vehicle better indeed than all other US and European 4X4 except the other jeeps and all Land Rovers

Edited February 23, 2004 by ashoofak

9.5k · February 24, 2004

It does have an excellent 4X4 system and does perform admirably off road, better than any Ford ever will I think.

Indeed it does.

However, I think that the soft suspension set up and lack of internal space make it more suited to mainly on-road with occasional off road. (as is the Range Rover but this is due to cost - NB. they cost the same as a Cherokee in Oman )

I was personally thankful for the soft ride last week with the bad back I have.

It only makes sense to go after the Range Rover when given the choice of the two and the price is the same. The Rover's reputation is pretty solid and the vehicle pretty much speaks for itself.

Now as for space... I find always never have enough.

Edited February 24, 2004 by TotemLake

February 24, 2004

FWIW, I didn't like Vue. Too cramped and expensive. Didn't like Escape. Too Expensive and lousey fuel economy. It came down to a Honda CR-V or Subaru Forester. I kinda wanted the Honda because I've got a Gold Wing and had other Hondas. I bought the Forester. Stronger engine, better rated fuel economy, proven AWD and price was better than Honda given the standard features. Japanese, but partly owned by General Motors. I've had mine two years and still think I made the right choice.

February 24, 2004

To just clarify some statements that I made that were responded to....

No matter what brand vehicle you go with, you MUST develop a good relationship with the service manager. If you find one you can trust, or at least a mechanic in a dealership that you trust you will be off to a good start no matter what brand you get. Having a good relationship with a service manager, can save you $$$$. Have all your service work done at his place,"this is how he makes money" and I gaurantee he will do far more for you than the guy that goes to quickie lube for oil changes and only shows up for warranty work at the dealership.

I have seen people come in with only 60-70,000 miles on the car and have already spent a great deal on repair. On the other hand I have seen people come in with 150-200,000 miles on a car that have not spent much on repair. You have to consider many, many factors. How does the person drive the vehicle? Do they keep up maintenance? Is the person reasonable in the expectations of the vehicle??

It is true that ALL manufacturers put out the occasional bad car. Not all Ford's are bad because one person had a bad experience. As much as I love the Jeep brand, I have friends that hate them, and only drive a Ford, or someone may only drive a Chevy.

Get what you want.......What feels, looks, and costs like you want.

Just don't expect to go muddin, or rock crawling in any new vehicle, and expect it to get covered under warranty......I hate breaking peoples hearts this way, but its true....save that fun stuff until when the warranty expires, and the last payment is made.....

February 24, 2004

Just don't expect to go muddin, or rock crawling in any new vehicle, and expect it to get covered under warranty......I hate breaking peoples hearts this way, but its true....save that fun stuff until when the warranty expires, and the last payment is made.....

Erm, but that's *WHY* I bought the Jeep!

I bought mine used, however, and I paid extra for a warranty. I looked it over very carefully (the warranty) and nowhere does it say that it won't cover failures on the trail. It says something about not covering damage that was caused by using the vehicle for something it wasn't designed to do. Of course, Jeeps are designed to do a lot more than the average vehicle!

I'm not too worried about it though. The warranty is basically to cover a blown head gasket or similar disaster... I don't recall offhand whether or not it covers the axles, but that's about the only thing I think I could break that would be covered. Body damage, control arms, oil pan punctures, tie rods, shock mounts, etc... aren't covered.

20.7k · February 24, 2004

Jeep's warranty rocks!

My Jeep's owners manual makes it pretty clear that they completely expect me to take it on trail. Damage that I have done to it has been covered. Last month, my warranty paid for a new front diff and transfer case. The only downside was the Buick loaner I had to drive until the WJ was fixed.

Other repairs that have been covered by the warranty were a repaint of the rear door because it had a paint bubble and replacing the struts that hold up the hood.

Edited February 24, 2004 by sbell111

2.3k · February 24, 2004

Yes, Ford makes Mazda.

Trust me on this one... test drive a Tribute before you plunk down any $$!

February 25, 2004

Cruzin..

