KyAllroad wrote: Top Gear USA did an episode where they took three minivans across the continental divide or some such. Mostly silliness but one was a Ford Windstar with a V-6 5 speed RWD.
*Aerostar. Or Errorstar.
KyAllroad wrote: Top Gear USA did an episode where they took three minivans across the continental divide or some such. Mostly silliness but one was a Ford Windstar with a V-6 5 speed RWD.
*Aerostar. Or Errorstar.
failboat wrote:KyAllroad wrote: Top Gear USA did an episode where they took three minivans across the continental divide or some such. Mostly silliness but one was a Ford Windstar with a V-6 5 speed RWD.*Aerostar. Or Errorstar.
It's a better name than the AssSafari twins 
I would still prefer an AssSafari myself. 
With your intended use, I'd suggest a Suburban. Do the math in terms of the fuel economy, and it might not be as bad as you think. Previous generations have depreciated quickly, they're generally reliable, and parts are cheap (as well as readily available).
I bet a king sized mattress would fit in the back of this, if you rolled it up like a burrito: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/cto/5038451409.html
I've been eyeing Suburbans. I inquired about a Yukon that was cheap with a rebuilt engine and paperwork, but then realized it would be too short for me to sleep in the back.
What are the good years and engines to look for in the Suburbans?
It seems like a can find some 89-93 modified, lifted, huge tired Suburbans that are well taken care of for under $3500, but also some 1999+ examples for around the same price, but bone stock.
dj06482 wrote: With your intended use, I'd suggest a Suburban.
I have nothing against Burbans, but I can't even conceive of being able to sleep in the back of one. Minivan flat floor FTW.
The floor of my Suburban is flat in the rear. I could sleep in it really easily. Mine is an 04 for the record, and I love it.
Do you want an adventure to the Pacific Northwest? If so this seems like a pretty good deal. I love mine, and this one is even cooler.
http://vancouver.craigslist.ca/rch/cto/5024360121.html
My concern with the big chevy is that big chevy transmissions that tends to be the weakest link. Didn't pretty much every GMT come with a automatic transmission that would eventually fail?
I know nothing of large vehicles outside of I-6 Jeeps.
Mazdax605 wrote: Do you want an adventure to the Pacific Northwest? If so this seems like a pretty good deal. I love mine, and this one is even cooler. http://vancouver.craigslist.ca/rch/cto/5024360121.html
That is seriously cool, but out of my budget.
Remember those are Canadian dollars, so at this point it is significantly cheaper than you see there. Maybe you can talk the dealer down some? Talk him down to $5k, and you are only a smidge over $4k in US dollars.
Just found a super cheap ($600) higher mileage but no rust Corolla All-Trac 5psd with 188k. Wonder how much life that engine has left?
I also wonder how much faster it would be over a 2.5 auto Voyager, haha.
PHeller wrote: I also wonder how much faster it would be over a 2.5 auto Voyager, haha.
Now that's a drag race I want to see!
ShadowSix wrote:PHeller wrote: I also wonder how much faster it would be over a 2.5 auto Voyager, haha.Now that's a drag race I want to see!
I'm more interested in a DeLorean vs Pacer drag race. Wayne will drive the Pacer, and Marty will drive the D.
PHeller wrote: Just found a super cheap ($600) higher mileage but no rust Corolla All-Trac 5psd with 188k. Wonder how much life that engine has left? I also wonder how much faster it would be over a 2.5 auto Voyager, haha.
Super cool. But no king sized mattress. Oh no, guess you'll have to snuggle up on a full size.
Corolla sold before I could get to it. Drat.
73-91 Suburbans are the boxy ones. Fuel Injection came in 1987, it was a TBI system (glorified carb) that is reliable, and has great torque down low, but the heads don't flow well. The '92 redesign brought the equivalent of the '88 redesign in GM's full-size trucks. In '95 they redesigned the interior, and in '96 they introduced the Vortec V8, which had substantially more horsepower and a little more torque, but the power/torque came a bit higher up in the power band. The last model year of that design was 1999. In 2000, a redesign kicked in that lasted until 2006. At that point they changed over to the LS motors. I know the least about that body style, so maybe someone else can fill in the gaps there.
The 4L60E (basically an electronically controlled version of the 700R4) came out in 1994. My personal experience with it (3 Suburbans and 4 trucks) has been good, but we've (my parents owned some of those vehicles) not abused our vehicles, and are typically add a transmission cooler if it doesn't come with one from the factory (and sometimes even added an extra one). Regular fluid changes are important, too.
