Used Truck (mostly 1980's) Four Wheel/All Wheel Drive FAQ The information in this file is maintained by: Matt Stoller mstoller@ctron.com Contact him for further information or corrections. Version - Date Dec. 16, 1994 Purpose ------- This document is geared towards the person who would like to purchase a 4WD/AWD truck/van/sport-utility-vehicle (suv) for use as their daily vehicle. It's for those of us who live where the weather causes road conditions to be less than ideal for travel (snow, ice, heavy rains, mud, etc.). It is not designed for people whose main use of their truck is as an off-road vehicle. The FAQ is biased towards those of us who don't want to spend a bunch of money on their truck, hence the focus on trucks produced in the 1980's, although I'll add in info about 199X's trucks, if you send it to me. Contributors ------------ Gregory M Charland - gregc@WPI.EDU - lots of Toyota stuff Bruce Rioux - brucer@hw.stratus.com - Toyota stuff, esp. 4Runner Eric Thompson - eathomp2@bud11.edaal.ingr.com - Land Criusers Joe Maleski - jmaleski@auspex.com - Toyota stuff Steve Allen-Shinn - shinn@sunny.da.ge.com - Lots of Jeep stuff Eric Soshea - eas@technet.macom.com - Chevy & Ford stuff Carl Johnson - cjohnson@mail.msen.com - Nissan Stuff Matt Rein - mrein3@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM - Full Size Trucks John Cooley - johnc@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU - Jeep stuff GMC/Chevy stuff Paul Foster - foster@no1sun.cray.com - Chevy Stuff Darrin Sharp - sharp@fc.hp.com - Toyota stuff Peter Burke - pburke@macc.wisc.edu - Toyota stuff gregory john bussey - bussey@cis.ohio-state.edu - Suzuki stuff Jim Chott - rzaa80@email.sps.mot.com - Toyota Stuff Will Leaman - WML42@aol.com - Toyota stuff Steven Knapp - knappsm@cig.mot.com - Jeep GC stuff What the list needs ------------------- If you send me any info, please try to write it in a format that can be easily cut and pasted into the FAQ. More charts. A frequent problems section Aside from basic corrections (and filling in some of the blanks), I would like to have a section which lists trucks/years by price range (0-$3000) ($3000-$5000) ($5000-$7500) ($7500-$10000). I have no info on the AWD vans from Toyota, Dodge, Mazda, Chevy/GMC and Ford. I'd like to find out when ABS (4 wheel or rear only) became available on each model. I'd like to get a section on model changeovers (CJ-7 vs Wrangler, pre-86 Nissan pickup vs Hardbody, 88 vs 89 chevy engines, etc.) More numbers (mpg, mph, etc.). I suggest that all changes should be e-mailed to me. All opinions are mine, unless otherwise stated, and I welcome all corrections and additions Matt Stoller mstoller@ctron.com Models ------ Toyota Pickup 4Runner Land Cruiser T100 Pickup FJ40 Nissan/Datsun 720 Pickup (80-86) Hardbody Pickup (86.5-) Pathfinder Dodge Ram 50 Pickup (Mitsubishi Miti Max) Dakota Pickup Raider (Mitsubishi Montero) Ram Charger (Full Size SUV) Full Size Pickup Ford Ranger Pickup Bronco II Explorer Bronco Full Size Pickup (F150, F250, F350) Chevy/GMC S10/S15 Pickup S10 Blazer / S15 Jimmy K5 Blazer / Jimmy (Full Size SUV) C/K Full Size Pickup Isuzu Amigo Rodeo (Honda Passport) Trooper Pickup Suzuki Samurai Sidekick (Geo Tracker) Jeep Cherokee (Full Size: '7?-'83) Grand Wagoneer (Full Size: 84-90) Cherokee (XJ: '84 - present) / Wagoneer Commanche Pickup Grand Cherokee (93 - present) Wrangler (YJ: 87 - present) CJ5 CJ7 Mazda B2600 Pickup Navaho (Ford Explorer SUV) Engines/mpg ----------- Toyota Pickup and 4Runner - 1986- - 3.0LV6 - reliable, reasonably powerful (13-20mpg) 1978-1980 - 20R - 2.0L4 1980- - 22R - 2.2L4 - indestructable, but weak (18-23mpg) 1985- - 22RE - 2.2L4 with FI - better power ??????? - 22R-TE - 2.2L4 Gas Turbo - powerful Land Cruiser T100 Pickup FJ40 Nissan/Datsun All Models -1986 - 2.4L4 - Head gasket problems, make sure the cooling system is working well you'll be ok (17-24 mpg) 1986.5- - 2.5L4 - ??? 1986.5- - 3.0L6 - powerful, generally reliable Dodge Ram 50 Pickup (Mitsubishi Miti Max) Dakota Pickup 3.9V6 Magnum 3.9V6 Magnum 318V8 Raider (Mitsubishi Montero) Ram Charger and Full Size Pickup - 318 V8, 360V8 - reliable (8-15mpg) Magnum 318V8, Magnum 360V8 - reliable, 50% more powerful, better mpg Ford Ranger Pickup and Bronco II and Explorer - ???L4 - ?????? -1986 - 2.8LV6 (Capri) Engine - questionable reliability 1987-1993 - 2.9LV6 FI Bronco and Full Size Pickup (F150, F250, F350) Full Set of Ford V8's Chevy/GMC S10/S15 Pickup S10 Blazer / S15 Jimmy -1985 - 2.8LV6 Carb. - oil flow problem - beware, weak 1986-1988 - 2.8LV6 FI - more reliable - still has little power (18-22mpg) 1989+ - 4.3LV6 - Great engine (165-200+ HP reliable) (18-22 mpg) -1989 (I think) - 2.5L4 - reliable, slow K5 Blazer / Jimmy (Full Size SUV) and C/K Full Size Pickup Full Set of GM's V8's and big V6's Isuzu All Models 2.6L4 - ok for pickups, amigos, weak in Troopers 3.1L6 (From GM) 3.2L6 ????? Suzuki Samurai -1990 - 1.3L4 - very reliable (23-25mpg) 1991- - 1.3L4 EFI - very reliable (28-29mpg) Sidekick - 1.6L4 Jeep CJ5/CJ7/CJ8 Cyl CID/L Years HP Torque (ft-lb) 4 150/2.5 84-86 83 116 4 150/2.5 87 117 135 4 151/2.5 80-83 90 128 6 232/3.8 76-78 100 185 6 258/4.2 77-86 114 196 6 258/4.2 87 112 210 8 304/5.0 76-81 150 245 Full Size Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer -1983 (Cherokee) - 304 or 360 cid V8 AMC engines 1984-1990 (Grand Cherokee) - same Wrangler (YJ: 87- present) All years - 2.5L4 - reliable 1987-1990 - 4.2L6 1991- - 4.0L6 FI - very powerful, reliable Cherokee/Comanche/Wagoneer 1984- - 2.5L4 - reliable, weak in SUV's 1984-1986 - 2.8LV6 - from GM - weak, oil flow problem 1987-1990 - 4.0L6 - very powerful, reliable 1991- - 4.0L6 FI - more powerful, reliable (17-22 mpg) Grand Cherokee 93-94 - 5.2lV8 - reliable 220hp - 285 ft/lbs 95- - 5.2lV8 - 300 ft/lbs (cam change) 93- - 4.0L6 FI - same as Cherokee Mazda B2600 Pickup Navaho (Ford Explorer SUV) Fuel Mileage ------------ All of the small 4x4's seem to get 20-22 mpg with the 4cyl engines, although I have heard claims of 25-28mpg, I have yet to see any confirmation. My brother has topped 22mpg with his '91 S-10 Blazer 4.3L V6 on the highway, but I never remember his '85 S-10 with the 2.8L V6 getting any better than that. My dad says he gets about 20mpg in his '92 Cherokee with the 4.0L engine, I don't think his '86 Cherokee with the 2.8L V6 did as well. My '85 Nissan 4x4 with the 2.4l 4 cylinder motor runs anywhere from 18-24 mpg, with the average being around 22mpg. EPA estimates on the Jeep GC with the 5.2l V8 are 14/18. Greg Bussey adds advice for better mileage: Gas mileage is decreased significantly by: - Wider tires - Taller tires - Driving against the wind - Driving up hills - Heavy loads (or lots of bolt-ons) Gas mileage is not affected by: - Using Splitfire sparkplugs - High octane fuel - Synthetic oil - Speed Engines (Random thoughts) ------------------------- Ford Don't really know, but I hear that the 4cyl's are very reliable, but the 6cyl's in the mid 80's had major reliability problems (Eric Soshea says:) I don't know about the Ford 4 cyl's, but the V6's were initially the 2.8L (Capri) engine, then about 87 they went to an American designed, electronically controlled, multi-port fuel injected 2.9L. Don't confuse the 2.8L Ford V6 and the 2.8L GM V6. The 2.9L is the more desireable motor for daily driving, while the 2.8L offers more potential for a high performance build up (it's not electronically controlled). Chevy/GMC The Blazers/Jimmies/S-10/S-15 Pickups origionally came with either a 2.5L Inline 4cyl or a 2.8LV6. In 1986 Chevy added fuel injection to the 2.8L, and apparently cleared up a problem with oil flow. This problem had caused numerous block cracks (my brother's '85 S-10 cracked at 50K, a friends S-15 pickup cracked at 60K). There were a host of other reliabilty problems with the 2.8L engines. I don't think that the power gains over the 2.5L4 are worth the reliability problems. Both the 2.5 and the 2.8 are fairly weak engines, this isn't a problem for me as I'm not planning on towing with the truck. For 1989 Chevy started producing the 4.3LV6 which is a great engine. It has plenty of power (from 165HP to 200+ in some of the High Output versions). It gets better gas mileage than the 2.8L's and seems to be reliable. The 4.3L was first available in the Blazer/Jimmy only with an automatic transmission. I believe it wasn't until '91 that you could