Articles
This is a collection of articles, some of which have been published, some of which I've just written for fun. There are PDF reprints of some magazine articles on the Reprints page.
- 1 of 5
- ››
The Conversation
“Hmmmm”.
“No.”
“We’ll be ok”.
“No!”
“It’s not that bad. Bit steep, but it won’t be a drama.”
“No way are you taking that vehicle up there!”
“Why not?”
“Why not? Why not? Because it’s dangerous! Because we don’t need to do it! Becau..”
“It’s not dangerous. It’ll be ok, we'll be fin..”
“And what happens if we don’t make it all the way up? We’ll be STUCK! Look at that rock! It’s nearly vertical!”
“Well, that’s why we’ve got lots of recovery gear. Anyway, I’m sure the others are going to try it.”
“Oh, so just because they do it, you have to? Grow up! Why are men like this?”
“No, I’m going to do it because I want to, and because we can. It’s not that much of a problem. We can make it!”
“That’s what you said at Gembrook, and look what happened there!”
“Yes, well…”
“And that time in the Otways, and…”
“We’re still alive aren’t we?”
“That is not the point! This is just the same. Disaster waiting to happen. You have spent so much money on the vehicle, we’ve invested so much, we can’t risk it! Why do you always have to try these things? We should find another way.”
“There is no other way!”
“Well find one!”
“I’m not a bloody magician! I can’t magic things from nowhere! Anyway, it’s a long way back. At least let’s try it.”
“Oh, we try it and what if we roll?”
“Then we will be upside down.”
“Is that all you can say?”
“Hey, I’m not the broken record here. We won’t roll. Would you rather be outside the vehicle?”
“I’d rather you didn’t try it. It’s stupid, and you’re stupid for even thinking about it. I don’t know why we’re here anyway. You are going to cause expensive damage to the truck with this stupid stunt. Money down the drain. Don’t bring me on these trips again, I don’t care any more, go and play with your idiot mates. You love this truck more than you love me”.
“Well the truck doesn’t come up with stupid arguments and get over-emotional…”
“So I’m stupid and over-emotional now?”
“No…”
“GO ON THEN. FINE. JUST GO FOR IT. I’ll sit here in terror while my stupid husband throws this $30,000 dollar truck against a stupid rock face when his wife can’t even get a new 3-piece suite. I DON’T CARE ANY MORE!!!!!!”
The CB crackles into life.
“Mate. What’s happening?”
“Umm, just considering the best line. Give me a sec.”
“Rightho.”
“See, they’re waiting for us. I’m going to try it.”
A special type of silence permeates the cabin of the 4WD. The sort of silence that prevents dust ingress, hell, water ingress. You couldn’t cut it with a knife.
Now or never. Clutch down. Into gear.
“Haaang on.”
A final look at the line. Low range. Left foot bracing the body. Both hands on the wheel, thumbs out. Leaning forward for maximum visibility. Clutch up, engine at max-torque revs, buttocks clenched, prayers said.
Committed.
Up she goes. Hard left. Right. Going for the straddle…not too far each way, hope those $*$)^ tyres stay on the rim…it’s working, haven’t fallen in…don’t get cocky…now over the rut. Shit! Too much wheelspin! But she comes through!
The big rock looms. A little burst of momentum on the tiny ledge before it. Here’s the clearance problem…looks worse from the car…CRUNCH…the underbody protection earns its keep again. Scrabbling for grip, hard jink around the big washout…got to get close to that tree for the line, both wheels together over the tree root …ahhhhrgghh…and we’re there.
Parks the vehicle. Deep breath. Inward smile.
“Wasn’t too bad, was it?”
A Look.
“Would have been a lot easier if I’d had a locker, you know. We could have gone a lot more gently.”
Another Look, similar to the first, but more potent.
Everything green and growing around the vehicle simply gives up and wilts.
Reaches for the CB.
“Yeah mate. You’re all right to come up, we’re clear, but watch that rut before the big ledge. Have fun.”
The 4WD Debate
You have may noticed 4WDs aren't popular in some quarters. There's a lot of sensationalism, liberally sprinkled with phrases like "vehicle of mass destruction", references to apparent insecurities of the drivers and generally the coverage is more about whipping up a bit of good old tabloid outrage than the facts or reasoned argument. Flung with the muck are a lot of naked statistics, which prove yet again you can demonise anything using the right inflection combined with a suitable selection of facts and quotations.
But demons or not, beneath the ranting there are a few points that are worth discussing, if we can keep the superlatives and oh-so-witty asides out of it. The anti-4WD arguments are summarised as follows:
1. Bullbars. More likely to result in injuries than not.
2. Safety. 4WDs are light trucks, designed for off-road use. They are more likely to roll, need more braking room, don't deform as well in a crash and are dangerous to pedestrians.
3. Size. Physically larger, 4WDs block the view of other road users and take up more space.
4. Fuel consumption. 4WDs use more fuel than roadcars.
5. 4WDs damage the environment when used off sealed roads, and even on it come to that.
This is a response to those points from someone who owns two 4WDs, uses both offroad and is in the industry, but I will present here both sides of the argument, and my background does at least give me some expertise on the subject.
What is a 4WD anyway?
For example, before we go any further, we'd better clarify what we mean by "4WD", and that's not mere pedantry. Technically, a 4WD is a vehicle that has four wheels, all of which can be driven. That includes cars that are purely designed for bitumen, such as Audi and Subaru all-wheel-drives. However, in common usage the term "4WD" means a four-wheel-drive car or truck type vehicle that is designed for at least a modicum of off-road use. Even with that qualification, the term "4WD" covers a very large variety of vehicles, from the tiny Suzuki Jimny with its 1.3 litre engine, to the giant Ford F250 to softroaders without low range like the Forester, which are closer to plain roadcars with slightly raised suspension. Then there's the "serious" 4WDs like the Defender and Patrol.
A 4WD certainly doesn't need to be big to be a capable offroad vehicle, and indeed there are many offroad tourers who tour the country in softroaders. There are many who have 2WDs of course, but they don't get to see the places the offroaders do.
All these vehicles are 4WDs, and are very, very different machines, and as such it is usually inappropriate to make generalisations such as "too big" or "too unsafe” because there will be many exceptions to such wide-ranging statements. That means "4WD" critics would do well to be more specific about their targets, but the problem there is that the stinging critiques wouldn't fit so well into a pithy soundbite .
As it seems most of the anti-4WD sentiment is directed at 4WDs typically used by families in suburbs, this discussion will focus on the likes of the Discovery, Prado, Pajero, LC200. Softroaders like the Freelander, RAV4 and Santa Fe are popular, but most of the concerns seem to be centred around large vehicles, and that is not the same as vehicles with rough-terrain capability.
Now to each point in turn:
Bullbars
The bullbar debate is not the same as the 4WD debate. Many 4WDs have no bullbar. Many non-4WDs, such as some metropolitan taxis, many utes and light truck delivery vehicles do have bullbars. Therefore, although there is a debate about bullbars, it is not a 4WD-only issue and so won't be covered here.
Safety
The concern is that all else being equal, a 4WD is less safe than a non-4WD because it is more likely to roll, it is so tough that it doesn't deform well in a crash and in any case the extra size, weight and lack of agility make it a danger to not only the occupants but other road users.
The quick one first – crash deformation, usually followed by the term “separate chassis” and the implication that because 4WDs go offroad they must be tough and that toughness means they are unsafe in the event of a crash. That was true to some extent many years ago, as older 4WDs were indeed separate chassis and some of the utility models still are. New ones are not, and plenty of them are five-star ANCAP rated.