My Jeep Cherokee is new as well, and they do say items will be covered if used to do what it is designed for. But fair warning....... The family I work for also has a Jeep dealership and they have refused to cover some offroading damage if determined to be excessive.

As far as the extended warranty people buy.........read ALL the fine print, most of them I have dealt with will cancel the warranty if any modifications to the vehicle have been made, or refuse payment on a repair if determined to be abuse.

I had one customer that bought a used Ford Ranger with a 2" lift kit on it at the time of sale. He bought an extended warranty also at time of sale. When his drive shaft went out 2 months later, the warranty company asked if it had any suspension modification and once they found out it did.... WHAM kid had to pay for his drive shaft to be replaced......sucked, but nothing I could do for him.....those extended warranty companys are slippery.

If buying an extended warranty, always buy the one offered from the manufacturer.

February 25, 2004

Just went to the Mazda site. Why is the Warrenty better for the Tribute? It's the same dang turck? Maybe the extra price = more warrenty?

February 25, 2004

Cruzin..

My Jeep Cherokee is new as well, and they do say items will be covered if used to do what it is designed for. But fair warning....... The family I work for also has a Jeep dealership and they have refused to cover some offroading damage if determined to be excessive.

As far as the extended warranty people buy.........read ALL the fine print, most of them I have dealt with will cancel the warranty if any modifications to the vehicle have been made, or refuse payment on a repair if determined to be abuse.

I had one customer that bought a used Ford Ranger with a 2" lift kit on it at the time of sale. He bought an extended warranty also at time of sale. When his drive shaft went out 2 months later, the warranty company asked if it had any suspension modification and once they found out it did.... WHAM kid had to pay for his drive shaft to be replaced......sucked, but nothing I could do for him.....those extended warranty companys are slippery.

If buying an extended warranty, always buy the one offered from the manufacturer.

Just for clarification, I bought my TJ used (it's a '98 that I bought in August from my local Jeep dealer).

The warranty I bought isn't a factory warranty, but I did buy it from the dealer. It's from a 3rd party company that they offer with their used, ahem, "pre-owned" vehicles. It generally only covers "internally lubricated parts", with a focus on the engine. The transfer case is covered, but I'm not sure about the differentials. I wouldn't expect any physical (trail-caused) damage to be covered, as it wouldn't be the result of the failure of an internal lubricated part.

I got it mainly as head-gasket insurance. Smaller jobs I can do myself or have my Jeepin' friends help me with.

2.3k · February 26, 2004

Just went to the Mazda site. Why is the Warrenty better for the Tribute? It's the same dang turck? Maybe the extra price = more warrenty?

I really have no clue! But as it is, I am now within 400 miles of things being "MY PROBLEM." Just hope there aren't many to be had!

February 27, 2004

If you want to go off road I would suggest a Jeep Wrangler or a Landrover. Everything else is made for on road.

I agree. I was driving to work the other day and this guy in a Black LandRover Defender was checking out my Wrangler! Today we woke up in a snow storm and the Wrangler loved every bit of snow on the road.

February 27, 2004

Nissan Xterra in Yellow! American designed and made in Tennessee!

Love my '02 Xterra...but expect about 50% less MPG's then most of whats being discussed here..but goes ANYWHERE...ANYTIME!

7.2k · February 27, 2004

One thing that impressed the hell out of me with the Escape: the handling on rough roads. I've driven Jeeps (learn to drive in one), big trucks, and little. The Escape almost frightened me with it's ability to allow me to forget how fast I was going on an old, back-woods, rough, brick road! Here I am cruising along and look down--I'm doing 60! Like it was nothing. This road would have rattled your teeth in my Ranger or Previa (our main caching vehicle).

Zipping around town grabbing caches was fun in it, as well! dadgum nice pep!

However, huge down sides were gas milage--I averaged 15 around town and 20 interstate--and fit and finish. Like all modern Fords it's made of all plastic on the inside. This particular Escape has parts missing and coming apart on the interior. The outside was fine.

