Hi all
Looking to swop our sorento for a bigger 4x4...
our criteria are 7 seats (rear row folding flat into floor, preferably not
side-stored), and the wider the better so we can get 3 kids seats in the
second row.
we've got the shortlist down to the following vehicles...

Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D
Landrover Disco3
Toyotal Landcruiser
Nissan Pathfinder

Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin axle
caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?

Cheers - much appreciated

Steve

"Steve Bowyer" <sbowyerspamtrapped@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:g346f.3076$m4.2002@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Hi all
> Looking to swop our sorento for a bigger 4x4...
> our criteria are 7 seats (rear row folding flat into floor, preferably not
> side-stored), and the wider the better so we can get 3 kids seats in the
> second row.
> we've got the shortlist down to the following vehicles...
>
> Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D

Good choice.

> Landrover Disco3

Lovely machine

> Toyotal Landcruiser

There are two versions of this. 'Big' and 'Massive'.
Both are good safe choices but rather old hat compared to your first two
choices. Mind you, I own a massive one and my friend owns a big one. Both
have been flawless performers and we are very satisfied owners.


> Nissan Pathfinder

Not one for me.


>
> Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin axle
> caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?
>
> Cheers - much appreciated
>

1600kgs is not a big deal for any big 4x4. Your main constraint is seven
seats. Old model MClass had the option and so does the current Volvo XC90.
Another to consider is the Nissan Patrol.
All will probably serve your needs admirably.

Huw

Landcruiser's 3rd row are side stored (but can be removed).

You could always wait for the 7 seat X5 due next year or import a new 7 seat
RAV4 from the US (due next year) but not really larger than a sorento.

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3rs6d6Fl57nmU1@individual.net...
>
> "Steve Bowyer" <sbowyerspamtrapped@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:g346f.3076$m4.2002@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> > Hi all
> > Looking to swop our sorento for a bigger 4x4...
> > our criteria are 7 seats (rear row folding flat into floor, preferably
not
> > side-stored), and the wider the better so we can get 3 kids seats in the
> > second row.
> > we've got the shortlist down to the following vehicles...
> >
> > Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D
>
> Good choice.
>
> > Landrover Disco3
>
> Lovely machine
>
> > Toyotal Landcruiser
>
> There are two versions of this. 'Big' and 'Massive'.
> Both are good safe choices but rather old hat compared to your first two
> choices. Mind you, I own a massive one and my friend owns a big one. Both
> have been flawless performers and we are very satisfied owners.
>
>
> > Nissan Pathfinder
>
> Not one for me.
>
>
> >
> > Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin
axle
> > caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?
> >
> > Cheers - much appreciated
> >
>
> 1600kgs is not a big deal for any big 4x4. Your main constraint is seven
> seats. Old model MClass had the option and so does the current Volvo XC90.
> Another to consider is the Nissan Patrol.
> All will probably serve your needs admirably.
>
> Huw
>
>
>

"Steve Bowyer" <sbowyerspamtrapped@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:g346f.3076$m4.2002@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Hi all
> Looking to swop our sorento for a bigger 4x4...
> our criteria are 7 seats (rear row folding flat into floor, preferably not
> side-stored), and the wider the better so we can get 3 kids seats in the
> second row.
> we've got the shortlist down to the following vehicles...
>
> Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D
> Landrover Disco3
> Toyotal Landcruiser
> Nissan Pathfinder
>
> Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin axle
> caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?
>
> Cheers - much appreciated
>
> Steve
>
>

Depends on what you intend doing and where you intend going, but a Defender
90 (SWB) seats 6 ( 7 if you replace centre console ) built like a tank and
safe. True 4x4 not a toy one and as for reliability, like all things look
after it and it will be fine.