In short, this “so tough it’s unsafe” argument is moot for any family 4WD less than a few years old, all of which have modern crash-absorbing structures, same as modern roadcars. However, a deformable structure doesn’t mean to say the vehicles aren’t tough – the stresses the vehicle is subjected to when driving over rough terrain are very different to those in a crash.
The agility and the roll concern are much the same thing. All else being equal, the vehicle with a higher centre of gravity is more prone to rolling over, and rolling over definitely increases the chances of injury in a crash. And it is true that 4WDs have a higher centre of gravity, although not by as much as the difference in height to a roadcar, more like the difference in ground clearance which is not as great as the height differential. It is also true that adding an all-wheel-drive transmission adds weight, as does a low-range gearbox. Heavier vehicles take longer to stop and are less agile than light ones. All of this is basic physics and not debateable, but a focus on those facts ignores the real picture.
What is debatable is just how well a vehicle should perform on these measures. Fortunately, there are well-established regulations that test a vehicle’s ability to manoeuvre and stop, and 4WDs have no difficulty passing these tests. If they pass the test, then what’s the problem? Maybe the argument is that the line should be redrawn so they don’t.
But then what about normal roadcars vs sportcars? The lighter and lower sportscar, with better brakes and tyres will beat the average roadcar in a braking, anti-roll and agility contest, so by that logic, it’s safer. Maybe we should all drive the Lotus Elise with race tyres? The idea has a certain appeal for me at least, but seriously, the modern family 4WD cannot possibly be described as unsafe in a crash, difficult to drive or in any way not easily measuring up the standards required by the road safety authorities here and abroad. As an example, I've just driven a cheap roadcar for 250km across varied roads, immediately before and after my own Discovery 3. I can state that this cheap roadcar simply didn't handle as well, and its budget tyres lacked grip in the wet.
Are 4WDs a danger to other road users? Yes, along with every other vehicle on the road. Will the result of a pedestrian getting hit by say a 2200kg Pajero be practically any different to the same situation but with an 1800kg Commodore? Is a difference in bonnet height going to change the end result? So far I’ve not seen any research either way. The weight difference is also cited as a concern, and it is true the heavier the vehicle, the worse the smash. But again there are huge variations in size amongst passenger vehicles and indeed 4WDs. The Subaru Forester weighs less than a Commodore, and seats 5. The LC200 weighs far more than a Corolla, although the latter can’t seat 8 or tow 3500kg so it’s not a direct comparison.
Again, there are road safety regulations which manufacturers need to meet in order to sell cars in Australia, so what the anti-4WD people need to do is work on getting those changed to something even more stringent, as opposed to demonising a particular type of vehicle. That is the wrong way to look at any regulation. You decide what's safe, and then set the bar. You don't decide you don't like a certain class of vehicle, and then set the bar based on that prejudice. If the bar is moved we may find that the likes of people movers are affected, along with the larger roadcars and who knows what else.
One of the criticism levied against 4WDs is the fact they are tall and block the visibility of other road users. One response is so do most commercial vehicles, but the better answer is so do peoplemovers which are more likely to be used by families, and if you find your view consistently blocked then perhaps it is time to consider a defensive driving course where you’ll be taught observation, keeping your distance and various other techniques to avoid crashes.
Safety advantages of 4WDs
The modern 4WD does have two advantages over a roadcar for onroad safety and the first one is visibility. You sit higher up, so you can see more. That’s over fences, into dips on roads…everywhere. Any driver trainer will tell you the more visibility you have the better, and that includes rearward visibility which is not necessarily any worse in 4WDs. In fact, by far the worst offenders there are sports cars, especially those with rear spoilers. The second advantage is all wheel drive. Every family 4WD on the market with as of 2010, with one exception, is all wheel drive and that gives you dramatically better grip in marginal conditions such as wet, icy or dirt roads and this is especially important as engine power increases year on year.
4WDs tend to be very good tow vehicles and load carriers, so if you have a 1500kg caravan what’s likely to be able to best control it; a roadcar or a 4WD? Or if you have mum, dad, two kids and a load of camping gear how many roadcars can handle that weight without going over their maximum permitted weight (GVM), or even have the space? Do the maths and then see how many roadcars can take the weight.
If you want fewer road accidents then campaign for:
- Compulsory defensive driver training, so road won’t need to be any safer than they are, the drivers become safer instead thus saving billions of dollars on making idiot-proof roads
- Detailed statistics and to be recorded for all accidents, fatal or otherwise, and funding to analyse the results so we can see what statistical basis there is for other road safety measures.
Size
"4WDs are too large". Again, which 4WDs, and too large for what? Perhaps the critics mean the largest common ones on the market, specifically the Nissan Patrol and Landcruiser 200 Series. In that case, we're back to a complaint against large vehicles, not necessarily 4WDs.
Those who rush to advise owners of Patrols and Landcruisers to switch to Falcon and Commodore wagons should check the dimensions of each. The four vehicles have virtually the same width, but the 2WDs are in fact longer. The 4WDs are taller. Therefore, the problem must be with the vehicle's height, which has been discussed in the previous section on Safety.
The fact is that 4WDs are no longer or wider than a comparable roadcar. The manufacturer websites are there for you to check for yourself.
Fuel Consumption
Gas guzzler" is an epithet often applied to 4WDs. The criticism is that 4WDs use "more fuel" than a roadcar. All else being equal, it is true that driving all four wheels requires additional driveshafts and other items, hence additional weight, plus the extra height means more drag, all of which increases fuel consumption relative to an otherwise-identical 2WD.
It's worth examining the root of this concern. It must be use of petroleum, due to the fact it's a finite resource, and also the effect on the environment. Therefore, what the argument is really saying is that we must not use "too much" fuel. But who will define “too much” fuel ? Families in Europe manage with Vectra, or even Astra-sized cars. They don't have something the size of a Commodore. Perhaps pressurise all Falcon and Commodore owners to change, too? Once they’re into Focuses and Astras, then force them into i30s and Yarises.
Who is it, exactly, that decides what fuel use is appropriate? And by the way, better outlaw all luxury cars as those are heavier than base models and their extra electrics use fuel. Or are luxury cars ok because the percentage extra fuel used is just a little bit, whereas 4WDs are apparently more? Remind me who creates this line on which logic again?
A mere look at how many litres per 100km is too narrow a view. The bigger picture is how much you use in total against your needs. Whatever your "needs" are, as opposed to wants. So if we don't give up cars immediately, we should seek not to waste fuel. Should we all drive small cars like the Huyndai Excel? Ah no, I hear a cry. I need a larger car, as I have a family, people to transport, a boat to pull, dogs to move…the list is endless. Fine.
Perhaps we should say "don't buy a car any larger or more powerful than you need". That allows those who "need" them to have large cars. It denies single people the right to their powerful, large sportscars unless they can prove they "need" them. And that is a slippery path to the sort of state few people want to live in, where we begin to legislate to differentiate between "need" and "want". Internet filter, anyone?
So let us suppose everyone buys no more car capability than they “need”. I'm happy with that. My requirements are for a car that can transport my family, camping gear and remote-area equipment over rough terrain. The solution is commonly called a 4WD. And while it uses more fuel than, say, the sedan car equivalent, the sedan can't fulfil my requirements any more than a two-door compact car can fulfil the requirements of a large family. While my 4WD isn’t ideal for city trips, it does a much better job of driving around a city than a city car would do on a bush camping trip.
And what about "unnecessary" trips? If I own a 4WD but I take a bicycle and public transport to work (as in fact I do), so my annual mileage is a third of my neighbour who drives to work, then is it ok for me to own and operate a 4WD?