get a manual with the 4.3L. (Eric Soshea responds:) In '86 Chev started fitting California models of the 2.8L V6 with electronically controlled, throttle body injection; '87 was _not_ the first year for TBI (not sure when the 49-state model got EFI - anybody have any idea). The 2.8L has been known for reliability problems; I've had none for the past 142,000 miles (my Blazer has 150,000 this week). Supposedly, the most common, serious problem with the 2.8L is a leaking rear main oil seal. Replacement requires either pulling the engine or transmission and Xfer case. This particular problem was supposedly corrected in '86. I've driven an earlier SBlazer with the 4 cyl.; the power was much worse than my EFI V6. I also drove a carbuerated 2.8L; drivability was greatly improved with the EFI. I'd avoid the pre-EFI engines. The 2.8 is ok for this vehicle if you're not going to tow or if you don't mind slowing for and/or downshifting for hills on the highway. The automatic makes these engines even more anemic, but, if you insist on towing, is reccommended. Beware of the early (pre 89) 700R4 transmissions. They were known for reliability problems. Jeep Up to and including 1986, Jeep used a 2.5L4 and Chevy's 2.8L6 in the Cherokee and Comanche. (Sarting in 1987) The 2.5L4 and a 4.2L Inline 6 (AMC built) was available in the Wrangler (in 1991 - the 4.2 was replaced by the 4.0L). In 1987 they introduced the 4.0L6, which has similar performance numbers to the Chevy 4.3L6. So far the 4.0 seems to be reliable and get better mileage than the 2.8L6. Long Version: I know you aren't asking for '90s info, but the 4.0L Hi-Output engine came out in '91 which bumped the hp from 175 to 190. Torque went from ??? to about 235 as I recall. The 4.0L has a very good reputation for reliability. This is definitely the engine of choice unless you can't afford the '87 and later prices. (John Cooley adds:)The 2.5L4 used by Jeep is not the Chevy engine. The "2.8L6" (actually a V6) was indeed a GM product, but the inline 4 was Jeep's. It was built by lopping a couple of cylinders off of the 4.2 and doing extensive combustion chamber work. The resulting engine was durable and powerful, for its size. The engine was later expanded back to 6 cylinders to get the current 4.0. Thus, the 4.0 is not a direct development of the 4.2, but was, instead developed from the 2.5 liter 4, and benefits from the development work done on the smaller engine. (Steve says:) The 2.8L V-6 was a GM engine. It is fairly reliable, but does tend to leak oil around the valve cover (unless the gasket has been replaced) -- a minor leak, but inconvenient. Also, I've heard that they need a rebuild by the time they've got about 120k miles on them. For pre-'87 Cherokees/Comanches, I'd recommend the 4-cyl to people who aren't planning on trailering much. It's got less torque, but is more responsive (at least the fuel injected ones -- I know FI was available -- California only? -- in '85) and lighter than the V6. The Wrangler never had the 2.8L V6. I recall that it was introduced in '87 so this is part of the reason, but it didn't get the 4.0L until '91. It originally had the 4.2L (aka the 258 cid) AMC engine as an option. All of the 4.2L engines were carburated. The 4.0 was the same FI "Hi-Output" as the Cherokees/Comanches had in '91, but it had a little less hp due to the exhaust system. The 4-cyl is probably adequate for most of the target people of this FAQ. I would probably get this one if I were to get a Wrangler. My next choice would be the 4.0L followed by the 4.2 (FI if possible -- aftermarket conversions are available, even from Mopar, but they run around $2000). The pre-'84 Cherokee/Wagoneer (full size) and '84-'90 Grand Wagoneer had either the 304 or 360 cid AMC engines. The 360 is preferred for trailer towing, but the 304 should be adequate for lighter travelling. The 5.2l V8 on the Grand Cherokee puts out 220hp and 285ft/lbs of torque for 93/94 and for 95 the cam was changed to put out 300 ft/lbs. This is one powerful SUV, but it isn't cheap. I think this engine is derived from the old Dodge 318ci V8, which was significantly redesigned in the early '90's and given the "Magnum" designation. I don't know about the Magnum engines, but the old 318's were extremely reliable, as long as you changed the oil. Mazda The B2600 got fuel injection in 1987 (Anybody have any more info???) Nissan A 2.5L4 and a 3.0L6 were available. The 4 seems to have adequate power for the pickups, but might be a little weak in the Pathfinders. The 2.4L motor that came with the 720 series has a serious head gasket problem. The head gasket usually will not make 100K miles. Carl Johnson's '84 720 lost its gasket at 84K miles. It went was I(Carl) was on a trip and took the engine with it. I didn't notice it till it was too late. So the expense to replace if your not careful, a lot. If I remember right there was something about the head getting to hot and warping which caused the failure. I'm not sure on this though. Isuzu A 2.6L4 and a 3.1L6 (sourced from GM) were available in the Troopers and pickups. The 4 seems to have enough power for the pickups and Amigos, but is very weak in the Troopers. Toyota (Greg Charland says:) Toyotas 1960-present have four basic engines. Landcruisers have straight-sixes. Some of these reportedly have heat problems with the exhaust manifold, and most by this time have been replaced by headers. Trucks and 4Runners have three. First is a 4-cyl diesel, very rare in the USA. Don't know much about this. Next is the 20R, made from '78 to '80. The 22R is an upgraded version, '80-present. These engines are indestructable, kind of like the ol' Chevy V-8. The carburated versions are pretty anemic. FI is recommended, if you can afford one--- the EFI became available in '85. Also recommended, but VERY rare, is the 22R-TE, a turbo 22R. Relibility of all these engines has been superb. My 1984 22R (on a 4Runner with 31" tires) has ranged from 22 to 16 mpg. (Peter Burke adds:) I have a 22R-TE in my 4Runner and really like the highway performace of the engine. Off-road the turbo characteristics aren't very usefull: power really kicks in at 2800rpms, which is too high in the kind of driving most people do offroad. But on mountain roads it really hauls! My sister in law has a '85 22RE in her pickup and it is pretty powerful. I recommend this engine over the turbo, since the milage is better (25 with stock tires vs 20mpg on the turbo with 31" tires). At low rpms the engines are very similar. The turbo is a more difficult engine and spare parts are mucho expensice (the turbine is $1400!). It takes a more attentive driver to avoid premature turbine failure, etc. I plan to replace my turbo (when it dies - 266k miles and still strong ;-)) with a V8 conversion, since that is cheaper than another 22R-TE. (Back to Greg:) In 1986, Toyota introduced a 3.0l V-6. It's no Vortec, but it gets along pretty well. This engine will not fit into earlier trucks. (see suspension for details) Mileage tends to be a good 3-5mpg below the 4cyl trucks. Reliability on these has been very good, but oil changes are a hassle--- the oil filter is nearly inaccessible. (Will Leaman says:) All come with 22R motor, a good 4 cyl with reasonable torque. However, if you can swap out for a later model engine (say '85 up 22R) you will get better mileage and more power. An easy check is to look at the valve cover, early models had a rounded front, later models have a straight front. The early motors have lower compressions and lots of emissions add ons, including air pump. Mine had 60k on it and never got above 17mpg on the highway, regardless of tire size, driving style, tuneup etc. However, and '86 22R with over 100k in the same truck easily gets 21mpg and I can squeeze 23mpg if I'm careful. Basically, it has increased compression (read efficiency) and no air pump. Suzuki (from greg bussey:) The Suzuki Samurai comes stock with a 1.3 liter four cylinder OHC engine. In '91, electronic fuel injection replaced the carb. Popular performance modifications: - Exhaust: header, freeflow cat, freeflow muffler, 2 inch pipe - Splitfire plugs (accelerates smoother) - High octane fuel (accelerates smoother) - Weber carbuerater (pre-EFI models only) Also available: - Supercharger (reputed to blow holes in engine) - Jacobs ignition (reputed to 'not help much') Popular engine swaps: - Sidekick 1.6 liter - Nissan 2.4 liter - Oldsmobile 6 cyllinder - Chevy 350 (requires front end extension - ugly) Suspensions ----------- (SA: Solid Axle; LS: Leaf Spring; CS: Coil Springs; AA: A-Arms TB: Torsion Bar, TTB=Ford's Twin traction beam) Make Model Rear susp. Front susp. Jeep CJ/Wrangler SA, LS SA, LS Cherokee (-83) SA, LS SA, LS Wagoneer (-83) SA, LS SA, LS Grand Wagoneer(84-90) SA, LS SA, LS Cherokee (84-) SA, LS SA, CS Wagoneer (84-92) SA, LS SA, CS Comanche SA, LS SA, CS Grand Cherokee SA, CS SA, CS Toyota LC (-1989) SA, LS SA, LS LC (1990-) SA, CS SA, CS Truck/4Runner (-1985) SA, LS SA, LS Truck (1986-) SA, LS AA, TB 4Runner (1986-1988) SA, LS AA, TB 4Runner (1989-) SA, CS AA, TB Chevy/GMC S10 ('84 - present) SA, LS AA, TB Ford Ford Bronco II(all) SA, LS TTB, CS Suzuki Samurai SA, LS SA, LS Toyota (Greg Charland says:) Toyota trucks and LCs have had solid axles through most of their existances. In 1986 Toyota chaged the trucks and 4Runners to an A-arm/Torsion-bar IFS setup (the LCs retained the solid front axle). This allowed room for the new V-6, which wasn't actually availible 'till '88. This engine will fit in IFS-equipped trucks, but NOT in solid-axle models. (Peter Burke adds:) I have investigated upgrading my IFS 4Runner to a Chevy V8 and found out that it would be a lot easier with the old non-IFS design, since they allow MORE room above the front axle. I am no engineer, but from visual inspection I doubt that there is more space for a larger engine because of IFS. When I look under my pickup (84 solid axle), there is plenty of space there, and with a cheap suspension lift you get even more space between axle and engine. The IFS is prohibitively expensive to lift ($1200 front axle only...) if you want to do it right and get that differential out of the way of the engine. Jim Chott warns owners of trucks with IFS (86-present 4Runners and pickups) : If used in rough terrain, the front subframe can bend and cause the vehicle to be out of alignment if a truss is not added at the rear of the lower A-arms. Downey manufacturing (and others probably) build one for $29 and is recommended for heavy off-road use. Land cruisers have coil springs now. Very nice ride, very good on-and-off road, quite expensive. (Will Leaman adds:) The '79-'83 pickup is a solid axle front suspension model with a part time/manual hub 4wd system. Basically, all parts in these years are interchangeable, but axle ratios changed during this time. The axles, engines, and suspension are reasonably tough. The weak point is definitely the tranny, at least the 5 sp (don't have any experience with 4spd, sorry). These trucks are notorious for grenading transmissions. A very common failure is the input bearing. If yours makes noise, FIX IT NOW! You know the old adage, spend a little now instead of alot later. If your tranny is already dead, consider a later model, they are stronger, but you will have to swap the xfer case with it. I have rebuilt several of the early model tranny's using the factory service manual as a guide, it's pretty good, but you will need several special service tools (gear/bearing pullers). Otherwise, take it to a shop that you trust. Suzuki On the Samurai, both front and rear are solid axle, using leaf springs. Stock wheel travel is 5 - 6 inches. Stock ground clearance is 8.1 inches. Popular lifts: - Extended Shackles: 1 1/2 in. (recommend adding 2 degree shims for caster) - Add-a-leaf: 2 inches - Re-arch: 2 - 3 inches - Replacement - springs: 3 in. (Trailmaster and Calmini both break, use National) - Spring-over-axle: 4 1/2 in. (can double the wheel travel) Jeep All the Jeeps have solid axles front and rear. The CJ and Wranglers and the full size Cherokee/Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer all have leaf springs on all four corners. The mid-size Cherokee (aka "XJ") and Comanche have leaf springs on the rear and coil springs on the front. Just for your info, the Grand Cherokee has coil springs at all 4 corners. Nissan Carl's '84 720 ST version had leaf springs in back and IFS in the front. It was much better loaded down. The rear springs in the Nissan were very stiff. (Carl Johnson says:) IFS systems are not all equal. The Nissan and Chevey torsion bars go underneth the frame and connect to the the lower a arm. The Toyota goes above the frame rails and connects to the uppper a arm. I think the latter is the best method. and not only because I own one. ;) 4wd systems ----------- 4 Wheel Drive Systems 4H/in - maximum recommended speed to engage 4H 4H/max- maximum recommended speed for driving in 4H hubs - how to unlock ( back -backup up 1-3 meters, fly -disengage when truck is shifted out of 4H, man - manual) 4/sys - type of 4 wheel drive system (full/part time - or both) NOTE: many manufacturers offer auto-locking (back up to disengage) or manual hubs as an option Manf. Trucks Name 4H/in 4H/max hubs 4/sys --------------------------------------------------------------------- Isuzu Pickup/Amigo/ 0mph back part Trooper Chevy S-10/15 Pickup/ none fly part Blazer/Jimmy Olds Bravada n/a n/a none full Jeep Cherokee/ Command-Trac 65mph* fly part Wrangler/Comanche Jeep Cherokee/ Selec-Trac none both Grand Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee Quadra-Trac always no limit none full Nissan Pathfinder/ 25mph 50mph fly part Hard-body Pickup Nissan pre-86 pickup 0mph 50mph back part Toyota Truck/4Runner (-1988) 0 mph 55mph back part Truck/4Runner (-1988) (man hubs)8 mph 55mph man part Land Cruiser (-1983) 0 mph Truck/4Runner (1989-) 4WDemand 25mph 55mph fly part Land Cruiser (1990-) 0mph 100mph none full Mazda B2600 0mph 50mph back part Mitsu Mighty Max/D50 Ram Mitsu Montero/Raider Dodge Dakota ?? -- both part Ford Ranger/BroncoII *=owner's manual says "any legal speed" Most 4wd systems have 3 ranges 2H - 2 high - just like a rear wheel drive pickup truck 4H - 4 high - front and rear axles connected together, can be used up to 45-55mph, different manufacturers allow different maximum speeds for engagement. 4L - 4 low - like 4 high, but changes gear ratios, only used for severe conditions, very slow driving. Usually can only be engaged while stopped or at less than 5mph. There is an extra gear reduction in the transfer case. It is usually 2:1 to 3:1, but some systems go even higher. It is useful when driving in sand, mud or snow to help maintain control. It depends on the system, but it's probably best not to go over 25-30mph Note on older auto-lock hubs Possibly dangerous info: In the Nissan 720 Series (1981-1986), the automatic hubs can only be engagaed while the truck is stopped, and to disengage the hubs you must shift out of 4H and reverse direction for 1 meter. You may shift out of 4H while the truck is moving, but the hubs will not disengage until you stop and back up. What I just found out (kids, don't try this at home) is that it is possible to engage 4H while the truck is moving, if you have previously engaged 4H (and locked the hubs - while stopped) and then disengaged 4H, but NOT reversed direction. Now I'm not saying that this won't destroy your truck, but I used it throughout last winter, and there weren't any nasty noises coming from below the truck. I've tried it up to 40-50 mph, without any noticable problems - although I did test it out at very low speeds first, and both axles were spinning about the same rate (not turning, rear wheels not slipping), but I THINK it'll work at higher speeds. This might work for trucks from other manufacturers who make similar systems (Ford, Isuzu, etc.), but I would be very careful about doing this. (If you do this and something breaks, I'll deny the whole thing) Pickups are very light in the rear, so it is easy to get the rear tires to break free on acceleration or lock-up when brakeing and ABS (even rear wheel) doesn't seem to be available until 1990 (please let me know if this is wrong). The SUV's seem to be a little heavier in the rear, so they do handle better than the unloaded pickup's in 2H, but they aren't great either. What I would ideally like is a 4wd system which can be used on dry roads at highway speeds. Most of the systems (called "Part time 4 wheel drive") can't be used this way because engaging 4WheelHigh causes the front wheels to be driven at the same speed as the rear wheel (only one rear wheel spins at a time - unless you have a limited slip differential). This causes problems if you need the