"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:O096f.748$iZ4.464@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Steve Bowyer" <sbowyerspamtrapped@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:g346f.3076$m4.2002@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> Hi all
>> Looking to swop our sorento for a bigger 4x4...
>> our criteria are 7 seats (rear row folding flat into floor, preferably
>> not
>> side-stored), and the wider the better so we can get 3 kids seats in the
>> second row.
>> we've got the shortlist down to the following vehicles...
>>
>> Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D
>> Landrover Disco3
>> Toyotal Landcruiser
>> Nissan Pathfinder
>>
>> Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin
>> axle
>> caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?
>>
>> Cheers - much appreciated
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>
> Depends on what you intend doing and where you intend going, but a
> Defender
> 90 (SWB) seats 6 ( 7 if you replace centre console ) built like a tank and
> safe.

It's all relative but by modern standards it is the least safe 4x4 on the
road and should it be subject to the minimum acceptable standard tests for
newly introduced vehicles today it would fail miserably.
Side facing back seats for a start. No crumple zones front or back, no side
impact protection, inadequate head and knee protection, no airbags, no
roll-over protection.
It has many sterling attributes but modern safety standards are low down the
list. As are comfort and build quality. I am speaking as one who runs a 110
with over 10,000 operating hours under its belt.
It is primarily a work vehicle or a sometime leisure vehicle for local use.
It does not compare well with any of the other vehicles mentioned for
everyday road use under normal circumstances unless one is a masochist, or a
sadist if supplying it for someone else to drive.
Nothing like it for towing a sheep trailer or fetching cows in to milk
though.

Huw

Huw

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:11:59 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>It's all relative but by modern standards it is the least safe 4x4 on the
>road and should it be subject to the minimum acceptable standard tests for
>newly introduced vehicles today it would fail miserably.
>Side facing back seats for a start. No crumple zones front or back, no side
>impact protection, inadequate head and knee protection, no airbags, no
>roll-over protection.
>It has many sterling attributes but modern safety standards are low down the
>list. As are comfort and build quality. I am speaking as one who runs a 110
>with over 10,000 operating hours under its belt.
>It is primarily a work vehicle or a sometime leisure vehicle for local use.
>It does not compare well with any of the other vehicles mentioned for
>everyday road use under normal circumstances unless one is a masochist, or a
>sadist if supplying it for someone else to drive.

Dead easy to steal too.
--

Paul Rooney

On 2005-10-21, Huw <hedydd> wrote:

> Side facing back seats for a start. No crumple zones front or back,
> no side impact protection, inadequate head and knee protection, no
> airbags, no roll-over protection.

I love my Defender to bits, but if I was after a machine primarily for
on-road use, I wouldn't go for a Defender either, mostly for the above
reasons. I hit the back of a van in a low-speed accident (my fault)
and whacked my knee on the dash, I wouldn't like to crash in one.

I saw a report on road safety some years ago on the beeb, research
done on monkeys connected to a rig that consisted of a seat with
straps and a hydraulic ram connected to a crash helmet was designed to
test the effects of whiplash. They found that sudden shocks to the
head front-to-back (as in standard front-facing seats in a crash) were
far less likely to result in brain damage than side-to-side damage,
and the difference wasn't small, it was huge. The tests were designed
more to simulate the effects of being hit in a car from the side, but
would fit in the case of a front-on crash in a vehicle containing
passengers in side-facing seats.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

"Ian Rawlings" <news05@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndlitie.7c8.news05@gate-int.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2005-10-21, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>
>> Side facing back seats for a start. No crumple zones front or back,
>> no side impact protection, inadequate head and knee protection, no
>> airbags, no roll-over protection.
>
> I love my Defender to bits, but if I was after a machine primarily for
> on-road use, I wouldn't go for a Defender either, mostly for the above
> reasons. I hit the back of a van in a low-speed accident (my fault)
> and whacked my knee on the dash, I wouldn't like to crash in one.
>
> I saw a report on road safety some years ago on the beeb, research
> done on monkeys connected to a rig that consisted of a seat with
> straps and a hydraulic ram connected to a crash helmet was designed to
> test the effects of whiplash. They found that sudden shocks to the
> head front-to-back (as in standard front-facing seats in a crash) were
> far less likely to result in brain damage than side-to-side damage,
> and the difference wasn't small, it was huge. The tests were designed
> more to simulate the effects of being hit in a car from the side, but
> would fit in the case of a front-on crash in a vehicle containing
> passengers in side-facing seats.
>