If you want to campaign for a reduction in petrol use then try some of these ideas:
- Inflate everyone’s tyres to the correct pressures (safety benefit too, immediately cut Australia's fuel bill by 1-2%, far more than converting all 4WDs to roadcars)
- Teach everyone defensive and economy driving techniques
- Invest in research for alternative energy sources
- Promote bicycle use, carpooling etc
There's more on this theme in the blog post - Are you a hypocrite? -- which describes how taking a camping holiday with a 4WD and then running it for a whole year results in less emissions than a flight within Australia to a holiday desintation.
4WDs in the Environment
The argument is that 4WDs damage the environment in forests, deserts and other terrain that isn't a bitumen road. I think there is a stark choice. Either have a forest used for recreation, or have no forest and have suburbia instead. If you would have no human activity in a forest, there will be few humans to fight for that forest.
There are some places in every part of the world where human activity should be banned, but it shouldn't be everywhere outside of the suburbs. National Parks are valuable and have their place, but not every non-suburban square metre needs to be turned into a no-human-access park.
The number of forest users is long; 4WDers, dirtbikers, bushwalkers, fishermen, hunters, canoeists, cyclists, horseriders, hunters, rogainers, joggers, birdwatchers, miners, orienteers, campers…the list goes on.
Properly managed, the forest can easily survive use. Within every group of users there will be a rouge element of idiots, but don't tar the responsible majority with the brush of the irresponsible minority.
If we look at the average forest it is many hundreds of square kilometres, if not many thousands. Is anyone seriously suggesting some 4WD tracks in a forest ruin the entire environment? Even bushwalking tracks require modifications to the natural environment, and more so if you consider the wide, gravel roads used for access.
If any given track becomes problematic, that's where good management steps in and repairs, or closes the track. The same happens if an area is over-fished, over-camped, or people start to cut corners on bushwalks or any other part of the forest is threatened by incorrect use. If eventually we need to charge access fees for the forest, so be it, provided that fee goes towards management directed at sustaining the environment for the good of all. Ultimately, if campers need some form of training and license before being permitted I'd support that, and given last week I saw toilet paper strewn about the bush I don't think we can rely on the intelligence or decency of all bush users.
I also don't believe that 4WDs in a forest have any significant effect on the wildlife compared to other human activity. I have never seen any dead animals on or by the side of a 4WD track, but plenty on higher-speed dirt roads where even normal roadcars can venture. A 4WD track is narrow, and the environment isn't modified with bitumen or gravel. Vehicles necessarily move slowly along it. So animals are able to cross it easily, and safely, unlike a wide dirt or bitumen road. Obviously such roads need to be built but the point is a 4WD track has less impact on the environment.
4WD tracks also need to exist for management vehicles, and for emergencies. Recreational 4WD users help maintain, and keep these tracks clear. I've lost count of the amount of fallen trees we've cleared from tracks after storms. I think even the bushwalkers would thank us for that, and the CFA and SES certainly would if they need to get somewhere in a hurry. And most 4WDers of any experience have stories of assisting others, non-4WDers in the bush or remote areas.
The image of 4WDs wheelspinning their way, or even jumping their way over lush forests or scenic deserts is often used to advertise vehicles. This practice is quite simply wrong, and irresponsible. It is not the way 4WDers are trained to drive. It erodes the tracks unnecessarily, risks damage to the vehicle and leads people to the dangerous belief that the vehicle is all-powerful and will simply sail across the toughest obstacles. Recreational 4WD organisations have spoken to manufacturers about this form of advertising and wish to see the practice stopped.
On the wider environment front, is the solution to give up cars as we know them completely? The answer to that is certainly yes and eventually we'll need to move to a different energy source as petroleum runs out. But in the meantime, that's not feasible, so be realistic. If your problem is with automobiles in general, that's fine, but it's hardly a 4WD-specific issue. If you're really concerned about petroleum use and pollution, then I suggest you investigate biodiesel or alternatives then devote your energies to supporting that fuel rather than denigrating 4WDs. It'll do the environment much more good.
4WDs Not Used Offroad
The term "offroad" is a bit of misnomer as it implies that a 4WD can be driven anywhere. In reality, 4WD drivers stick to 4WD tracks which are legal roads. They may be rough and rutted, but they are roads. So they're not really offroad at all in the strictest sense of the word, but the term is used for what could be more accurately but more clumsily described as "non-bitumen driving".
I use my vehicles offroad for family holiday, which gives me a kind of legitmacy in the eyes of some. However, many owners of 4WDs do not take their vehicles offroad -- are they still not permitted to own the vehicles? Yet there are reasons for owning 4WDs and not using them offroad, and these include towing large trailers, and many people with limited joint flexibility prefer not to have to bend down to get into their vehicle. Others buy them because they simply need the space, or up to seven seats and a people mover may not have been an option. It is wrong to assume that everyone with a 4WD that doesn't use it offroad does not have a good reason for their choice of vehicle. Of course, one person's "good" reason may be another person's pathetic excuse. And who shall judge?
The safety aspect is also a significant factor. Many people consider 4WDs safer because they are usually heavier, and taller than conventional cars. In some circumstances that may well be true, in others it may well not.
There are also some people also drive large 4WDs simply because they are large, and they like the feeling of safety, and they like to feel they can bully other road users. The vehicle itself should not be blamed for the personality defects of a minority of its owners who have these character traits regardless of whether they drive or not. If we blamed the tool for the problem, we'd better take up arms against the printing press and email while we're at it.
Using a roadcar instead of a 4WD
There also is an argument that a roadcar station wagon would do just as well as a 4WD for any dirt-road trips. And that is certainly an interesting point. The Birdsville, and Oodnadatta tracks for example don't require a 4WD. But let's think about this for a moment. Years ago, roadcar magazines included critiques of roadcar handling on dirt roads as part of their reviews. No longer, because dirt roads are becoming rarer. In line with that trend roadcars are becoming more road-oriented. Lower to the ground, low-profile tyres, space-saver spares, alloy wheels, high-strung engines running on premium unleaded petrol; I think it fair to say that the average car of yesteryear was probably a better bet for the outback than today's roadcar.
And there is a big difference between "can do it" and "can do it comfortably and safely". A roadcar can negotiate many outback roads. But a 4WD can do it better because it's designed for it. Better suspension, traction, visibility, greater payload and so on. If you wanted to kit out a vehicle for outback travel, with say stronger tyres, long-range tanks, rear cargo storage and more the 4WD industry is ready and waiting to help you.
Some of those accessories are available for roadcars too, but far fewer, less choice and therefore more expense. So it can be done, but why not use a better base vehicle to begin with? If you were to do a 15km bushwalk, you could achieve it patent leather work shoes, but wouldn't it be better to wear more appropriate? I've seen people walk around Kings Canyon with a small bottle of water between the group. Possible, but advisable? Why would you do it, then brag about not needing bushwalking boots?
Economics of Owning a 4WD
It has been pointed out that if one uses a 4WD just for a 4-week trip every year it would make more sense to rent, rather than own one, and use a small car for the rest of the year. The economics may make sense in some cases and this option should be considered when assessing the cost of a 4WD. However, this argument is somewhat narrow and overlooks many other factors. For example, most 4WD-owning families would go on one long trip a year, and many other shorter trips, over weekends and long weekends. It ignores the availability or otherwise of the vehicle in a given area, makes it harder to go on last-minute trips (or cancel, for that matter) and does not consider the convenience of having one's own vehicle set up exactly as the owner prefers.
It also reduces vehicle ownership to a purely monetary decision, and if that were the sole, or even primary consideration of the public then there would be very few cars available on the market, and all of them basic models.
