SW17LS

Easier to modify and repair I will give you. But somehow in this discussion we've gone from originally the statement than unibody SUVs aren't capable offroad or for towing, those have been debunked and now we're down to its "easier to modify and repair".

Seeing that 99.95% of people buying a $50,000 SUV will never modify it or repair it themselves...you can see why the tradeoffs of BOF construction are off putting to today's buyers...

Koz

The point that most (including myself) are trying to make is that BOF vehicles are better suited for towing, off-roading (and heavy hauling) and will hold up better to this type of usage over a long period of time. You may not be aware of the fact that if you plan on any type of serious off-roading you will need to modify the vehicle (including a Heep) and most likely have to make repairs. I have done both (towing and off-roading) for many years (also presently with the GX) and from personal experience (myself and friends) I would not even consider buying a unibody truck to do either.

Koz

SW17LS

But theres absolutely no proof of that. Thats entirely your own assumption. Both the LR4 and the Grand Cherokee have 1,000 lbs more towing capacity than the GX, and they are unibody.

It depends on what you're going to do. These vehicles are pretty darn capable right out of the box (just look at the videos I posted), unless you're going to do serious rock crawling or something of that nature I don't really think you need to do any kind of modifications to these vehicles, especially with adjustable suspensions.

Anyways, very few people are going to buy $50k+ luxury branded SUVs and do serious offroading...and certainly not to the point where they're going to modify those vehicles for that purpose. So again...you can see my point why the consumer is not willing to accept clunkly handling, high center of gravity, safety drawbacks, trucky ride, and smaller narower interiors for benefits for use they aren't going to use, that may or may not be there in the first place.

Quadro

Do you always trust what manufacturers post on their site? The Jeep end up with a blown motor on the second day of Dakar. What's the point in 7000+ lbs tow rating if it couldn't even pull itself?

SW17LS

So by your logic we shouldnt trust that the GX can even tow 6,500 lbs? Or does that logic only apply to vehicles that you don't own or like?

Yes, I do trust manufacturer tow ratings, they are monitored by the DOT and NHTSA. Overstating the tow rating of a vehicle would be hugely dangerous.

That one race modified Jeep (which had previously won rally events), and that was a generation older than the current GC blew a head gasket. ***** happens. I'm on a huge Jeep owners forum and there are many people that tow up to the limit and have no issues, there are no widespread issues with the Hemi motor, its a pretty tried and true motor. Plenty of electrical issues, but mechanically not a lot.

Here's a thread on an Australian owners site where a member had a blown engine in a Prado:

http://au.toyotaownersclub.com/forum...18758-100.html

Its meaningless.

And again, the discussion is not about engines...its about unibody vs BOF construction.

Quadro

How NHTSA supposed to know anything about new model long-term durability while towing specific tow rating for, say, next 5 years? That's simply impossible. To make this argument constructive do you know what actually included in tow rating certification? I don't.

I have no doubt GX can reliably tow it's rating but not because it's written on the manufacturer's web site but because the platform it's based on has a proven track record.

Koz

No, this is not assumption. This is my opinion (and the opinion of most people who have towed and do moderate off-roading). Again, no one is saying a uni-body truck is not capable.

Just because a vehicle has a higher tow rating, that does not mean it tows better or that it will hold up longer. I can tell you (for a FACT) that the GX460 tows better than a V8 4Runner (even with a 7K lbs tow rating) and the V8 4Runner tows better than a same year Hemi GC.

BTW – Showing a video means nothing!

If you are referring to the GX as clunky handling, truck ride and having safety drawbacks, you have no clue as to what you are taking about! The GX’s appeal is that it has the best of both worlds. A luxurious comfortable ride and excellent off-road abilities, not to mention it being the class leader in mileage and reliability.

Koz

FrigginFGO

The engine they are talking about in that thread is their V6 gas engine variant. Most use the diesel for off-road and towing. Toyota hasn't given the U.S. a diesel option so the GX gets a 4.6L V8 which still gets the job done. Even the 1st Generation GX shared the 4.7L engine with the Land Cruiser and LX and 4Runner V8 and that engine was essentially bulletproof.

SW17LS

Actually that specifically was said more than once.

Unless the video proves your point?

I disagree that having video footage of a vehicle performing offroad doesn't give you some idea how capable it is in situations similar to the conditions in the video. Its inclusion was meant to counter the argument that "unibody SUVs are not capable off road". Clearly, they are.