The 4L80E is much more stout, but at the expense of a heavier truck (2500 series) and the associated loss in fuel economy. If you want a tow beast or drive very little, a 2500 is the way to go.
We've seen outstanding mileage with our '83 2WD Suburban (all time best of 25mpg highway with the 2.73 rear end), and they've all done 20 MPG or slightly better on the highway in 2WD form. Knock off two MPG for the 4WD ones.
The third row is removable, and the seats fold flat at least through '99. The barn doors in back make access far easier.
Biggest issue with the AWD system is how it doesn't really work too well due to the lack of locking or limited slip differentials because the rear wheels are driven off of the passenger side of the differential output. So if the right front starts spinning (and they do) then you'll lose power to the rest of the system.
That's not true. The PTO splines into the diff carrier itself to avoid this issue.
I don't want to say you shouldn't consider it, but if you can find ANY 2.5/auto Chrysler to drive at your elevation and then imagine the extra weight (or just bring two passengers with you!), you'll get an idea of whether it's something you want to deal with or not. If you were to turbo it it would be faster than the 'average' car is at 7k ft, and if you 5spd swap it it will be still-slow but more fun to drive, and if you do both it will be awesome.
I've decided that I will likely stick with something I know and try to make it accommodate my "sleeping inside" aspirations: Jeep XJ. My father owned 4 4.0l I6 Jeeps, one of which my buddy now owns, and another friend just picked one up too. My in-laws own one that I convince them to keep so we have figured things out pretty well now. I'll just need to build a sleeping platform inside and remove the rear seat for camping expeditions.
I just wanted something bigger, is all. I want an extended, high-top XJ. Maybe I'll build one.
Burban's are too thirsty and quite enormous.
I'm not having much luck finding a reasonably priced 4Runner with anything less than 250,000 miles.
Vans...haven't decided yet. Still interested.
Mini-vans are a curious case. I love Chrysler products with the 2.2/2.5 but honestly never thought about them being "too slow". I just like them because they are easy as pie to fix and cheap, and get relatively decent fuel economy. Other minivans either have shoehorned engines or other issues.
I think the XJ is the best combination of an ability to work on it myself, fix it in the parking lot, find one already lifted, decently reliable, and cheap relative to mileage, age and condition.
You can fit a futon mattress in the back of an xj with the seats folded down. But it takes up ALL the space. Attempting to fit a platform underneath would make it quite cramped, vertically (assuming you want it at a useful height to be able to slide things under the bed)
The things I do not like most about camping IN a small vehicle from experience is where do you put your gear? It can be in the back, but when it's time to sleep, the options become pile it all in the front seats, or throw it outside. Both are kind of annoying, and the latter is often not a good option. A rooftop carrier might be a good solution.
XJs are cool. A friend of the family had several and loved them.
I want an extended, high-top XJ. Maybe I'll build one.
Closest things i know of that're bigger but not TOO much bigger are the Montero and Trooper. I had a 94 Montero (before the 87 i own now) and i thought the size fell in a pretty sweet spot. The early Troopers with the GM v6 (like Tom Suddard owns) are SUPER easy to work on, as well. I had a 5spd Rodeo with that engine and it was great for serviceability. I've also owned 4 XJs and while they are awesome in lots of ways, i don't get excited about the thought of sleeping in one.
Mini-vans are a curious case. I love Chrysler products with the 2.2/2.5 but honestly never thought about them being "too slow". I just like them because they are easy as pie to fix and cheap, and get relatively decent fuel economy. Other minivans either have shoehorned engines or other issues.
It's really JUST the combo of na2.5 and 3spd auto that kills my enthusiasm in this one narrow case. Any other engine/trans combo and im all over that. They're magical beasts, but they did sell a few versions with gimp powertrains and you happened to find one of them. All the rest are just fine!
Boo. Hiss.
failboat wrote: You can fit a futon mattress in the back of an xj with the seats folded down. But it takes up ALL the space. Attempting to fit a platform underneath would make it quite cramped, vertically (assuming you want it at a useful height to be able to slide things under the bed) The things I do not like most about camping IN a small vehicle from experience is where do you put your gear? It can be in the back, but when it's time to sleep, the options become pile it all in the front seats, or throw it outside. Both are kind of annoying, and the latter is often not a good option. A rooftop carrier might be a good solution.
Isn't this what the Pontiac Aztec was invented for? AWD available, minivan amount of room, built in tent section.
Go find one of those monstrosities and be done with your quest.
You'll need to log in to post.