wheels to spin at different rates (like.. when you turn). The front axle has a differential so that the front wheels can turn at different speeds for turning, etc, but the rear wheels are still trying to move at the same speed as the fronts, so they either have to slip or something (tires, axles, etc.) will have to give (usually the tires). Another problem occurs if one tire is a different size than the others (manufacturing variances, different air pressure, temp. spare, etc.). Part-time 4WD is OK for use on slick roads, but it does make tight turns difficult. You should not use part-time 4WD on dry pavement as it will cause binding in the driveline (which causes increased wear of components -- especially tires -- and can lead to breakage) and will adversely affect handling when you try to make turns. (John Cooley elaborates:) A part-time system with 4WD engaged turns both propeller shafts at the same speed. The axle diffs still do their thing, but in a four-wheeled vehicle going around a corner, the rear wheels go around a smaller circle (shorter curve) than the front wheels, so the rear propeller shaft needs to turn more slowly. In 4WD, a part-time system doesn't allow this, so the rear wheels tend to "push" the vehicle and pressure (binding) is placed on the axle gears, U-joints and transfer case gears which is proportional to the amount of traction available. Since heavy vehicles can generate more traction on most surfaces, this behavior is especially hard on the drivetrains of full-size trucks. Full time 4wd systems usually have a center and a front differential which allows you to engage 4wd on dry roads. Why do I (Matt) want this? Today it is raining here, most likely there will be puddles on the roads, but it won't be so covered with water as to slow traffic down below 60-70mph (this is eastern Mass., south-east NH). It would be nice if I could leave the truck in 4wd (just in case) for the 40 mile drive home, without wearing out the tires and drivetrain. (Steve's response) If you have "shift-on-the-fly" type part-time 4WD, this scenario is not a problem. You just shift to 4WD for the bad parts. I often used the part-time mode for the heavy rains we have down here. Especially on the highway, this is not a problem as there is enough slip on wet roads to alleviate any transmission "wrap-up". DO shift into 2WD on dry sections, however. Most 4wd systems have 3 type of hubs (taken from off-roading list's faq) Locking hubs are the devices in the center of your front wheels. Hubs are a locking mechanism that connect or disconnect your front axle from the wheels. In the rear, your axles are always connected to the wheels so you do not have hubs. There are three major categories of hubs: permanently locked, automatic, and manual. There are also variations, but there are too many to cover in this FAQ. The Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example, has permanently locked front hubs. It means that the wheels are always connected to the axles. So when you are in 2WD mode (the transfer case has been disconnected from the front driveshaft), the front wheels spin the front axles, which spin the differential, which spins the front driveshaft. You get more component wear on the entire front drive mechanism and lower gas milage, but this effect is very minimal. Remember, the rear drive mechanism is also used for the entire life of the vehicle. In my opinion, this configuration is better than most automatic hubs. I (Steve) agree that this is usually preferable to automatic hubs. Note that this is only on Grand Cherokees (and Cherokees) with full-time 4WD systems. The Cherokees and Grand Cherokees equipped with the "Command-Trac" (part-time 4WD only) transfer cases have a slight variation of the automatic hub... the axle disconnects near the differential. This system is also common to some Chevy/GM light trucks. (Peter Burke interjects:) I only agree as long as you leave the suspension stock, especially if the vehicle is an IFS setup. On Toyota IFS trucks the front is generally lifted with an increase in the torsion bar tension, which increases the CV-joint angle. This increased angle will increase the wear on the CV-joint boots which will fail after about 10k miles. Toyota specialty dealers encourage to convert to freewheeling lockout hubs if you lift your IFS truck that way. You'll lose the shift on the fly, but your front drivetrain won't get a chance to self-destruct. (Back to Steve:) You are unlikely to have any form of freewheeling hubs on a full-time 4WD system. If the hubs are unlocked when the full-time 4WD is engaged, you will not go anywhere or (with a limited slip type differential in the transfer case) at best, only have a fraction of your normal power. In order to prevent this, the hubs are "permanently locked". Automatic hubs come in many different configurations, depending on manufacturer. Generally, only one side unlocks, so the other side's axle always spins. I consider this to be the least desireable of the available choices, though there is nothing wrong with them. For some people, this may be the best choice. You do not have to operate the hubs, they lock and unlock automatically when you switch the transfer case between 2WD and 4WD. Some people complain about this system because the driver does not necessarily get any positive feedback if the locking/unlocking was successful. Also, the automatic hubs (and Jeep/Chevy system) usually only disconnect one wheel from the drivetrain so everything still spins. When manual hubs are unlocked, the wheels are disconnected from the front axles. Thus the front drive mechanism does not move when in 2WD. The driver must get out of the vehicle and twist the dial on each of the hubs to lock or unlock it. You can leave the hubs locked even when in 2WD and the effect will be similar to the permanently locked hubs. Many people do this during the winter or when offroad all day. There are also the lock-o-matic hubs (mine are from Warn). They have been around for many years now. Some people called them ahead of their time (translations: never caught on). They are like manual hubs, except in "free" mode, they engage if you put the transfer case into 4WD and disengage when in 2WD. In "lock" mode, they stay locked. Like all things, they have their advantages and disadvantages. Who has what? I'd like to figure that out Jeep CJ's and the full-size Wagoneers have either a normal part-time system or the full-time Quadra-Trac (this is different from the Quadra-Trac currently offered on the Grand Cherokee). Quadra-Trac came in two versions. One has a 4WD-lo while the other doesn't. With these systems, there is a button or switch in the glove box that locks the center differential for a part-time mode. Current Jeep models (and the Comanche) have a choice of 3 transfer cases. The base system, Command-Trac, is a part-time system with 2WD, 4WD-hi and 4WD-lo. This system is available on all current Jeeps and the Comanche. (It may not be offered on Grand Cherokee any more, but it was last year.) Next is the Selec-Trac which adds a full-time 4WD mode to the Command-Trac. This is accomplished with an open differential in the transfer case. This system is available on the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee. It may be available on the Wrangler, but I don't know for sure. The "top of the line" (as far as Jeep is concerned) is the new Quadra-Trac. It has full-time 4WD-hi and 4WD-lo (I would suspect that the lo is part-time, but I'm not sure). There is no 2WD mode and no part-time 4WD-hi. The one advantage over the Selec-Trac is that the differential in the transfer case is a limited slip. This is only available in the Grand Cherokee. Steve Knapp Adds: The GC add's quadra-trac, no hubs, all-time 4WD. 4LO does NOT lock the center diff, and therfor is 4LO-all-time. There is also much debate over if this center diff should be called a limited slip. The viscous coupling is much different than an limited slip in that it stiffens as the speed difference increases, to a point where it is pretty much locked. It might also be noted that the GC with quadra-trac gets CV joints on the front axel rather than U-joints. These are supposed to make the 4WD less noticeable since it is engaged all the time. I'd guess this helps mostly around corners. Of the 3 systems, I (Steve Allen-Shinn) like the Selec-Trac the best. The Quadra-Trac