I've driven the GX multiple times and its a very nice vehicle, but it is certainly clunkier handling onroad than my Jeep Grand Cherokee or something like a Land Rover LR4. The Jeep doesn't really compete with the GX because its only two row, but the LR4 certainly does. Its also a luxurious comfortable riding vehicle with excellent off-road abilities.

Here's a question for you then...why is the GX the slowest selling vehicle in its class? I think the answer to that question is because its BOF.

And that explanation is about as valid as my argument that the engine in that rally Jeep that blew was the previous generation Hemi motor.

Again, my point is not to say that the Jeep is a better vehicle than the GX, all things considered for long term ownership it isn't. My only point has ever been that a unibody vehicle can be every bit as capable as a BOF vehicle and provide better driving characteristics and space onroad.

Quadro

4.6L V8 1UR-FE used in GX came in 3rd overall in Dakar (i.e. in all classes, not only production vehicles). Here is the car that used it: http://www.dakar.com/dakar/2012/us/rider/301.html

This engine is a real deal.

Quadro

The reason is because GX is overbuilt and over-engineered for what typical US buyer needs. This causes it to be heavier and have other features (like full-time 4wd) which impact it's gas mileage so many people are willing to sacrifice these in order to pay less at the pump. In US people have roads and if something goes wrong they call a tow truck. Jeep is a compromise and a reason it doesn't sell anywhere else in the world where people need real SUVs, not paper monsters.

Again, in parts of the world where durability and dependability matters nobody drives unibody Jeeps or Land Rovers. How many of these did you see performing military duty in the middle east?

SW17LS

Jeep and Land Rover were making military vehicles before Toyota as we know it even existed. Do you see expensive Grand Cherokees or LR4s or Range Rovers doing military service? No. Police officers don't use Ferraris in pursuits either, doesn't mean they aren't fast.

As for Jeep, they actually do sell quite well overseas in the markets that they are sold. Australia for instance...the JGC is very popular. The JGC is not a compromise vehicle any more than a GX is. Nor is an LR4.

You do see Land Rover Discovery's all over the place overseas, in war situations, they're used by the UN...

Then why do other three row V8 SUVs that get less fuel mileage than the GX outsell it?

GX: 15/20
LR4: 12/17
Mercedes GL: 14/19
Jeep Grand Cherokee Hemi: 14/22

All in all the GX has pretty good gas mileage, thats not the problem. I agree its overbuilt and over-engineered, but the real issue is road manners, looks (It looks very high and truckish), and a small, narrow interior (a product of it being BOF)

FrigginFGO

From my perspective, I could care less about road manners as long as this vehicle can take a beating over time. That is my main concern. Most municipalities in this country are having budget shortfalls. I can see road maintenance taking a back seat. Look at the bankrupt city of Detroit. They can't even afford to maintain half their traffic signals let alone maintain roads. I am not convinced that unibody (CUV) vehicles will hold up in conditions like that overtime.

Quadro

Do you see non-expensive Cherokee do it? Or do you think Grand Cherokee is somehow built better than a Cherokee?

By the way if you think Prado sells well and is taken off-road because they are cheap you're wrong. In Australia Prado starts above Grand Cherokee. If you can find Middle East prices for GC we can compare that too.

Range Rover is easy. It ranked dead last in reliability. It sure can drive through a water pond in 5 minute manufacturer commercial because on the 6th minute it will be loaded on a flat bed and towed. But that's not part of the video of course.

The only data I found is for 2009: (http://media.chrysler.com/newsreleas...d=9336&mid=192)

"For the year, the Jeep Grand Cherokee led the brand with 14,869 vehicle sales." That's on par with Lexus GX sales in the US ;-)

SW17LS

There hasn't been a Cherokee for many years. Just recently they brought the nameplate back. Do I think the Grand Cherokee is built better than the Cherokee? Absolutely...as the GX is about better than the RX. You keep trying to make this about Jeep, which isn't what I'm talking about. 2009 sales...the 2011+ GC is such a huge improvement in every way you have to look at sales of the current model. I wouldn't have been caught dead in a GC until the new generation.

As for road manners, you could care less about road manners...but 99.95% of the consumer population does.

Like I said, keep your GXs in good shape.