Exports and Jobs
4WD is a big industry. There is a huge modification and accessory market, in which Australia is a world leader with brands like ARB and TJM. The 4WD touring market is a significant source of income to many outback localities. Many overseas visitors are lured by the thought of self-drive 4WD tours. Would the same amount of people still come if 4WDs were banned and we all had to arrive in tour buses? I suspect not.
And if you, as an Aussie resident, buy a 4WD, kit it up, with Australian-made accessories, bought in Australia, fitted in Australia, then learn how to drive it (via an Australian training course), what are you likely to do with your 20 days of leave a year? Probably spend them touring in Australia, which helps the Aussie tourism industry - which needs all the help it can get. That's a fair bit of cash ploughed straight back into Australia. Recreational 4WD means jobs for the 4WD industry, and in rural Australia, and it means exports. It's certainly an area where Australia can claim some measure of world leadership and renown.
Emotion and 4WDs
This could be an essay by itself. It does seem apparent that a lot of the anti-4WD ranting is not based on logic but emotion. Something about 4WDs stirs emotions that lead to anger, sometimes almost hatred. Why? The fact that the 4WD is used on roads, where it can be a target of road rage is also probably a factor. The fact that humans transform into entirely different beings when behind the wheel is well known, and everyone else becomes arrogant tossers in Porsches, stupid Sunday drivers, idiot taxi drivers…and of course, bloody idiots in 4WDs. Perhaps it's because 4WDs are seen by some as status symbols because they are more expensive than a conventional vehicle, and any status symbol in Australia attracts derision, from Ferraris to mansions.
Perhaps it's fear. Some 4WDs are taller than the average car with the driver sitting higher, and anything taller than what you're in can be intimidating. And if you feel at all intimidated, or inferior, then you're not going to like what you're intimidated by. Perhaps some believe that by owning a 4WD people are directly financing terrorist activities by using "more fuel", being ecologically irresponsible and generally being a danger on the roads. They would have read the anti-4WD propaganda, and perhaps not stopped to question it and see if there is another side to the story. The answer isn't clear, but it is apparent that more letters are written to newspapers on the subject of 4WDs than any other vehicle type, so somewhere, somehow, the subject of 4WD is sufficiently emotive for many to air their views publicly. And yes, there is irony in that statement.
Fair comparisons
Very often the largest 4WDs are compared against compact or medium cars, for example the Toyota LC200 vs the Toyota Corolla. The LC200 can tow 3500kg without any special kit, seat 8 in most variants, carry 600-800kg and traverse very rough terrain. The Corolla is nowhere near on any point. A fairer comparison would be to compare a 2WD and 4WD of equal width and length, which would see the Corolla against the smaller 4WDs where the capabilities would be closer (rough-terrain ability excepted). Of course, the disparity in fuel consumption and weight would be nowhere near as great which is perhaps why these comparisons are not made more often. It would be like comparing the Corolla against large luxury cars such as BMW 7 Series.
What is the anti-4WD movement's plan?
I've read a fair few anti-4WD articles. I have not yet seen any coherent, realistic plan to deal with their grievances, usually just a lot of inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole. Personally, I don't like to complain unless I have suggestions for a solution. Blithe comments like "get them off the streets", while perhaps striking an emotional chord, simply aren't realistic because they aren't thought through. And as much as some people would dream it, no government is going to force all 4WD owners to drive their vehicles to a compactor and destroy them, or ban their sale forthwith.
So, my question to any anti-4WD campaigners is quite simple. You've said there is a problem. Firstly, can the problem be clearly stated, and secondly, do you have a realistic solution to your perceived problem? Preferably one that can be stated without hysterics.
The other point of view
Here it is:
http://www.nosuv.org/ - no longer updated
http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/ - specific to urban 4X4s at least
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1497/ - Greenpeace's anti-4X4 ad with commentary.
More links
A caravaning discussion
There's a discussion here:
http://caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15855
on the topic. A couple of interesting comments:
In NSW, it is very difficult to find a public road where a four wheel drive would ever be required.
I beg to differ, as would many others. There are other comments wondering if any roads are marked "4WD Only". The answer is yes, lots of them, all around the country.
The 4WD's I really hate are the one raised up so you could drive over a mini, have tyres more suited to monster trucks, often come with green or red letter P on small plastic squares at the front and rear, often have tyres well wider than the vehicles body, and have a blind spot you could park a double decker bus in. Yes we have 3 or 4 of these around here and in the wet they handle like a terrified cat on polished quarry tiles, and sway like a building caught in a magnitude 9 earth quake. They are the 4WD's I'd like to see off the road and on a restricted off-roading registration as they are dangerous on the road, but ideally suited to off-roading adventures.
Yep, nobody likes illegally modified vehicles which are a danger to one and all and they should be removed from the road. I also argue that a 4WD tourer does't need such a highly modified vehicle at all.
Envy?
A recent study showed that drivers act on envy based on perceived social and income status. In other words, they are jealous of people with more money and act accordingly. This may go some way to explaining why Toorak Tractors are so hated.
7 Seater 4WD Comparison
Note: This article was originally published in 2006. It should be useful for anyone considering a vehicle of the 2004-2008 age, although several vehicles in this review have since been updated.
Remember when it was just you and your mates?
Then came the girlfriend, and before you know it you’re an expert on the fitting of childseats. That’s when a seven seater begins to be a useful option, as even if you’re not going as far as having a third kid for the country, often miscellaneous extra people need to be carted around.
So it was with this scenario in mind that Overlander decided to take a fresh look at some of the Sevens on the market and assess just how usable they are as people transporters. And this test is from the perspective of someone that who isn’t bothered about comparing long gizmo spec sheets full of features like auto-dimming mirrors and electric seats, but puts more emphasis on “can the thing carry people over rough terrain and is it a fun drive”.
You can’t test these things as family wagons unless you load them up with at least six people and go somewhere. So we did, and the opinions of all those people are represented in this review. We spent time travelling in each row and drove each vehicle on everything from bitumen to steep rocky hills. We fitted a childseat to the vehicles, one that is designed to be a little shorter than normal yet still compliant with all ADRs. Comparative fuel consumption wasn’t possible as the vehicles were driven on different days, so we’ve used manufacturer-supplied figures.
It’s clear to see how vehicle interior design has progress over the years, and the newer designs are far more usuable than the older ones. For example, the third-row seat systems fall into two broad categories, those that fold flat into the floor (integrated) and those that don’t (non-integrated). We found integrated seats to be more convenient to use and more often comfortable to sit in.
For the comparative specs and prices we’ve listed automatic turbodiesels in mid-spec trim. Our test vehicles varied in engine and trim, but neither would make a significant difference to ability as a seven-seater. Each car is rated from 1-5 stars on Accommodation, Onroad (including fast dirt roads) and Offroad (low range work). The ratings are relative to the other vehicles tested, so 1 is well below par, 3 is average and 5 is one of the best on test.
Suzuki XL-7
Suzuki’s XL-7 is Grand Vitara based,and hasn’t been replaced in the recent model launch. It’s the smallest and cheapest vehicle here, available only in petrol.
7-Seater
The third-row people can put their feet under the second row, and the second row is a 60/40 split which can move on rails, so there’s some flexibility which means everyone can get comfy. That’s an impressive capability for a relatively small vehicle.
On the downside, the third row doesn’t fold down flat properly, and there’s not much in the way of tiedowns. This is just lazy design and really spoils what could have been a great little 7-seater. There’s only two child restraints points, but both are built into the seat back. The second row can fold down, but disappointingly, not flat.
If you’re into little storage areas dotted around the car you’ll be disappointed, and the middle second-row seat is pushed for legroom.
