yeah, it would be nice in 10 years when i can afford that '04 ford if it already had a locker.  one of them was advertising some kind of option packs. i remeber hearing part of a commercial on tv. there was a power pack and a couple others. i didn't pay that much attention. maybe if it works for them they could include a traction pack. it's probably just a cheesy marketing line that will fade away but maybe it's a first step to specialize options for specific use. until then i guess we just have to keep arb and detroit in business.  

Scoutnut--

Sorry this reply is so tardy. Between the holidays and the Detroit Auto Show last week, I haven't been checking the boards lately. (Ever been to Detroit in January? Yegads, it's cold!)

To answer your question, we certainly do let the OE engineering reps know what we like in a four-by (gears, flex, lockers, live axles, etc.) at every possible opportunity. But in the end, we 'wheelers are a rather small part of the new truck- or SUV-buying population and most OE design and engineering decisions wind up being biased towards whatever the manufacturers' marketing departments tell them will sell the greatest number of vehicles to the greatest number of people for the lowest possible cost. Which is too bad, because the result is, the OEs are gradually de-contenting the off-roadability of their four-wheel drives---and SUVs in particular---as it becomes evident that fewer and fewer new-truck buyers are driving these things on anything more challenging than gravel roads.

There's always hope, though. At Detroit last week we got a glimpse of the new Jeep full-size concept vehicle, an H2-fighter called the Rescue. It's got solid axles at both ends, and it's said to be powered by the next-generation 600 ft.-lb. Cummins turbo diesel, which leads us to believe it would likely share other drivetrain components with the 3/4-ton Ram pickup. The Rescue uses an airbag-type front suspension and a coil/link rear, has integral winches at both ends, and can clear 37-inch (!) run-flat tires with an onboard inflation system for airing up or down on the fly. And there's all kinds of high-tech search-and-rescue gadgetry on board: infrared cameras, satellite transmitter, 3D mapping software and the like. The Chrysler folks weren't telling when (or if) the thing might see production (or in what trim level), but given (a) the high degree of fit and finish on the concept we were shown and (b) the availability of the Cummins (it's coming for '05, we're told), we'd guess we could see something like it as soon as the '06 model year. At least we're hoping so.

Douglas McColloch

Editorial Director

Wow!  I've seen a few pics of the new concept and noticed the 8 lug axles, but all the other goodies weren't mentioned.  Will you guys do a full write up with photos and all on it?

I figured that you did talk to the manufacturers, and it really doesn't suprise me that they haven't really listened.  It's really sad that business is driven my lust for money instead of building a quality product that will be offered in many different packages to suit the needs of everyone from the grocery getter to the regular 4 wheeler.  I suppose that there's always hope though that someone will be more concerned about giving the customers what they want, instead of focusing on the bottom line.  Doing business the old fashioned way.

Scoutnut

i agree about the old trucks too. the thing i find anoying about these magazines are the fact that most of their project trucks are brand new.whos is gonna get a brand new f-150 (feb o4) worth 40,000 canadian and bring it out on the trails and bush it?like come on guys get a grip!we arnt all rich

harris

I gotta agree, with "old trucks". I would love to have the mega dollars that the truck owners in the magazine to build a "street only" rig, but they are no fun. I would  rather beat up my old rig that buy a new one anyways. But I am torn on the idea of not reading4WOR - not all of the articles are high dollar, shop only jobs. I believe they have gone too far into the soccer mom idea with their "4x4 of the year" though!  

one of the 4x4 of the year catagories should be ability to customize.  Its a whole lot easier to grab a lift kit for a chevy or ford than it is say a nissan.  Same with toyota, more aftermarket offraod parts for a 4runner than the lexus 450.  Like it was said before its not what u buy its what u build, buildability should be a catagory  

Time to step into the fire again. To answer a few Qs:

Yes, some of our project rigs are sky's-the-limits buildups of newer 4x4s, e.g., our Ultimate Adventure vehicles, but we've got plenty of Budget Four-By projects we're working on constantly. Fred Williams' beater Toyota, "Clampy," appears in the magazine regularly, and Fred's latest project---an Army surplus Chevy CUCV he bought from a government liquidation agency---has appeared in recent months also. Jerrod Jones' "5KXJ" project, which appeared last year, showed how you could build a trailworthy Cherokee XJ for only $5,000---which INCLUDED the price of the vehicle. Jerrod's daily-driver Dodge Ram, "Jinxy," also finds its way into the mag from time to time. Trust us, guys, we DO care about Real-World Buildups (on Real-World Budgets), and like you, we sometimes get annoyed at a lot of the big-money bolt-on stuff you see in some of the other 4x4 mags. In fact, we're planning even more Ultra-Low-Buck Buildups in the near future.  

To answer another question: Yes, we have discussed the possibility of including "Buildability" as a scoring criterion for 4x4 of the Year testing. It sounds good in theory, but there are a couple of problems: First, the idea behind the test is (and always has been) how well the vehicle performs AS IT IS, not as it COULD be. Look at it this way: Suppose, for instance, that Volkswagen or Lexus actually built a 4x4 that was more 'wheelable in stock trim than, say, a Ford or Dodge. (Yeah, I know it'll never happen in our lifetime, but suppose.) Sure, the Ford and Dodge have more aftermarket support, so you could build them to be more trailworthy (for X amount of additional dollars, remember), but does that mean we should penalize the engineers at VW or Lexus for building a better product out of the box? Doesn't seem fair to us.

Another way to look at it: Say you've been invited to a beer tasting at a local pub. You get to sample eight or ten different brews from the U.S., Europe and Japan, and grade them in a notebook. How do you judge them? By the way they taste AS THEY ARE, or the way they COULD taste if you only had some chips and salsa, some brats or some barbecued ribs to go along with 'em?

Finally---and I hate to say this---but as automotive technology grows more sophisticated and our vehicles become evermore computer-controlled and sensor-governed, just about ALL of the newer 4x4s are going to be more difficult---or at least more challenging---to modify than our old solid-axle rigs. In the not-so-distant future, just about any buildup will have to include time spent in the driver seat, using our laptops to program new algorithms into the ECU so it'll behave itself and not spit out error codes just because we installed larger tires or a bigger air filter. This isn't necessarily a bad thing---just a new type of technology we'll all have to get familiar with, ere we get left behind.

Of course, in the meantime we'll continue to try to show examples of how you can make your Real-World Rig more trailworthy without breaking the bank. Thanks for all the good comments on this thread. Keep 'em comin'!

Douglas McColloch

Editorial Director, 4WOR

good point on the buildability.  looking forward to the next low budget build u guys do.  Unfortunately (depending on how u look at it) the advancing technology will really complicate wheelin.  THe more complicated the system is the more likely it is to break on the trail.  of course if we've got the cash to buy new trucks with this technology we should be able to pay to get it fixed right? maybe? no?  And can anyone tell me whats the advanteage of having a rear independent suspension?  (the new exdplorers are "first in class" with it)  Didnt soilid axels work fine and were "easy" to fix when broken.