If I had the money an Escape would be on my list. However, I do belief I'm leaning towards an older Cherokee. Solid, a quarter or less the price of anything new, plently of parts for it, and I won't be boohooing the first time I rub it up against a tree. I'll keep what I got for getting back and forth to work.

Better yet, save the money of a new vehicle, buy an older Jeep and a used Honda Insight to commute--75mpg ain't shabby!

1.5k · February 27, 2004

I bought a Vue 5 months ago and love it- I've already put over 11,000 miles on it (mostly geocaching miles ). I've driven it on dirt, mud, and snow and found that it handles even the iciest roads pretty well, since it has front wheel drive. My only regret was buying the 4-cylinder engine rather than the 6, since it has a little harder time on steep hills. I've found that I usually get anywhere from 23-27 MPG on the average geocaching trip.

2.3k · February 27, 2004

However, huge down sides were gas milage--I averaged 15 around town and 20 interstate--and fit and finish. Like all modern Fords it's made of all plastic on the inside. This particular Escape has parts missing and coming apart on the interior. The outside was fine.

My Tribute definately has good power for a 6 cylinder. The "better than the average SUV" gas mileage also made it high on the list. (of course, now there's a Escape hybrid coming out) The official criteria was, "it can't be worse than the car I'm selling," which was a '94 Thunderbird with a V8. dadgum, but that was a great car...

15 mpg? Geez... mine gets anywhere from 20 to 24, city or highway.

7.2k · February 27, 2004

15 mpg? Geez... mine gets anywhere from 20 to 24, city or highway.

Must've been my lead foot...

February 28, 2004

I recently bought a Mitsubishi Outlander (by far my most expensive geocaching toy) it is all wheel drive and did well in the snow. It is a little larger than the Suburu Forester but is the smallest Mitsubishi SUV so you have more choices. And while it is only a 4 cyl I have seen no real loss of power from my previous 6 cly cars and it gets better gas mileage.

I love Land Rovers but they are over priced, and expensive to maintain.

If I had the money a Mercedes G500 would be nice.

February 28, 2004

Nissan Xterra in Yellow! American designed and made in Tennessee!

I have to agree! I have an Alpine Green one and love it.

February 28, 2004

Honda CR-V gets my vote too.

February 28, 2004

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

Yah but I'd rather have that than the Honda Element. That is just one ugly car.

Element is the box a CR-V comes in.

9.5k · February 28, 2004

I'm reminded of Chrysler's fiasco with the K-car. I'm surprised there isn't a slot in the top to pull out the tissue.

Edited February 28, 2004 by TotemLake

2.5k · March 9, 2004

I think I found my new cache-mobile

20.7k · March 9, 2004

I think I found my new cache-mobile

The 'Blue Thunder' of SUVs.

20.7k · March 9, 2004

Element is the box a CR-V comes in.

Strangely, the LEGO version on the commercial is better looking than the actual vehicle. It also has less visible plastic.

March 9, 2004

I just bought a 2002 Jeep Wrangler on Saturday. Low miles on it certified pre-owned from the dealer I bought it at. Remainder of bumper to bumper warranty and 8 year 80,000 mile powertrain warranty from Chrysler. The best part only 6,600 miles on it and I got it for $9,000 after my trade in

March 10, 2004

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!

Someone above was bragging about 25 mpg!?! Pathetic. My ten-year-old Lincoln Mark VIII gets 30 mpg or better! And with it's 280hp V8, I'll beat you to the cache every time. Of course if there's a flake of snow on the road it becomes an expensive sled and I have to stay home - but that's what the truck is for.

If it takes four-wheel-drive to get to the cache, you won't go many places with those toys either - no power, no torque, no clearance, no traction, no room for gear... There's no substitute for a real truck.

Personally, I think the phrase "SUV" is totally misplaced. "S"port: doesn't look sporty at all, looks like a station wagon. And you won't haul much "S"ports gear in one - how many bicycles will fit in a Honda or Subaru with four passengers? "U"tility: don't make me laugh! "V"ehicle: well perhaps. As in "mass-produced, uninteresting, overpriced, poorly performing vehicle."