On the road
The Zook is a delight on the roads, definitely on the sporty side with tight, neutral handling and at a svelte 1625kg with an eager engine it’s a take-the-long-road-home car. It handles dirt roads well, but is disadvantaged by its 2WD transmission. There’s sufficient power to spin the wheels at 70kmph on a dirt road, and that combined with the too-sensitive throttle response can see power-on oversteer in situations where an all-wheel-drive would be far more controllable and safe.
Off the road
The XL-7 was the only vehicle tested without traction control or a LSD, yet went further than some others purely due to reasonable articulation (provided almost entirely by the rear live axle), low range gearing and a robust body that can take a few knocks. 
And it needs to, as the XL-7 doesn’t have much in the way of clearance due to small tyres and a longish wheelbase. It’s crying out for a little lift and bigger rubber. Definitely a vehicle with potential.
Summary
Great on-road, works well offroad, spacious seats, disappointments are cargo bay design, and not having all wheel drive to make use of that power and improve the handling still further. But it’s only $35k, so a lot can be forgiven and there’s plenty of accessories to improve things still further.
Accommodation 3 stars
Onroad 4
Offroad 3
Hyundai Terracan
7-Seater
The first and 60/40 second row are spacious enough, although the middle second row passenger has only a lap belt. There are three childseat restraints fitted but they’re all in the cargo bay. While the headrests sensibly slide into the seats, the third-row passenger never use theirs because they’re banging their heads against the roof. Combine that with the chronic lack of legroom and we have easily the least comfortable third-row in this test. Generally the whole interior design needs an update and there’s no particular strong point to recommend it as a Seven.
On the road
The Terracan’s handling left me wondering “what if”. What if Hyundai had seen fit to fit shocks that have some dampening effect so the car doesn’t porpoise down the road after bigger bumps? What if the steering wasn’t so vague (especially at centre), so it tracks straight more easily and turns in more crisply? What would the combined effect of both be on handling near its dynamic limit, where the car seems distinctly nervous? As it stands, the ‘Can is an adequate tourer, happy enough loping along but not being pushed. On the plus side, the 3.5L engine is willing to rev and moves the car along pretty nicely, and the AWD system in the Highlander model does a reasonable job of providing grip.
Off the road
Terracan ticks the offroad boxes with low range, reasonable clearances, a live rear axle that provides most of the articulation as the torsion-bar front end doesn’t flex much, an LSD, recovery points front and rear and a pretty torquey engine.
With all those points in its favour the Terracan will go a lot further a lot easier that any softroader and even many cars that have a transfer case, and it has good under-body protection too. Only worry is that there is no high-range 4WD mode, just one of those “AWD when the system feels like it” trannies, and that would be a disadvantage in situations like high-speed sand, and there’s no tricks like second-gear start on what is an auto gearbox a few years behind the times.
Summary
It’ll never be a rally car, but it’s good value at only $40k and goes well offroad. If you can live with old-school interior, and the third row space, worth a look for buyers on a budget. 
Accommodation 1 stars
Onroad 2
Offroad 4
Nissan Pathfinder
7-Seater
This is a new vehicle and reflects the latest thinking in interior design if not suspension tuning, but we’ll get to that later. The third-row seats are integrated and the easiest of the lot to erect, just one pull and they’re up. The second row is a practical three-way split, and there’s some little storage boxes under those seats.
However, the Pathie’s interior is fatally flawed because it’s cramped in the second and third row, and in particular what Nissan missed in an otherwise excellent design is footroom for the third-row under the second row. This is bad because the Pathie has a lowish roofline, so the third-row seats aren’t very high. Don’t put adults you like in the back.
But as the cargo area is pretty deep, you do get is a fair bit of space behind the third row, and it’s all very sensible tough plastic in the back as opposed to pointless carpet.
There’s some feeble tie-downs, one of which we broke while ratchet-strapping a recovery box down.
On the road
The 3.3 petrol accelerates like a rocket and stops like a racecar. Handling is excellent provided the road is smooth, but as the surface gets rougher the driver’s confidence level drops as the electronics unsuccessfully try and calm a car that seems scared of rough surfaces. We had a Patrol the same weekend and everyone preferred the bigger live-axle car on anything other than smooth bitumen.
Off the road
You need to pick your line carefully as the 
all-independent suspension has very limited travel indeed, which means the rather average traction control needs to do work it’s not really up to. While the power is nicely controllable and the gearing is good (except it wouldn’t do a second-low start), the Pathie is a low-range disappointment relative to its peers.
Summary
The Pathie’s major advantage is cost, and as it’s a Nissan it’ll be tough and reliable. The interior is well designed but disappointingly cramped. On the upside, it has above-average towing ability for its class. If loose-dirt handling and offroad capability aren’t important it would be high on the shopping list.
Accommodation 3 stars
Onroad 2
Offroad 2
Ford Territory
7-Seater
Something of a disappointment given the car’s newness. Firstly, only a 60/40 rear seat, and the third row is both up or both down. Then there’s the huge transmission tunnel destroying comfort for the middle second row occupant. Second-row legroom is reasonable, third row is adequate provided the second row is moved forwards so there’s footroom under the seats – but that really cramps the second row.
On the plus side there are three child restraints built into the second row, and uniquely, two for the third row. We’d prefer a split tailgate, although the little storage area that the third row base moves into is useful and the second row folds completely flat.
On the road
This is the best onroad drive of the bunch, and in this company that is quite an achievement for Ford’s Australian engineers. The Territory has it all; sharp turn in, powerful engine, precise and direct steering that’s just a little too light. The whole package inspires driver confidence and is very much a take-the-long-road home car. The icing on what is a tasty cake is definitely the 6-speed auto which is almost psychic and so smooth you only hear the gearchanges, not feel them. Best of all when powering out of a corner in sports mode it’s already in the low gear needed for a quick exit, unlike most of the rest which belatedly realise more power is required and then bang the tranny down a cog. Only minor gripe is that the suspension needs a little more travel to avoid the bumpstops when loaded. Well, you could slow down but this car doesn’t like going slowly!
Off the road
All the Territory has to offer for offroad potential is traction control, 
hill descent control and a powerful engine. Unfortunately, they don’t make up for very limited clearance, hardly any articulation, no low range, no underbody protection, poor angles, no recovery points and an air intake very vulnerable to water crossings…so keep this car firmly on dirt roads where it simply excels. Unlike the Kluger the stability control can be switched off and while that helps it still leaves the Ford in high range territory.
Summary
Everything else is better offroad, most are better Sevens but nothing beats the Territory at speed.
Accommodation 3 stars
Onroad 5
Offroad 1
Toyota Kluger
7-Seater
The Kluger is one of the smaller vehicles here, but one of the better seven-seaters. There is a lot of room in the first and second rows, and the second row is a 60/40 split which can moved forwards and backwards, and a real plus is that the middle second row passenger doesn’t need to put up with resting their feet on a tunnel for the propshaft. If the second row is moved forwards, then the third-row people have plenty of room and everyone is still very comfortable.
On the downside, the third-row seats are either both up or down, so use as a six-seater is limited. Has a small centre console and a bizarre hole under the transmission shift that serves no apparent purpose but to waste space. Three restraints, all in the seats.
On the road
If not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, then at least a pretty fierce dog. To my great surprise the Kluger is in fact something of a driver’s car, turning in nicely, fairly neutral and quite chuckable with the only complaint being the too-light steering, especially at centre. It’s great on winding roads and on the dirt, and the chassis begs for an even stronger engine and manual gearbox controls. I’d quite like to see a Kluger Sportivo, but I really hate the foot-operated parkbrake.
