[Aubs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jkH1+H2=H3:
This is a great Question, And lets put money and payments, leases aside. What would you DO? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After having to tow a heavy trailer back from FL, and toting around a giant puppy (which I wanted to stay in it's elephant sized crate and not destroy the car), I'm happy to have the H2.

However, not being able to follow my fanatic Jeepster friend into the woods after his Cherokee because I was just too wide, I felt like something a bit smaller would be handier in true off-road situations in NE. (I say New England because most trails here are cut through woods, and some are old or not well maintained. Or, if they are attended, it's by Wranglers or Cherokees, which fit through the brush just fine. I've got lots of nice front to back scratches from my exploits on such trails.)

So the H2 can do so much more than most any other off-road vehicle available stock. But when I can't follow a technically inferior Jeep into the woods because of just size, that's saying that maybe the H3, albeit any minor shortcomings in AA, DA, whatever, is perhaps the better and more ultimate off-roader.

I honestly do not know what I would choose if I had to walk into the dealership today. It would most likely come down to dollars.

[And just so no one shoots me down about the technically inferior bit: My friend basically floored his Jeep to get it through obstacles (Did he drive it right--I dunno!?). But without computer controlled systems, high-tech components, and other inventions of the 2000's, power was really all he had. I'm not insulting the Cherokee, I just think the H2, and all modern vehicles, have a significant technological advantage over their 1990's counterparts.]