An observation....

[rusty ol ranger]

Yea but it's still a Chrysler so the frame will end up bursting into flames...

Um....

Frames dont burn man.

 

[Dirtman]

Um....

Frames dont burn man.

Everything on a Chrysler burns...

 

[snoranger]

Um....

Frames dont burn man.

One of our sweepers tried to prove you wrong today...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

One of our sweepers tried to prove you wrong today...

View attachment 33627

Oh shit.

 

[sgtsandman]

My biggest issue with the new expeditions are the IRS.

I loved my 2 1st gen ones i had. Pretty capable off road and looked better then the later ones.

Arnt the durangos body on frame?

The problem is that they are so big, so that is a limiting factor.

Old Duragos are body on frame. I have no idea on the new ones. Cargo storage is terrible in the old ones from what I remember. Bigger than my gen1 CR-V but still had the same cargo room. I guess they needed the extra space for the longitudinal engines. Lastly, it's a Chrysler product that has a horrible reputation when it comes to transmissions and axles. Might as well get a Jeep if you are going to voluntarily deal with and pay for that built in liability.

 

[wildbill23c]

Today's vehicles have 18"+ wheels and less ground clearance than my 88 Bronco 2 at stock height with 15" wheels LOL. My 84 Ford Ranger with 14" wheels had more ground clearance. My aunt & uncle just got the new Lincoln Aviator, damn thing has 20" wheels and looks like about 6 maybe 8 inches of ground clearance at max suspension height (air ride crap). I love the small pickups like the old Rangers, S-10's, Dakota's, even the old F-Series. You could reach over the bed and get stuff out, put stuff in, and not need a damn ladder...well that is unless someone put a lift on them, and generally even the Rangers, S-10's, and Dakota's with a lift were still manageable.

I agree with rusty ol ranger, I like the old Expeditions, body on frame with at least a solid rear axle, I believe they had IFS though? I got my 98 Jeep Grand Cherokee before I found an older Expedition in good enough condition and good price, people either sell them after they've destroyed them, or they want a lot of money for them....those Expeditions are great as they generally had the 3rd row seat, actual 4WD and I think many if not all were full time and part time 4WD systems, or at least most of the ones I ran across had the 2WD, 4WD Auto, high, and low range which I think for where I live the 4WD Auto setting is a huge plus where road conditions are always changing in the winter. The only thing I really am not sure about with them is the 5.4L V8's...seems several have issues with them spitting out spark plugs, stripping threads out of the plug holes, etc...so I was even more leary about getting one due to horror stories on that. Also, transmissions in them kind of make me cringe now since having several A4LD issues, it makes it hard to trust the Ford automatics especially in a used vehicle with no service history and where I live many people seem to not care about having their cars serviced properly. Still would love to get a mid 2000's Expedition though at some point as they do have a fairly good towing capacity which is one reason I'd rather stick to a mid-size or full size SUV, I assume the older Expeditions are considered full size?

I still love my Bronco 2 way too much to get rid of it, and I'd love to get another 80's Ranger at some point too I love the older square body trucks and the ones you can actually get stuff in and out of the bed without needing a ladder.

 

[Grumpaw]

Oh shit.

It was probably tryng to sweep up the remnants of a blown 2.9 that someone abandon on the road.

Grumpaw

 

[wildbill23c]

The problem is that they are so big, so that is a limiting factor.

Old Duragos are body on frame. I have no idea on the new ones. Cargo storage is terrible in the old ones from what I remember. Bigger than my gen1 CR-V but still had the same cargo room. I guess they needed the extra space for the longitudinal engines. Lastly, it's a Chrysler product that has a horrible reputation when it comes to transmissions and axles. Might as well get a Jeep if you are going to voluntarily deal with and pay for that built in liability.

According to a quick search the new Durango is based on the Grand Cherokee architecture so its a unibody construction. However, I'm on my 2nd 1st generation Grand Cherokee and have never had any issues with the unibody setup, its pretty strong course if you live in the rust belt states it don't matter what construction you have it'll rust to pieces but here in Idaho its not really much of an issue.

The first 2 generations of the Durango were body on frame....the Grand Cherokee and the Cherokee have both always been unibody well the Cherokee back when it was a full size Jeep was body on frame but I'm talking about the Jeep Cherokee XJ that most people are more familiar with, the Grand Cherokee since its debut in 1993 has always been and continues to be unibody.

 

[sgtsandman]

Today's vehicles have 18"+ wheels and less ground clearance than my 88 Bronco 2 at stock height with 15" wheels LOL. My 84 Ford Ranger with 14" wheels had more ground clearance. My aunt & uncle just got the new Lincoln Aviator, damn thing has 20" wheels and looks like about 6 maybe 8 inches of ground clearance at max suspension height (air ride crap). I love the small pickups like the old Rangers, S-10's, Dakota's, even the old F-Series. You could reach over the bed and get stuff out, put stuff in, and not need a damn ladder...well that is unless someone put a lift on them, and generally even the Rangers, S-10's, and Dakota's with a lift were still manageable...

...I still love my Bronco 2 way too much to get rid of it, and I'd love to get another 80's Ranger at some point too I love the older square body trucks and the ones you can actually get stuff in and out of the bed without needing a ladder.

Vehicles are being built for the masses and to look cool. Unfortunately, the majority who is deciding what looks cool, rarely leaves the pavement, let alone a gravel road. Most also buy their trucks as status symbols, instead of using them as work trucks to haul stuff. Otherwise, they would have kept the older format with the smaller wheels.

 

[Dirtman]

One of our sweepers tried to prove you wrong today...

View attachment 33627

Was that one of whileys trucks?

 

[wildbill23c]

Vehicles are being built for the masses and to look cool. Unfortunately, the majority who is deciding what looks cool, rarely leaves the pavement, let alone a gravel road. Most also buy their trucks as status symbols, instead of using them as work trucks to haul stuff. Otherwise, they would have kept the older format with the smaller wheels.

This is exactly the problem, and the reason why older truck's values are slowly increasing as working people realize that brand new $60k+ truck is a pain in the ass to use as an actual truck rather than a mall crawler soccer mom car.

 

[Dirtman]

The 2012 F450 we have at work has a much lower bed than a new F150.

 

[sgtsandman]

This is exactly the problem, and the reason why older truck's values are slowly increasing as working people realize that brand new $60k+ truck is a pain in the ass to use as an actual truck rather than a mall crawler soccer mom car.

Yeah, they are getting to the point that a well cared for older truck is just as expensive as a new one.

 

[wildbill23c]

The 2012 F450 we have at work has a much lower bed than a new F150.

That's good to know, but the F350's and down are still pretty high though aren't they? The F450 is a great looking truck though, slightly more oomph than I'd ever need LOL, my 1988 F250 has always been more than plenty for everything I've ever needed to do.

 

[snoranger]

Was that one of whileys trucks?

I don't know who Whiley is, so I'm going to say no. That was a county owned street sweeper.
I'll find out what happened tomorrow... I took the night off today.