Off the road
It was difficult to assess the Kluger’s true offroad potential because Toyota’s method of switching stability control off is to lock the centre diff. 
This can’t be done with the Kluger, so the damn thing remains on, and as soon as there is any hint of sideways movement it comes in hard and kills any momentum. I found this out the hard way while ascending a slippery slope and ended up in a ditch thanks to the computer’s sudden application of the brakes. This is quite frankly dangerous offroad and Toyota should allow the centre diff to be locked and the stability control disabled so the Kluger’s albeit limited offroad abilities could properly be exploited. Even if they did, the lack of low range, dubious underbody protection and lack of recovery points mean you won’t be taking it too far anyway.
Summary
A consideration if you want a dirt-road tourer and don’t mind the all-or-nothing third row.
Accommodation 4 stars
Onroad 5
Offroad 1
Nissan Patrol
7-Seater
The Patrol is a reverse-Tardis, much smaller in interior dimensions, payload and towing capacity than you’d expect from being nearly the heaviest vehicle, the longest and widest. It can’t even tow as much as little bruvver Pathie, and the XL-7 can carry more. Nevertheless, there is a fair bit of room for the first five occupants, but the third row is cramped.
The headrests need to be removed which annoyed us as they kept getting lost. Only one restraint out of three fitted and of course it’s in the floor. To be competitive in this market it needs a complete body redesign, which should include a full seatbelt for the middle second row passenger.
On the road
For such an old design – live axles, 2WD -- the Patrol motors along just fine and is in fact very good over rougher dirt roads.. Nothing exciting about the handling, just safe but not too boring. The 3.0 four-speed auto revs hard, and it needs to so it can move the beast, although it could certainly use another cog or two in the box. Toyota have an ability to make everything feel half the size it actually is, whereas in the Patrol you can imagine you’re driving a B-double. Has a pointless split rear door.
Off the road
It’s a Patrol. ‘Nuff said.
Well, ok, it’s damn good, and while the gearing and front-end travel aren’t class-leading, the Patrol lives for the rough stuff. An excellent LSD helps, clearance is good, and the sum is somehow better than its parts. The 3.0 still has noticeable turbo-surge though which can catch the unwary in low-speed situations, but you get used to it, and while the forward visibility isn’t good you just point and go.
Summary
Smaller vehicles are more capable in every way, but the Patrol offers reliable strength and isn’t particularly expensive. Does nothing badly but not much as well as it should.
Accommodation 2 stars
Onroad 3
Offroad 5
Toyota Prado
7-Seater
Another olde-world design, complete with a dashboard I think I recognise from an ’85 Corolla. Has a non-integrated third row, but is 8-seat capable. Comfortable in the first two rows, with a lot of space in the 60/40 split second, but more legroom needed in the third row, and don’t put three adults there unless they’re prepared to become good friends.
Three child restraints, all in the back of the seat, second row folds up for decent cargo space. Lots of personal storage areas. Generally adequate, never outstanding.
On the road
I don’t think anyone ever hopped out of a bitumen-road drive on the Prado and said “fantastic what fun that was”. 
Oh, there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just phenomenally boring, not particularly well settled on dirt roads and it plays seriously safe with the understeer. It’s amazing how the Kluger is a bundle of fun and the Prado has had all the driving pleasure squeezed out of it. The test Grande had stability control which was much more in evidence in the Prado than either of the other Toyotas, probably because the Prado’s handling limits are that much lower and when those limits are reached the computer slaps you down with a severe chop to the throttle, a decisive application of the brake and enough sirens and flashing lights to let you know it’s not happy.
Off the road
Now we’re talking. Excellent articulation, gearing, recovery points, Prado certainly ticks the offroad boxes. Toyota know what they’re doing in low-range work and the Prado will go a very long way even without the Grande’s traction control.
Summary
Bland competence in all areas apart from driver excitement, but like all designs of the age needs an update.
Accommodation 3 stars
Onroad 2
Offroad 4
Mitsubishi Pajero
7-Seater
The Pajero’s first two rows are comfortable and spacious, with a 60/40 second-row split. The third row neatly folds down into the cargo bay floor, and can be entirely removed for extra space. When upright, that space under the seats is accessible for a storage area, and is hidden from view.
This is great thinking as with 7-seaters storage room for baggage is at a premium. Unfortunately, the Paj is either a 5 or 7 seater; the third row cannot be split which significantly reduces storage space if used as a 6-seater.
The Paj has three child restraint points available, all of which interfere with storage space and third-row room. Only one is fitted as standard.
On the road
The Pajero is quick, nimble, fun and easy to drive in traffic and has comfortingly large mirrors. On unmade roads it’s up there with the best and feels distinctly sporty, grips the road well, doesn’t get unsettled by bumps or loose dirt and the 3.2 DiD engine pulls along very nicely indeed. Unfortunately, push too hard and you find pronounced understeer which is a real disappointment and spoils what would otherwise be very much a driver’s car. Yes, it’s a little noisy but if that upsets you best stay somewhere where you won’t spill your designer coffee.
Off the Road
The Pajero doesn’t have particularly low gearing, great articulation or clearances. Yet somehow it is better than the specs suggest, aided by Mitubishi’s excellent traction control and the low-down strength of the engine. The Mitsu electronic descent system, EBAC, works automatically in first low, only on the front wheels and too quickly for comfort, so don’t bother with it.
Summary
A leading-edge 7-seater design when it was launched, the Paj needs an interior update. The dynamics are great but are ultimately spoiled by understeer. A tough, reliable and fun-driving tourer.
Accommodation 3 stars
Onroad 5
Offroad 3
Volvo XC-90
7-Seater
A luxurious, modern and generally smartly-designed interior. The rear cargo bay is very deep and this pays off with reasonable third-row space, especially behind the seats. Second-row seating is less impressive, especially for the centre occupant who gives up significant footroom to a bulge for the rear propshaft.
The third row is very comfy if the second row passengers move their seats forwards, something they won’t be keen to do.
There is a cute built-in toddler booster seat, and a little button which locks the second-row doors. The console between the two front seats is removable for extra second-row room, but of course you lose storage room. Plenty of storage areas.
On the road
This is not even an AWD, it’s a two-tonne front wheel drive roadcar with a lift. The transmission splits the torque 95/5% front/rear and it shows, with noticeable torque steer out of hard corners, and that was with the little engine. While the XC-90 handles acceptably, it should be better considering its strong road bias and could be if the rear axle did more of the work. The suspension travel isn’t all that good and when loaded it doesn’t take a major bump for it to run out of flex and start to thud. The stability control isn’t intrusive and places genteel limits, and if it all goes badly wrong there’s so many airbags it’d probably float away.
Off the road
Softroaders used to at least have the advantage of being small and light to offset a lack of low range. The Volvo isn’t small, or light, and it is no 4WD. Power control isn’t easy at crawl speeds, it has no recovery points and it has an unforgivable space saver spare. Articulation is miserable so traction is forever being lost; the front wheels spin, the traction control wakes up and sends a message back to Volvo HQ in Sweden to ask permission to get the rear axle working. 
I say via Sweden as something has to account for the delay. By then of course it’s all too late as you’ve spun to a stop. Keep this car to well-formed dirt roads at worst, which in fairness is all it’s designed for.
Summary
Keen drivers and 4WDers look elsewhere, but consider it if you want a luxurious, safe people mover around town.
Accommodation 4 stars
Onroad 4
Offroad 1
Land Rover Discovery 3
7-Seater
Discovery is a new design and it shows, winning the third-row space contest hands-down, or rather feet forward as the third-row people can put their feet under the second row and its high rear roofline means the third row sits high too. Only XC90, Kluger and XL7 come close to third row comfort and then only when their second row seats are moved forwards, something the D3 can’t (and doesn’t) need to do.