is a decent choice for your target audience, but you can get stuck a little easier than you could with a part-time 4WD system. Chevy/Olds/GMC (Eric Soshea adds:) You mention that you'd "like to figure that out" as regarding hubs. S10's have the vacuum actuated, front axle disconnect system wich allows you to shift _out_ of 4WD without stopping and backing up. The status of the "hubs" (axle actually) is displayed on a lighted graphic on the transfer case console. The transfer case lever's position idicates whether power is going to the front axle while the lighted graphic indicates if the front axle sleave is connecting the two axle halves. When the vehicle is cold it may take several seconds for the axle to disconnect after shifting the transfer case lever. This system gives good feedback as to the status of the "hubs". This is not the case with the optional push-button system; it should be avoided. As I recall, the Bravada has a "full time" transfer case with viscous coupling between the locked front and rear axles (ie. the hubs column on the FAQ should read either "permanently locked" or n/a). This system will apply power to the front axle when there is a significant difference in wheel speed between front and rear. (John Cooley:) As you suggest, but do not state explicitly elsewhere in your FAQ, the Olds Bravada is a bit of an anomaly. It looks like a SUV, but it lacks low range. It has a limited-slip viscous coupling transfer case, and is intended primarily for yuppie use in bad weather. It also has 4-wheel anti-lock brakes, a device which is vastly superior to 4WD for keeping people out of trouble. If one likes this combination and doesn't go off-road (and, to be truthful, most 4WD owners neither need nor use low range, members of this list excepted), the Astro van is available with _exactly_ the same drivetrain, and provides much more interior room and better space utilization. If I didn't need low range, I'd consider one. For actual off-road use, the full-time and sort-of- full-time Jeep systems are better. Full Size (Matt Rein says:) On 80's Chevy full size trucks, Blazers and Suburbans don't buy the Automatic hubs. Or if you do buy them budget around $70 a side for WHEN they go out because they will. I am not quite sure why they go out. Only I know I have replaced three sets for people when I worked at a garage and I know two other people who had the same operation done on thier front ends. WHEN they go out get the manual hubs. They cost half as much and they don't go out! The replacement auto hubs WILL fail also. (I know a guy with a Suburban diesel who put in a replacement set of auto hubs and they went out. He now has manuals.) (John Cooley adds:) If you go all the way back into the '70's, you'll find Suburbans (and other GM, Ford and Chrysler products) equipped with full-time 4WD provided by the NP203 transfer case. The NP203 was a cast iron chain-driven open differential case with a manual lock. It could be left open or locked in either high or low range. Like any "real" transfer case, it has a plate on the side for a PTO and a neutral position. It was a strong case, appearing on trucks with GVWRs up to 15,000 lbs. The chain requires replacement about every 70K to 100K miles. Trucks equipped with the NP203 have permanently engaged front hubs. They have little or no tendency to swap ends on bad surfaces, but they give no feedback about what you're driving on, either. Nissan (Carl Johnson says:) The 4x4 system on his pre-86.5 Nissan's (the 720 series) was a part time system with the t-case lever between the bucket seats. It had automatic hubs, but you had to stop to lock the hubs. To unlock the hubs you had to drive 3 meters straight back. (Matt says:) I know that the Hardbody (86.5-) Nissan's had a shift-on-the-fly system, but Nissan says that you shouldn't shift in above 25mph (kind of inconvenient if you're cruising down a road and it turns slippery suddenly (if you're paying careful attention to conditions, you can predict this, but we all get suprised occasionally) - on the other hand, I think you can actually shift in/out at higher speeds, but I'd be very careful about doing it (i.e. if anybody breaks anything, it's not my fault). I'm also pretty sure that you could get either the automatic or the manual locking hubs on the 720 series Suzuki (Greg Bussey says:) The Samurai has part time fourwheel drive, shift on the fly, manual hubs. No maximum speed for four high. Maximum speed recommended for four low = 56 mph. Stock gearing: - 1st gear = 3.65:1 - transfer (low) = 1.41:1 - differential = 3.73:1 Richmond ring and pinions don't last, but front ring & pinions from pre-'91 Sidekicks do and are available in 4.67:1, 5.12:1, and 5.38:1. The Rocklobster transfer case gear set reduces high range by 12% and low range by 83%. Limited slips and LOCK-Rights are available for the Samurai. - You may shift a Samurai in and out of 4H at any speed provided the hubs are locked. Ride Quality ------------ Toyota (Bruce Rioux says:) The '84-85 4Runners don't ride too smooth. The biggest problem is that the leaf springs just don't wanna move much, and now that they're 8 or 9 years old, the springs have fatigued and sagged, and cause an even harsher ride. What I (Bruce) did on my '84 4Runner to help improve ride (and offroad-ability) was to replace all 4 leaf spring packs with new Soft-Ride springs with a 2" lift. Its now a better-than-stock ride, but its still somewhat jarring on bumpy washboard-like roads (of course, my 31" BFG Mud-Terrains don't help the ride either -- well, not on the highway). OTOH, the '86-'89 4Runners have the IFS, which improves the ride quality a lot. The IFS eats bumps and washboard much better. And in '90, Toyota improved the 4Runner's ride even more by replacing the rear leaf springs with coil springs. If I could only afford one... (Peter Burke says:) On ride quality (I have most of the above mentioned suspension systems in my garage :-)): The solid axle pre-86 pickups and 4Runners are considerably stiffer in front. They bounce more when going over rough pavement, and the handling in tight turns seems a lot less responsive. Off-road, the difference is less noticable, except that my IFS 4Runner gets stuck where my solid axle longbed pickup pulls through. That may be due to the reduced ground clearance of IFS axles when the truck bottoms out. Articlulation of the IFS suspension is clearly better - I have never been in a positon where one of my front wheels was off the ground. I had my '84 pickup's springs fatigue after about 90k miles to a non-tolerable degree. I bought 3" springs from Downey and the ride improved noticably. I was running 31" tires all along. Now I switched to 33"x12.5" tires and the ride degraded. These tires are far too heavy for this light truck to be handled by the suspension. It bounces and shakes when you approach 55mph and the handling on pavement is dramatically worse. The amount of unsprung weight seems to be directly related to ride-quality and handling on these trucks. Off-road, though, the 33" mudders are a huge improvement over the old 31" AT's. I will change back, though - it's not worth the dangerous ride on pavement. My Landcruiser ('78 FJ40) rides in a class of its own - only masochists would want this as a daily driver... I suppose that my added leaf/shackle lift isn't representative, though. No articluation unless you jump the thing. 