Of all the models mentioned, Jeeps are the only ones capable of off road travel. Still won't hold much gear, but they'd be fine for a guy and a dog to bag some caches. The 4.0 straight-six engines can't be beat for deep sand, steep hills, and crawling through mud. And the Wranglers really are "cool". I've driven a lot of Cherokees and their main problem is the low clearance - high-centering in a mudhole sucks.

Just my daily rant.

-Bob

2.3k · March 10, 2004

My ten-year-old Lincoln Mark VIII gets 30 mpg or better! And with it's 280hp V8, I'll beat you to the cache every time.

:bad: 30 MPG on a 10-year old V-8? Hmmm...

:rolleyes:

Edited March 10, 2004 by joefrog

1.3k · March 10, 2004

We'll be in the market for a new vehicle in a few months and we have two on our list so far. The Ford Escape and the Saturn Vue.

If those are your choices, I'd say wait for the Ford Escape Hybrid. Given the way gas prices have been moving, the extra cost may well be worth it.

6.4k · March 10, 2004

My ten-year-old Lincoln Mark VIII gets 30 mpg or better! And with it's 280hp V8, I'll beat you to the cache every time.

30 MPG on a 10-year old V-8? Hmmm...

1994 Lincoln Mark VIII EPA ratings (when car was new and in perfect tune)

Edited March 10, 2004 by Mopar

9.5k · March 10, 2004

My ten-year-old Lincoln Mark VIII gets 30 mpg or better! And with it's 280hp V8, I'll beat you to the cache every time.

30 MPG on a 10-year old V-8? Hmmm...

image edited out

Don't let the urban myths of the fuel economy of the early to mid 70's fool ya.

The truth is when I had my big 4-door Buick Centurion with a 455ci 4-barrel Rochester carbeurator; At an average of 85MPH I got about 28 MPG. Those old cars were designed for fuel efficiency at the higher speeds.

At an average of 50MPH my fuel efficiency dropped to 1/2 that if I was lucky.

Edited March 10, 2004 by TotemLake

9.5k · March 10, 2004

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!

Someone above was bragging about 25 mpg!?! Pathetic. My ten-year-old Lincoln Mark VIII gets 30 mpg or better! And with it's 280hp V8, I'll beat you to the cache every time. Of course if there's a flake of snow on the road it becomes an expensive sled and I have to stay home - but that's what the truck is for.

If it takes four-wheel-drive to get to the cache, you won't go many places with those toys either - no power, no torque, no clearance, no traction, no room for gear... There's no substitute for a real truck.

Personally, I think the phrase "SUV" is totally misplaced. "S"port: doesn't look sporty at all, looks like a station wagon. And you won't haul much "S"ports gear in one - how many bicycles will fit in a Honda or Subaru with four passengers? "U"tility: don't make me laugh! "V"ehicle: well perhaps. As in "mass-produced, uninteresting, overpriced, poorly performing vehicle."

Of all the models mentioned, Jeeps are the only ones capable of off road travel. Still won't hold much gear, but they'd be fine for a guy and a dog to bag some caches. The 4.0 straight-six engines can't be beat for deep sand, steep hills, and crawling through mud. And the Wranglers really are "cool". I've driven a lot of Cherokees and their main problem is the low clearance - high-centering in a mudhole sucks.

Just my daily rant.

-Bob

Bad comparisons when you start griping about the capacity of mini-SUV's such as the Subaru and the Honda don't ya think? Particularly when they are labeled that way?

Just to be clear, I was able to take my Forester on some of the roughest off-roads (read that paved by boulders and large rocks) that I have personally experienced - fully loaded with 400 lbs gear in and on the car - not to mention my dog and myself. It had the low end torque I needed to get up and over steep grade inclines with loose debris and the AWD was awesome in the way it handled it. Granted, the low clearance meant I averaged 4MPH, but that was easily handled. The arrival and departure angle was good enough that it handled some crests better than other larger vehicles. As for handling snow... I was able to plow with the bumper with no chains using the standard tires that came with it.