The Disco follows that win up with good second-row space in three adjustable seats that are easy to use, three child restraint points in the rear of the seats, a split tailgate and fold-flat second seats.
Everything is easy to use, and the squarish body means loadspace isn’t compromised, even if you think looks are. That gives the Disco a hugely square cargo bay and even the second row folds completely flat for maximum load space.
On the road
Dynamically the Disco is a like a skilled but obese ballerina, with amazing grace for one so weighty, and you can’t help but fantastise about that handling in say a 2-tonne package. It’s as good, or better, than many softroaders.
Off the road
The Discovery 3 is a traction bloodhound, because if there’s grip to be got, this car will find it and use it. Firstly there is the long-travel independent suspension, improved further by the cross-linking which pushes each wheel down over undulations, keeping the vehicle level.
Then you’ve got that beautiful engine with smooth power delivery for inch-perfect control, and the most advanced electronic driving aids which includes the best traction control yet. The underbody is nice and clean, with the independent suspension meaning there’s no diff pumpkin to hang up, and it’s well protected.
Summary
What’s incredible about the Disco is that by softroader standards it’s very good on-road, and yet by 4WD standards it’s very good offroad. And if that’s not enough, the interior is the best 7-seater in this group. The only negative is the price and current lack of aftermarket accessories.
Accommodation 5 stars
Onroad 4
Offroad 5
Toyota LC100 4.2tdi
7-Seater
The Cruiser has the biggest rear cargo bay, but an old-school third-row design that doesn’t allow the seats to be folded flat. Third-row legroom is below par, and access isn’t particularly easy via the 60/40 second row.
The story is much better in the first and second rows where it’s a very comfortable life for all. Huge centre console almost big enough for misbehaving toddlers.
Annoyingly, only one restraint fitted and all the mounts are in the cargo bay floor. The LC100’s interior works well but only because of the huge amount of room.
On the road
Composed and assured, the LC100 does very well for its size and feels smaller and more nimble than it really is, handling any road surface with regal aplomb if not verve and excitement. Although the stability control did come on in a straight line over some very bouncy corrugations when pushed hard, that’s more Toyota erring on the safe side than the car being at its limit.
Off the road
“King off the road” may be stretching it a bit, but when it comes to low-range work the Cruiser has several aces; long-travel independent front and live-axle rear, deep low range gearing, smooth power delivery and a well-tucked chassis. Our test vehicle was the Sahara which has air suspension, so it can be raised a very handy 50mm over normal height. It also had traction control but such is the impressive ability of the car to put power to the ground it doesn’t need to work hard.
Summary
Does everything very well, as it should for the price, but you have to wonder how good it could be if the interior were more modern so it could really utilise all the interior space.
Onroad 4
Offroad 5
Verdict
There’s no doubt the 7-seater market is alive and well, and the newer designs are very practical family vehicles indeed, capable of dealing with everything from local shopping to not so local touring. It was also interesting to see that intelligent interior design more than compensates for small interior dimensions. But seven-seaters are different things to different people, so here’s a few recommendations:
Best People Mover As a pure Seven the Discovery has to win. Spacious, flexible, easy, comfortable…it’s the best interior design here by a long way.
Best 4WD Tourer OK, so you want something that moves people, but also gets you out into the bush and you can set up to your exact specifications and certainly when I buy a vehicle, I’m thinking about bushable accessories and that doesn’t mean 19-inch alloys. As a tourer I’d take the LC100, as it’s good at everything and is a top 4WD. If that’s too expensive, the Prado, Pajero and Patrol are all very capable tourers too. When the accessories for the D3 are available that’ll look good too.
Best Budget Buy The Zook is the cheapest at less than $40k, and the next nearest, the Terracan and Pathie can’t match it’s interior space, although the Terracan might go further offroad. At that price you could do a lot more to it. Unfortunately, there’s no diesel XL-7.
Best Roadcar Territory achieves no mean feat in shading Kluger on the road, but that advantage is negated by Kluger’s better interior design, so the Toyota is the pick of the two. For luxury, you can’t go past the XC-90.
The Perfect 7-Seater After testing them all, here’s our ideal Seven:
- Second row
- three individually adjustable seats (not just a 60/40 split). This means that access to the rear is a lot easier (less seat to fold) and gives you more loadspace options. o all with full seatbelts.
- child restraints built into each seat back (and the new ISOFIX system). Child restraints built into the cargo bay floor just waste space.
- Seats adjustable forwards and backwards. This isn’t essential – the Discovery can’t do it but has so much room it doesn’t suffer. The Kluger can, and the first and second row have so much room they can easily give up some for the third row.
- Fold-flat option. Not every vehicle could offer a properly flat second row, and only Disco, Territory and XC90 fold the second row completely flat out of the way.
- Third row
- Integrated, so each seat individually folds down into the cargo bay.
- Can be removed easily for extra storage. However, some seats are so small and flat there would be little advantage to their being removed.
- Third-row passengers can easily access their seats; forget climbing in through the back over baggage, find a way in via the second row. o Footroom under the second row! Makes a huge difference to third-row comfort.
- Child restraints in the third row - Lots of storage behind third row.
- A horizontally split tailgate to stop cargo falling out when the rear door is opened. Out of all the tailgates we had, those were voted the most popular.
- Parking sensor or similar so you have help reversing when it’s full of people.
- Headrests that slide down flush into each seat.
- All the seats can easily be operated – the litmus test is no swearing required. The 60/40 designs are at a disadvantage here.
7 People: Can it be done?
We all know in theory these vehicles can seat seven, or even eight in the case of the LC100 and Prado. Is it practical for anything other than short trips? I’d say yes. For example, we loaded the Kluger up with four adults and two kids in kiddie seats, and went overnight touring. We managed to fit all our bags (well, everyone travelled light) and the people in without any problem. What really helps is seating flexibility. In the Kluger you can move the second row backwards and forwards; unfortunately, you can’t convert it to a six-seater only.
I made sure I spent some time in every seat, particularly the third row. In many cases it’s not a bad ride and sometimes preferable to the centre position in the second row which often has restricted legroom. As a comparison, the third-row space is less than that on your average economy airline seat, in particular room to slide feet under the seat in front. The seats are also more reclined and comfortable.
If you want to tour and rely on motels for then 6-7 people is doable unless you’ve got lots of gear, in which case a roof storage device would be a handy option. Any camping would definitely see you towing a trailer as the weight of the gear needed would be too much for the roof. Better yet, take two 4WDs!
Which spec? Petrol or diesel?
We’ve covered this before in Overlander, but if anyone reading this is still stuck in a 1980s view of diesels, please do yourself a favour and try one before writing them off as slow, smelly and dirty. I made a point of not telling my wife whether the test cars were petrol or diesel and she couldn’t pick it. There’s plenty of pros and cons, but diesel will give you far better fuel economy, and that’s very important when you’re touring outback. If you do buy a petrol for touring, make sure it doesn’t rely on premium unleaded.
Auto or manual?
Autos are better offroad than manuals in virtually every situation, and modern ones are very good onroad too. Many experienced people are swearing they’ll never switch back. If you haven’t already, give a slushboxes a shot.
Trim level?
My view here is pretty simple. Low to mid spec. The Saharas, HSEs, Exceeds of the world have largely pointless gizmos that just add weight (reducing payload), take up under-seat storage space, swap simple parts for complicated ones, and there’s more to go wrong.
Are rally school courses any use for offroaders?