5-point harness is highly recommended for speed off-road travel, and don't eat too much before you go... (Jim Chott says:) I have a 3" lift on my 85 straight axle pickup with soft springs and shocks (~$550) which give me a ride similar to the new 4Runners, so it is possible to make the old leaf spring trucks ride acceptably. In stock config, it is a pretty choppy ride like someone said. Jeep The Cherokee is among the better rides of the older SUVs. It's unibody construction (also on the Comanche) is stiffer than the body-on-frame construction of all the other vehicles listed which allows the suspension to handle the terrain. It has a rougher ride than some of the SUVs on the market, but the handling is pretty good. (Pales in comparison to the newest SUVs though.) The rear seat is kind of tight and not comfortable for adults on long trips. I never had much problem with my kids, however. Definitely stay away from the 2.8L V-6 unless you need a cheap vehicle. Nissan Carl Johnson says that his truck rode hard. It was an '84 720 ST version and had leaf springs in back and IFS in the front. It was much better loaded down. The rear springs in the Nissan were very stiff. Suzuki (Greg Bussey says:) In the Samurai, it is as bumpy as the front seat on a school bus, but not as bumpy as the back seat. Tire pressure affects the ride tremendously. Factory recommendation is 20 psi. This should be adhered to for the optimum comfort level. Aftermarket Polyurethane bushings improve handling tremendously. - Polyurethane bushings cost about $40 for the Samurai. They can be installed in an hour if the rubber bushings come out easily. Anti-sway bar removal has a noticeable effect on the highway but very little effect on the trail. - I can cruise comfortably at 75 mph if there is no wind. Note that I have urethane bushings. General Stuff / Body Styles --------------------------- Toyota Toyota introduced a 4x4 version of their Pickup in 1979. One cab style, solid axles, leaf springs front/rear. This pickup remained unchanged except for cosmetic improvements (rectangular headlights in '82, etc.) through the '83 model year. For the 1984 model year (actually introduced in mid-'84) Toyota introduced the second generation pickup. The second generation pickup was available in two cab styles - regular and the XtraCab. The XtraCab is the version with increased space behind the seats and the cool rear window, but it was not big enough nor was it offered with jump seats. In '84 and '85 the suspension and 4wd system was similar to the first generation trucks with the solid axle leaf spring setup. Engines were the same, although Electronic Fuel Injection appeared in '85, along with the turbocharged engine that was an option on the SR5. In '86 the suspension was revised and Independent Front Suspension was introduced. For 1988 the turbo engine was dropped in favor of the 3.0 liter V6. Some consider the '88 XtraCab to be Toyota's best truck ever. In 1989 Toyota rolled out the third generation truck. The cab and wheelbase on the XtraCab platform was stretched 9 inches from the '88 model allowing the inclusion of jump seats behind the driver and passenger. To date (1994) the only modifications made to this platform are minor since all the big parts such as IFS, V6 engine, stretched cab, etc. were introduced with the redesign in 1989. The 4Runner was introduced in '84. 4Runner's from '84 to '89 were all 2-door with the removable rear fiberglass top. With the top removed, there's a real open-air feeling for anyone riding in the back seat, but the driver doesn't really feel it much, 'cause he's still got a roof over his head. Noise levels are reasonable, even with off-road tires (or so Bruce says). (Peter Burke adds:) Noise comes mostly from the rear fenderwells - any splash of water will echo from back there to the front. I have a sun-roof that is removable, and with windows down and the back top off, you get pretty close to a open-air ride. An aftermarket soft-top is available (about $400) for those lucky 4Runner owners in dryer climates. On Toyotas, the "SR5" designation usually indicates a much higher grade interior (lots of gauges and a tach, better seats), better tires and some exterior trim differences. On older trucks this may also mean power steering and a rear seat (some 4Runners didn't come with it - WHY???). Toyota's sport seats are among the best seats ever to get into a vehicle - available since '84 as an option. In '90, Toyota introduced the new body style for the 4Runner, with 4-doors and no removable top. (Jim Schott adds:) About the 88 X-tra cab being the best ever, well it depends. The IFS severely limits the off-road ability of these trucks and makes them less durable and more expensive to lift. The old straight axle trucks are much cheaper to lift and perform much better in rough terrain because of better wheel travel. From my point of view, the 85 is the best because you can get the newer 22RE as well as the more durable straight axle. I guess it depends on if you want a highway truck (88) or a rugged four wheeler (85). (Will Leaman adds:) Body: They rust. Steering: If you lift the truck, the steering wheel is no longer centered due to change in distance between steering box and steering knuckle. Although the drag link is fixed length, I have corrected the wheel position by seperating and rotating the splined joints on the steering column, seems to work fine, just make sure you tighten everything back down well. Interior: Throw the seats away. I replaced with Acura Integra seats, they fit well with just a few new holes to drill and are much more comfortable. BTW, I don't think that anyone makes a radio that will fit in the factory opening, so cut to fit and use a hammer to install if necessary! Nissan King Cab looks fine, jump seats are adequate, the V6 would be nice, but it costs a few dollars more. The 86 1/2 model was the first model with the Hardbody tag. The 720 (pre 86.5) series had a couple of differences. The pre 85 has a box with an exposed weld that rusts like mad. The 85 and 86 have smooth side boxes which do not rust nearly as much. (Carl Johnson elaborates:) The weld on the box started about a quater of the way up and ran down the length of the box (with an opening for the wheel). This was an exposed weld and like I said it rusted like mad from the inside out! I have seen some trucks rolling around here that have no lower panels on their boxes becuase the weld had rusted right away. I live in Michigan and they put down pretty heavy salt so you might want to take that into consideration. Mazda Extended Cab looks big enough and I've only heard good stories about them, but it's tough to find them. Isuzu Space Cab is huge, but I haven't seen many of them around Mitsubishi/Ram 50 I don't think they make an extended cab version, but the 2.6L engine has a good record Dodge I'd love to get the Dakota, but they didn't come out until 1987, and they aren't cheap. The 3.9L6 is good, and it became great when they created the "Magnum" version of it in 1992 (1991??) (Steve says:) If you have more money and want more power, the 5.2L V-8 makes it super! I believe the Magnum engines came out in '91, but I'm not sure (may have been '92 model year). In addition to it's other qualities, the Dakota is larger than the other pickups you have listed. This is my choice for a smaller pickup. Be wary of the 5.2L with the automatic transmission (this may be the only way it's available). I've heard some horror stories. Ride quality is good for a pickup. Jeep There are no Comanche extended cabs, but I might settle for a long-bed with the 4.0L. I might even consider a cherokee if I could find one with the SelecTrac 4wd system ABS was first offered on '89 Cherokees (according to Adrian Mitu - although this may be in Canada only - anyone else???). I think the same is true for the Comanches, but I don't know. The CJ line has a strong Jeep following, so prices may be inflated (depending on where you are), but they are reasonable. Compared to the Wrangler, they are higher and have a narrower wheelbase. Therefore, they are less stable on the highway, but they are better off-road. I'd recommend a CJ-7 (or the rare stretched bed CJ-8) for us on-road 4x4'ers. The CJ-5 is too short and unstable for happy highway driving by somebody who is not used to it. As with all AMC built vehicles, quality control is a problem, but no Jeep comes close to the bad rep that the full-size Cherokee/Wagoneer line has. CJ series' : ????