Both you and I own Defenders and the shortcomings relating to safety are
obvious to us. What I did not mention in this regard is the complete lack of
a basic safety feature designed into cars since the early '70's. That is a
passenger safety cell. In a head on crash this is not so much of an issue
since the chassis is solid [too solid in fact] but there is no protection to
where the outside seats are fitted, outside the chassis if you like.

Huw

On 2005-10-22, Huw <hedydd> wrote:

> What I did not mention in this regard is the complete lack of a
> basic safety feature designed into cars since the early '70's. That
> is a passenger safety cell.

That could be rectified to a large extent by the various bolt-on
goodies that you can get from off-road shops, e.g. tree sliders, roll
cages etc although you'd have to choose carefully given the likely low
impact point in a side-on crash. The lack of crumple zones and the
basic perils of side-facing seats both from a whiplash and seatbelt
restraining point of view would be much harder to sort out.

Mind you it's hard to figure out the merits of other off-roaders in
these respects, I've got no idea at all what others are like.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

"Ian Rawlings" <news05@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndlk4g3.7c8.news05@gate-int.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2005-10-22, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>
>> What I did not mention in this regard is the complete lack of a
>> basic safety feature designed into cars since the early '70's. That
>> is a passenger safety cell.
>
> That could be rectified to a large extent by the various bolt-on
> goodies that you can get from off-road shops, e.g. tree sliders, roll
> cages etc although you'd have to choose carefully given the likely low
> impact point in a side-on crash. The lack of crumple zones and the
> basic perils of side-facing seats both from a whiplash and seatbelt
> restraining point of view would be much harder to sort out.
>
> Mind you it's hard to figure out the merits of other off-roaders in
> these respects, I've got no idea at all what others are like.
>

All of the others have been new designs since the early '90's and have gone
through compulsory crash tests. If they are sold in the USA they have also
passed roll-over tests. LR Defender is not allowed to be sold in the USA
presently and when it was, a substantial roll cage had to be fitted. Very
early 90's designs like the Isuzu Trooper and Daihatsu have been phased out
while old model Discovery always had crush cans fitted for the US market,
though apparently British passengers were less important to the Company.
Latest LR models such as new Disco and RR have substantial crumple zones to
decrease the shock load on passengers in the event of a crash.
Quite frankly, from a safety point of view only, it is a disgrace that the
present Defender is still allowed to be sold given that standards have moved
on so very substantially. The present models have now been produced for over
twenty years with no safety improvements apart from the option of anti-lock
brakes made since before 1958. They claim that volumes do not justify
developing a new model but frankly they have given the whole market sector
over to Japanese brands. Just look at all those 4x4 pick-ups on the road
today. If they had pulled their fingers out 10 years ago a majority of that
market worldwide could have been Land Rover's.

Huw

On 2005-10-22, Huw <hedydd> wrote:

> They claim that volumes do not justify developing a new model but
> frankly they have given the whole market sector over to Japanese
> brands. Just look at all those 4x4 pick-ups on the road today. If
> they had pulled their fingers out 10 years ago a majority of that
> market worldwide could have been Land Rover's.

Indeed, although I think that a Defender model would always lose out
to the pick-ups because making a pick-up that's as capable off-road as
a proper off-roader isn't easy due to the suspension design
compromises necessary for things like flat loadbeds and relatively low
tailgates. Any 4x4 with the off-road capabilities of the Defender is
always going to be either expensive or very basic, so would always be
a niche product as hardly anyone needs the kind of capability that the
Defender has. Even farmers rarely need it as a pickup with fat tyres
can handle muddy fields but doesn't have the articulation needed for
real axle-twisters.

