Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

That is so:rolleyes: last year.;)

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

"A" for effort Wisha. Not like you wrote it up...you just posted it. Chalk it up to lesson learn...don't always believe what you read. :rolleyes: ;)

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

But it's still funny :D

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

lol

i guess that explains why you don't post pictures of your wifes bewbies...? :p

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

i fixed that a little bit. :p


In my experience with offroadin' the simple things seem very important. An H2 gets bent license plates and so forth, which seems to mean its approach angle is challenged, which seems to mean (as short of the H1 or modified trucks its approach angle is quite a bit better than anything else i think) not many other stock trucks would be able to do the same things.

The H2s basic limitation seems to be breakover angle, as you can and do get the thing hung up.

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

No, it means it was a stupid place to mount the lic. plate.

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

:p

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

its the best if one considers the H1 absent (approach), is it not? And that is what i was trying to get at. If the approach angle of the H2 is challenged most other stock trucks are going to have some serious problems. Often it seems on hills or ridges steep enough to make the H2 sweat, a pickup and the like ... can't even try, just wedge the nose and go home.

I think about things like LRs and the G and i just always wind up at that - if my H2 stubs its nose (and it does), these guys are just plain hosed.

The breakover angle ... well that's really cool that its so good relative to other stocks, but typically when i have a problem it involves getting hung up on a ridge.


Another aspect of the H2s design that i really appreciate in my offroading time is the smooth, clean underbody. The skid and that tube frame lead to a main frame that can drag its heart out (except for those tensioning bolts). Contrast the Rubicon which has a sort of forward-scoop shaped underbody skid plate that just looks destined to pack full of sand and gravel and dirt and snow and mud. Or the H3 which has those low-hanging cross members in the mid-section.

Then there's the H1 with IDS in all corners, and an extremely high and smooth underbody.

skipping long blathering mumbo jumbo, it simply seems to me that offroad situations are so varied that no one vehicle could ever be "best". All of width, weight, IDS-vs-solid axles, TCS-vs-lockers and whatever else seem to have both pros and cons, each an advantage or a disadvantage depending upon the situation. That noted i do realize that (i think) wisha originally posted a rock crawling rating...

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

LMAO!!!!!:D

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

that is pretty close, though. i won't bother complaining when i get hung up anymore, i'll just think "dang, everybody else would have, too". j/k


to contrast, i saw a jeep once with 44" tires and a 8 or 12 or whatever inch lift... something like that had basically irrelevant approach and departure angles (as in tires always hit first), and the breakover must have been sick.

but... it wasn't street legal, got about 1/2 the mileage of my H2, and i bet i could still find some tricks and places it couldn't reproduce or follow. That isn't a boast, mind, just a repeat observation that offroading tasks are really really different. To be sure, that thing could do many, many things my truck couldn't dream of.

Re: Stock 4x4 comparison
 

While i want my 5 minutes back that i spent reading this thread, i am grateful to know i should never challenge a LR3, FJ Cruiser and most improtantly a Tourag. This may save me some money on future bets i could have potentially entered thinking i was in the favorable vehicle.