-1983=CJ5 1976-1986=CJ7 1987-present=Wrangler Chevy If I could afford a 4.3L S-10 extended cab, I would get one, but... I think the 2.5L might be a good compromise of many features, but I'm not sure if the jump seats are available on all extended cabs. (Eric Soshea says:) I'd heartily recommend the 4.3L; the 2.5L just doesn't have enough power for proper performance. Also, it appears you're interestead in an extended cab; I don't think the 2.5L is available in a 4WD extended cab. I think all 4WD's required at least the 2.8L with the 4.3L as the optional motor. Ford Matt Rein's sister bought an '87 F150 brand new. It has rear anti-lock brakes in the back. That was the first year it was an option on the F series. One day somebody pulled out in front of her. She locked 'em up and the truck didn't wipe out. 60-0 mph without a wipe out. It didn't however stop the 390 cid engine she was hauling from sliding though the bed liner. I know nothing about the Ranger's, but I am not a fan of the Bronco II's. I think they had the highest rollover incidence of any vehicle (although everyone I have talked to likes theirs, go figure). (Steve responds:) This is not quite true. They do tend to be less stable than the other vehicles you're looking at, but there are others that are worse (MJ and CJ Jeeps for instance). The Bronco II does benefit greatly from wider wheels and tires. They are very capable off-road. They are a little on the small side compared to their direct competition, but are bigger than the mini-SUVs. I (Steve) like the Rangers, but the TTB front suspension does not allow them the ground clearance of some other little trucks. For most people, that shouldn't be a problem. (Eric Soshea adds:) The interior redesign (in 91?) gave the Ford's one of the best interiors available in a truck. Comparable to the Toyotas'. The older Bronco II's interiors looked like they were designed in the late 70's. The high rollover rate is one thing that lead Ford to totally redesign the body, lowering, widening and lengthening it into the Explorer. The Bronco II was superior off road to the Explorer due to wheelbase and ground clearance. Suzuki (Greg Bussey says:) Samurais can be bought new for about $8000. (2wd version is about $6000). Pre-'88 models can be bought used for $3500 - $4500. You probably will not find a used Samurai for sale that is less than four years old. gross vehicle weight rating = 2930 lbs width = 60.6 in length = 135 in heighth = 65.6 in wheel base = 51 in The Samurai began in Japan in the early 1970s. It was designed as a vehicle for mountain rangers. Originally, it sported a chainsaw engine and was called the SJ410. In '85, Samurais were imported to the U.S. with the bigger (1.3 liter) engine. Each year's model is nearly identical to previous models. In '88 1/2, the dashboard was redesigned, the steel hardtop option was discontinued, and the springs were softened. In '91, electronic fuel injection replaced the carb and the grill was changed. The 'rollover hazard' is a myth. Consumer Reports' tests (which is where the myth originated) were bogus. While any vehicle can roll over, the Samurai is no more likely to than most other SUVs. Other SUVs have worse rollover records than the Samurai. Samurais do not offer ABS or airbags. Tires ----- Purchasing Suggestion In the North East and Mid-Atlantic states, there are NTW (National Tire Wholesale) stores around (check the Yellow Pages). They don't advertise it, but they will match any advertised price on tires. I suggest you decide which tires you want, find an ad (which lists prices for the tires you want to buy) for a mail-order tire place (check out one of the Automotive magazines), and take the ad to NTW. They might grumble about it, but they will usually come within a few dollars of the advertised price (remember, you have to pay shipping from the Mail-order tire places). I've only tried this at NTW, but I imagine that many of the other national tire sellers do the same thing. (I saved $20/tire for the last set of tires on my CRX, by doing this). If you're reasonable, most tire dealers will try to work with you (not just large chains). Remember that dealing with a local dealer will make it a lot easier to rectify problems that might come up later. On the other hand, I just got snow tires and wheels for my S.O.'s Maxima from Tire-Rack. Tire-Rack is a mail-order tire place and they were able to come up with a great price on tires ($84/each for Bridgeston Blizzak's - great snow tire) and an incredible price for wheels ($45/each for alloy wheels from an Infiniti Q45 - they were "Take-Offs" - trade-ins, but the were in new condition, and cost about half the price of used Maxima alloy wheels from a junkyard). The tires arrived mounted, filled with air, and balanced to the wheels within 3 days, by UPS, and all I had to do was jack up the car and swap wheels. When considering a tire purchase, try to answer these questions (Any others???) first: What's the weather like where you live? Do you take the truck off-road? out in snowy conditions? Does it rain a lot where you live? What type of driving do you do (%city/%highway)? Steve's advice: Some of the Cherokee's came with Michelin XCT's. If the tire stores carry X4C (or something similar) but not XCT, it may be because the XCT is an original equipment ("OEM") model supplied by Michelin specifically for Jeep. You can find something similar on the aftermarket but probably not identical. If your front tires are more worn, I'm guessing you drive like I do. :) If you drive conservatively, you need to get the alignment checked. (Probably a good idea when you replace tires anyway, but you might find something worn or bent if you're getting excessive wear.) The Jeep does like to plow a little if you take corners fast, and this will wear your front tires down quickly. You can rotate the tires to put off your purchase a while, but I did notice that Cherokee was a little squirrly after rotating one set. I had a Cherokee (with Command-Trac), and the OEM Michelin XC tires were good and lasted a long time. They didn't have great dry traction, however. I think I replaced them with Michelin X4C (something like that) that had a softer compound. They didn't last nearly as long, but they did have a good grip. Next time around, I went to Bridgestone ???. They were good, but I didn't have the truck long enough to really test them. The OEM tires on my current Jeep (Grand Cherokee -- it's got Selec-Trac) are Goodyear Eagles (mud and snow rated). They are great road tires, but don't do so well in the mud (compared to the tires on my Cherokee). They are fine in the sand (which is my main concern) so I plan on wearing them out before I replace them. If you like the Michelin brand, I'd stick with them. As I said above, your problem finding the exact tire may be due to an OEM arrangement. I think Michelin is probably the best tire you can get these days, especially for primarily highway use. I don't recall the Michelin that I think is best, but it's something like the X4C all-terrain tire. It's got a good grip in the mud (and I'd guess snow) while displaying very good highway manners (ride, handling and noise). They are not as good off-road as some of the other off-road tires, but they're an excelent choice (IMHO) for the casual off-roader. Goodyear offers several choices. For 98% highway (wet or dry, but not much snow), the Eagles are nice. They are very quiet, have great on road traction and seem to wear well (based on 16k miles so far). I don't know if the compound is different for aftermarket tires. I've been pleased, but they don't match the mud handling of the Michelins (I'm guessing they won't do as well in the snow either, but I've never had them in the white stuff). For a little better off-road grip, the Wrangler GS-A seems to be a good choice. They're the ones that have an agressive tread on the inside of the tire for "good off-road grip", a rain tire tread in the center and a narrow tread on the outside for quiet highway ride. >From the ads, I just figured it was a bunch of hype to try and sell more tires, but several people on the net have told me that they were impressed by both the low noise on road and the sure grip off-road. These may be my next tires. The problem with the GS-A is the size availability. I believe you have to go to a 245 (/70?, I don't know) to get these. That would be fine with me (if it's a low enough aspect ratio to prevent a major diameter increase) since I need a wide tire for sand. It would not be as good a choice for snow, however. Finally, there's the Wrangler AT. These have the more aggressive tread across the whole tire. They are great off-road, but may be a little noisy for people who don't need the extra off-road grip. They seem to be a little noiser than the Michelin X4C and a little better grip. Until I started hearing good things about the GS-A, I was leaning toward the AT or the Michelin. I am a "light" off-roader, though, so the GS-A or Michelins would probably be better for me. (Darrin Sharp Adds:)I had OEM Goodyear Wrangler's (not Wrangler AT's) on my Jeep Wrangler when I bought it. The Wrangler AT is a slightly more aggressive tire. I thought the (Goodyear) Wrangler's were a mediocre tire. I always had trouble with them wearing unevenly. They did go 50K miles, though. (Back to Steve) I also like Bridgestone. I don't recall the tires I had on the Cherokee, but they seem to be good. I've been pleased with Bridgestones in the past, and my "tire man" thinks they are second to Michelin as far as manufactures go. I got them instead of another set of Michelins because they were cheaper. I've heard good things about Dunlop, but I've never tried them, preferring to stick with brands that I have had good luck with in the past. BF Goodrich AT's have received favorable reviews on the net, but I haven't been really pleased with BFG (car tires) in the past, so it's between Michelin and Goodyear for me. A lot of people on the swear by General off-road tires, but I know people who are more apt to swear at their passenger car tires. Their truck tires seem to be robust, and have good tread designs. The passenger tires (even those meant for highway use on light trucks) seem to be a lower quality. I haven't had first hand experience with any, but my next door neighbor has had some problems (including a blow-out) with them on his full size Bronco. I know he will never have Generals again. (Darrin Sharp adds:) I replaced the Goodyears with General Grabber AP's, and have been very pleased. Good all-around performance, and outstanding on snow and ice. Also seem to be wearing well (and evenly) after 15K miles. Steve Knapp adds: on the Grand Cherokee, 93-94' 225/75R15 tires were the norm, Wranglers, Invicta GAs, or Eagle something being base. With the Up-Country suspension you got 235/75R15 Wrangler ATs, taller springs, refined jounce bumpers (those things that stop the axle when the travel is used up, tow hooks, and skid plates. This adds up to 1" extra ground clearance For '95 GC the up country package came with 245/70R15 Wrangler GS-As. The ground clearance addition changed as well. Suzuki (Greg Bussey says:) For the Samurai: Stock: P205/70 R15 Bridgestone all-purpose (reported to last 80,000 miles). Lug pattern: 5 lugs on 5 1/2 inch diameter (same as some Jeeps and Troopers). 215/75s fit with no lift. 30x9.50s rub a little with extended shackels. Most popular are 30x9.50s with 3 inch springs or 31x10.50s with spring-over. Wide, bald tires at 4psi will get a Samurai up any sand dune. Full-Size trucks ---------------- Chevy/GMC (John Cooley says:) You don't say much about Suburbans. People either love 'em, or they think they're _way_ too big, and hate 'em. In actual fact, they're built on the same chassis, and are the same length as a full-size long-bed pickup with a standard cab. All that sheet metal, plus seats, insulation, carpet, trim, etc. makes Suburbans heavy. A 4x4 model will weigh close to 6,000 lbs. Empty. A Suburban is long on utility and short on "sport." Its weight makes it good for some things (e.g., snow) and mediocre for anything requiring a light touch. Through 1987, the suspension and power train was identical to the pickups. In 1988, GM went to the new style pickups but kept using the old chassis on the Suburban. The Suburban caught up in 1992, when 3/4-ton models also became available with the 454 for the first time in a 4x4 model. The Suburban comes in "1/2-ton" and "3/4-ton" models. It is the only SUV available with a 3/4-ton designation. The 1/2-ton model has a GVWR of 7,200 lbs (7,300 in older models), while the 3/4-ton has a GVWR of 8,600 lbs. The 3/4-ton may be configured to tow as much as 10,000 lbs. Like other GM products, the Suburbans equipped with the early 700R4 automatic transmission are prone to problems. The transmission should be removed and replaced with a TH400, although the TH400 lacks an overdrive. Failing that, plan on having the 700R4 rebuilt by someone who really knows what they're doing. It can be made sturdier. The torque converter on some models has 1/2 the volume of the converter on my old Suburban, and is also likely to cause trouble. As stated elsewhere, replace automatic hubs with manual hubs. >From Paul Foster: 89 K-1500 350, 5-speed, 3.73 shortbox sportside. Another real fun truck. Would get 17 mpg on the highway if you drove it good. Sportside box is the thing to have if you are single and no kids and don't need to haul anything. Fun. 91 k-1500 350, auto, 3.43 extended cab short box. After buying an extended cab, I would never buy anything smaller than an ext cab or crew cab again. This truck easily gets 18 mpg on the highway because of the gearing. (note - i lead foot in town so i'm chicken to look at in town mpg). The '88 line of chevy/gmc trucks introduced the new body style. these new trucks feature IFS on 1/2, 3/4 and 1 ton models. It uses the vaccum disconnect for the front axle (same type as in the s-10's). The lever action offers positive engagement. In '92 the chev/gmc blazer/sub/crew cab all got the new body styles with the IFS and vaccum disconnect system. In '89 these trucks got a slight front end makeover to make them appear similiar to the newer body style, but everything else was left the same. Other Notes (Safety, SUV vs Pickup, Full-Size) ---------------------------------------------- Any SUV can be unsafe if you drive it like a sports car. A pickup has less weight up top so it will be less apt to roll, but most of the 4WD models are a little taller than their 2WD brethren. (Steve says:) You seem to be aimed toward a pickup though your stated audience may prefer an SUV. SUVs offer a more car like ride and allow you to haul your luggage inside. (Admittedly, a topper will protect your gear in a pickup.) The SUV has more weight over the rear wheels which smooths the ride and helps keep the back wheels in good contact with the ground. A Ford F150 or Chevy K15 pickup has more room than the models you've mentioned, and (surprisingly) can often be had for a better price. There's also the Bronco, Blazer, Ram Charger and full-size Wagoneer. Of these, I'd lean toward the Bronco for your group. The Ram Charger is tough off-road, but it's highway manners aren't as nice. The Wagoneer is great except for one problem -- reliability. A Jeep person can live with all it's quirks, but it is a real pain. The Blazer is probably runner up to the Bronco in this catagory. Late model Blazers are better than the Bronco, but they will be more expensive. (Matt adds:) I like the size/power/ruggedness of the big trucks, but I'm not happy with their thirst for fuel. Granted, the mini-trucks aren't exactly economy cars, but they do seem to get 5mpg better than the full size. This isn't a big deal if you have a short commute, but my winter commute will be 40-50 miles each way, and every extra mpg helps. I also don't really need that big of a truck for most of my hauling needs, so it seems like a waste (for me). That coupled with the fact that most full-size pickups I see advertised have had engine rebuilds doesn't make me very confident (on the other hand the engine rebuilds seem to be an easy process for the big V8's - while they are a major pain ($$$$$) on the smaller, higher stressed engines). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrap-up I'll add more to the FAQ when more people send me info In December, 1993, I finally got a truck (which was the original point of this whole thing). It wasn't exactly the one I wanted (doesn't shift-on-the-fly), but the price was too good to pass up. It's a 1985 Nissan 720 Longbed 4x4 pickup, with 133,000 miles almost no rust, a bedliner, sliding rear window, 5-speed, and auto-locking hubs. Of course, the real reason I bought it was that while I was test-driving it I hit a deer. Even after the repairs (which are almost done) it's still going to be a good deal. Does anyone know of any good sources for aftermarket parts? I'm looking for Nissan Info, but I might add a section onto the faq about part suppliers for various makes. Later.. Follow-up As of July, 1994, I've put 11000 miles on the truck, and have repaired most of the deer damage. It's needed a new starter moter, alternator, brakes hoses for the front, and rear brake shoes (and a little rust repair). So far, I've been very happy with it, and I have been getting 22-24 mpg. For the next truck, I'd like an extended-cab, and a 6 cylinder engine. Please send me any updates to the FAQ (and please try to write the updates in a format that I can cut and paste directly into the FAQ. Matt "Bambi Killer" Stoller mstoller@ctron.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------