Of what use is a rally driving course to an offroader? Certainly it’s fun, but you’d have to wonder if there’s any practical application. The terrain may well be dirt, but rally cars are don’t spend a lot of time below walking pace. Yet the answer is that rally training is of immense value to offroaders, which is why I spent a day at RallySchool.com.au. That, and the fact it was fun!
Let’s start with two generalisations. The first is that any course, experience or tip that improves your car control in one type of driving will generally be of benefit in pretty much any other type of driving.
The second is that a technique entirely appropriate for one type of driving may be entirely inappropriate for another. The trick is knowing what to take from type to type, and that starts when you first get into the car.
When you’re driving a high-performance vehicle you want to be as securely belted in as is comfortable, and down low. This is so you feel as one with the car as possible, as you need to be correcting slides even before they’ve truly begun, and in general getting as much feedback as possible from every control you’ve got. By the way, the correct way to do up a five or four point harness is tighten the thigh straps first, then the centre if fitted, and only then the top straps.
The offroad driving position is a little different, and by “offroad” here I mean low-range, low-speed work, not higher speeds on dirt roads. When offroad the connected-to-car idea still holds, but it is more of an advantage to sit high so you can see the terrain as often you’ll need to be looking just in front of you. At higher speeds your focus shifts ahead, at 2km/h you need to be aware of what’s ahead but the problem in front of your nose probably demands more attention. You’ll also perhaps need to crane your neck or move your body around to look out of the windows.
Something the same is the position of the body relative to the controls. In offroad and road driving you want to be able to push your body back into the seat, reach forwards with an arm and drape your wrist over the top of the steering wheel. If you need to lean forwards so the back of your shoulder isn’t pressed against the seat then you are sitting too far away from the steering wheel, so adjust the controls. If it feels wrong, then you’ve been doing it wrong all those years. The other check is being able to fully extend your legs to comfortably depress the pedals to their full extent.
The steering technique also changes, and indeed when the chief instructor learned I was an offroad instructor he asked me if I taught push-pull, the classic technique of shuffling the wheel keeping your hands at around quarter-to-three on the steering wheel. I knew where he was going with that – he was going to beat it out of me - but I said yes. The main other technique is rotational steering, where you fix your hands at quarter to three and keep them there as the wheel is turned, and if you need more than around 100 degrees of turn you release the lower hand and grab the higher steering wheel spoke. This allows the wheel to be turned very quickly, and you always know which way it is pointing when you’re spinning it.
The thing is, there isn’t a “best” way of steering overall, just a best way for a given car in given conditions. For a high-performance, high speed car push-pull is madness and I use, advocate strongly and teach rotational steering. But for most offroading it doesn’t work as well. There are several reasons; firstly when you have about 100 degrees of lock on you need to go one-handed to grab the opposite spoke. At that point you’ve got little strength on the wheel, and when offroad you may well be clambering over rocks the size of footballs, or negotiating deep ruts. This sort of terrain can put a great force on the steering wheel, and you need both hands on it, firmly, no two ways about it. Also, at high speed in a performance car 90 degree of lock is a lot. It's very little at walking pace in an offroad vehicle.
A second problem is that often you need to change over controls with the steering wheel turned, for example engaging lockers, changing gears, talking on the CB and so on. If your hands are turned away from the auxiliary controls you can’t do that. With shuffle you can as your hands are always ideally placed. The idea of doing anything like that mid-corner in a performance vehicle is just wrong, but low-speed offroading doesn’t really have a concept of driving a corner as in performance driving. The wheels are just turned, and you may well get out of the car, walk around to check things out, get back and complete the ‘corner’, such that it is.
Here's our Discovery easing down a rocky slope at around 1km/h. You don't need rotational steering for that, but you do need to be able to hold the steering wheel very firmly in one position because of the rocks and the weight on one wheel.
That said, this advocacy of push-pull doesn’t mean that it is always better offroad. A good example is fast mud driving, as in the photo below.
...but not fast. The car is in the loose dirt which is why it is spinning all four wheels. Closer to the inside line the road doesn't have much loose dirt and there would be better traction. This is an instructor hotlap so he's out there intentionally to drift, but you're taught the difference and effect of staying on the grip line.
Notice below how quick the wheels are spinning. The power is on.
In the shot below the wheels are pretty much frozen by the camera, so not rotating as fast because there’s no power. The driver has decided there’s enough of a skid and is now correcting. That’s done by reducing the power, and turning the steering wheel in the direction he wishes the car to go.
Car still rotating, wheel turned even more, still no power. No brakes either (look at the rear lights), as that would over-rotate the car. Before getting this far the driver would have looked ahead, assesed the corner and is now mindful that the terrain he is on has a slight downslope, which will help keep the skid going.
Now the driver has felt the car catch, feels the skid won’t develop any further, and it’s time to go so power is applied. The wheels are now blurred because they are rotating much quicker. The shutter speed (1/80 sec) was the same throughout the sequence.
As ever, wheels pointing where you want to do. There's the benefit of rotational steering in this situation.
Incidentially, that sequence also shows a "fast in, slow out" approach to corners. Look at how long the driver has had to wait before getting on the throttle and how far through the corner he is. The quicker way is to sacrifice a bit of corner entry speed so you can get on the power early and rocket out of the corner. That's "slow in, fast out" and a racing maxim. However, that sequence above is just a hotlap where the idea is to throw the car around, not set the quickest laptime. I suspect customers are more thrilled with wild sideways action going a bit slower than finessing a car along at higher speeds.
Check out the front suspension in this shot below. The outside front wheel is compressed and the inside front fully extended. That's partially to do with the natural body roll of the car as it corners, but in this case the right front is in a dip. Picking your line is as important on a dirt road as it is in low-range territory, and a rally perspective will magnify any errors. Given a choice, you may as well take the line that gives the biggest safety margin and is easiest on your vehicle.
...still not happy with the amount of sideways...
...looks like he was aiming for around 45 degrees, gets it and maintain the drift by throttle and not steering out of it. It's harder to see in this set of photos but he is also looking where he wants the car to go, as indeed is his passenger.
Note 1: There are a number of organisations that provide rally drives. Some just provide a driving experience, others provide training if you're willing to listen . It can be hard to work out which is which. I learned something at www.rallyschool.com.au, and if you're into learning track work as opposing to just fanging around then you can't go past BMW Driver Training either - read more about that here.
More rally photos including a larger version of the one below are at my photo website.
Magazine Reprints
Some of the magazine articles I have had published, in PDF format. If you don't have a PDF reader installed you can get one here. Right-click the image or link to download, or left-click to view it in your browser.
 |
Discovery 3 vs Discovery 4 Roadtest - is the upgrade more than just a more powerful engine? |
 |
Range Rover Sport vs Lotus Elise - two of my favourites of all time. |
 |
Volkswagen Touareg Roadtest - could this the optimal blend of on and off road ability for those in the market for a premium car? |
 |
Terracan Suspension - the aftermarket vs the factory upgrades. |
 |
Tyres Gallery - lots of data on every 17" tyre as of 2010. |
 |
Offroad GPS Receivers - all you need to know. |
 |
Suspension Development - how the aftermarket designs and delivers suspension. |
 |
Low Range Lowdown - how much of an advantage is a low box? A Suzuki Grand Vitara takes on a Land Rover Freelander 2 to find out. |
 |
Offroad Trailers Part 1 - how offroad trailers work and how to drive them. |
 |
Offroad Trailers Part 2 - how offroad trailers work and how to drive them. |
Other links:
- Carsguide article on the Range Rover Sport
- www.overlander.com - several of my articles online.
- My Land Rover World column