The Defender seems to be a product that has capabilities that hardly
anyone can justify, I doubt that any new model Defenders, if they ever
appear, will be as capable. Even I, as an off-road enthusiast,
couldn't justify a 90 as it's not as flexible as a 110 due to the crap
load area. The 90 is better off-road for sure but it can't carry
much.

Not that I really care much about the Defender popularity, after all
the next car on my shopping list is a series 1 80" ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

"Ian Rawlings" <news05@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrndll0pn.7c8.news05@gate-int.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2005-10-22, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>
>> They claim that volumes do not justify developing a new model but
>> frankly they have given the whole market sector over to Japanese
>> brands. Just look at all those 4x4 pick-ups on the road today. If
>> they had pulled their fingers out 10 years ago a majority of that
>> market worldwide could have been Land Rover's.
>
> Indeed, although I think that a Defender model would always lose out
> to the pick-ups because making a pick-up that's as capable off-road as
> a proper off-roader isn't easy due to the suspension design
> compromises necessary for things like flat loadbeds and relatively low
> tailgates. Any 4x4 with the off-road capabilities of the Defender is
> always going to be either expensive or very basic, so would always be
> a niche product as hardly anyone needs the kind of capability that the
> Defender has. Even farmers rarely need it as a pickup with fat tyres
> can handle muddy fields but doesn't have the articulation needed for
> real axle-twisters.
>
> The Defender seems to be a product that has capabilities that hardly
> anyone can justify, I doubt that any new model Defenders, if they ever
> appear, will be as capable. Even I, as an off-road enthusiast,
> couldn't justify a 90 as it's not as flexible as a 110 due to the crap
> load area. The 90 is better off-road for sure but it can't carry
> much.
>

They have not built vehicles that people want and need in large volumes. Yes
there is the farmer market for 90's in the UK and 110's everywhere but it is
a small and shrinking market. They could have been building pick-up trucks
that people actually want and need. They could have even set up a low build
cost factory in S Africa, Thailand, Pakistan or India like the Japanese and
Ford have done, letting Solihull concentrate on the higher value bits and
vehicles. Instead they and we are stuck with an outdated product with a high
build cost aimed at a rapidly shrinking market of mainly farmers. Even
utilities are now buying pick-up trucks. The Army has also shrunk its orders
for Defender drastically .
So where do they go from here? There will probably be one last swansong next
year updating the engine to the four cylinder Ford units but after that it
is probable that LR will dump the utility sector altogether, unless they
bring a badge engineered and more sophisticated version of Thai built Ford
trucks in. Maybe even modified diesel American trucks. Why not, as long as
they produce what the market will buy in numbers and preserve the utility
nature of the brand?
The success of any brand of vehicle is measured by the profitable production
of large volumes of safe vehicles which are in demand. Unfortunately the
present Defender fails on all counts and cannot carry them into the future
with success.

Huw

Steve Bowyer <sbowyerspamtrapped@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
> Mitsu' Shogun LWB Di-D
> Landrover Disco3
> Toyotal Landcruiser
> Nissan Pathfinder
>
> Can anybody think of any other "big" 4x4s that will tow a 1600kg twin axle
> caravan, or comment on experiences towing with any of the above ?

Ford Expedition V8. It has seating for eight and the third row folds (as
in the Zafira) flat into the boot floor. If you want or can find a
suitable S/h vehicle you can have a walk-through cabin with seven seats.
Rear bench seat, and a middle row of two "captains" chairs with a
walkway between them. The V8 Triton engine will lug anything up to the
legal limit. It copes with 3,500kg with ease. If you want more oomph
there's a V10 diesel version.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Mitsubishi Delica

I know it looks bad, but it tows 3500kg and has loads of
space and very flexible seating inside.


Tim