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

March 10, 2004

The e.p.a. estimate is 25 mpg for the '95 Mark VIII.

But no bull*&^$. Cruising on the Interstate at 80 mph, I get about 28. Driving steady at lower speed, 65 mph or so, I can get 30 easy, depending on other factors. Mixed driving with errands around town and highway travel, gets 22-24-ish. City driving is less than 20, I'd guess. If you check the message boards at some of the Mark VIII sites, these numbers are entirely in line with what other drivers experience.

I attribute the good mileage to Premium gas, dual-overhead cams, aerodynamic design, 'modern' electronics, driving with cruise control, and more efficient shifting (it rarely shifts, by the way, even on steep climbs).

My '86 Cougar with the fuel-injected 302 regularly got 28-30 mpg. The e.p.a. estimate was only 26, which is still better than 25! That car was a lot lighter than the Mark VIII, but only required Regular Unleaded. The tank was larger too, so you could drive all day (500-600 miles) without refueling. The Lincoln only has an 18 gallon tank, so it feels like I spend a lot of time at the pumps.

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

March 10, 2004

Don't let the urban myths of the fuel economy of the early to mid 70's fool ya.

The truth is when I had my big 4-door Buick Centurion with a 455ci 4-barrel Rochester carbeurator; At an average of 85MPH I got about 28 MPG. Those old cars were designed for fuel efficiency at the higher speeds.

At an average of 50MPH my fuel efficiency dropped to 1/2 that if I was lucky.

68 Mustang 429ci -- City 4mpg, 55-65MPH - 8mpg, 75+MPH - 15mpg

73 Corvette 350ci -- City 10mpg, 55-65MPH - 15mpg, 75+MPH - 18mpg

2000 Yukon Denali 350ci -- City 10mpg, 55-65MPH - 15mpg, 75+MPH - 15mpg

The old cars just wanted to go fast... :rolleyes:

2.3k · March 10, 2004

The e.p.a. estimate is 25 mpg for the '95 Mark VIII.

But no bull*&^$. Cruising on the Interstate at 80 mph, I get about 28. Driving steady at lower speed, 65 mph or so, I can get 30 easy, depending on other factors. Mixed driving with errands around town and highway travel, gets 22-24-ish. City driving is less than 20, I'd guess. If you check the message boards at some of the Mark VIII sites, these numbers are entirely in line with what other drivers experience.

I attribute the good mileage to Premium gas, dual-overhead cams, aerodynamic design, 'modern' electronics, driving with cruise control, and more efficient shifting (it rarely shifts, by the way, even on steep climbs).

My '86 Cougar with the fuel-injected 302 regularly got 28-30 mpg. The e.p.a. estimate was only 26, which is still better than 25! That car was a lot lighter than the Mark VIII, but only required Regular Unleaded. The tank was larger too, so you could drive all day (500-600 miles) without refueling. The Lincoln only has an 18 gallon tank, so it feels like I spend a lot of time at the pumps.

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

Duhhhh... guess I was having a "senior moment" on the Mark VIII -- I was picturing the older model boat.

FWIW, I know quite a bit about the V8s of that time - I drove a 94 Thunderbird with a V8 for nine years, and TOPS mileage was 24 mpg. City dropped to 18-20 or so. It's a bit heavier than a Mark VIII, if I recall. But still, seems it should be getting less than when it was new.

I'm still relatively happy with the 24 mpg of my Tribute. I need at least this much room to haul all kinds of junk for my hobbies -- woodworking craft shows, scuba diving, and baby gear.

March 10, 2004

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

Yes, sorry. :rolleyes:

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. :bad:

Later,

Bob

7.2k · March 10, 2004

'89 Mustang GT 5.0 V8 28mpg highway 20mpg delivering pizzas!

...and I have a heavy foot!

My POS '94 Ranger 4.0 V6 gets, at best, 20mpg. :rolleyes: Go figure.

I'd like to see something like a Toyota Previa van with an offroad capable 4x4 undercarriage.

Edited March 10, 2004 by CoyoteRed

Need New Geocache Vehicle.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment