2007 Cadillac Escalade

[VetteZ06]

I'm not surprised that the Commander isn't a great off-road vehicle against past Jeeps, which were smaller and focused much less on on-road characteristics. But one must look at it against its competitors to say whether it is good or not off-road by the class's standards, rather than by the brand's.

So, by your strange classifications, the Subaru Outback would be a "good" off-roader simply because it's better than most cars in its class? That's absurd.  

Like 93 said, the Commander is likely better off-road than most vehicles in its class, but that does NOT mean it should be considered a good off-roader. If none of the vehicles in the jumbo SUV class meet the criteria of a good off-roader, then so be it. There's absolutely no need to change the qualifications. If you tell someone that the aforementioned Subaru is good for going off-road (let's assume he is completely uninformed about cars in general), it's likely to get stuck if he does anything even remotely challenging. Sorry, but just because a Honda Accord would have more trouble does not make the Subaru an acceptable off-roader.

You sound more and more like a Consumer Reports columnist every day . . .

[ifcar]

The Outback is a car with all-wheel-drive. Not the same deal. I think it was obvious that I was talking about trucks/SUVs, not Legacy vs. Accord.

In the way I look at it:
Xterra and company are the good off-roaders in the small mainstream SUV class, and CR-V and company are the bad ones.

The way 93JC looks at it:
They're all bad, the Wrangler is the only good current vehicle offroad.

Not the most useful classification system.  

[Secret Chimp]

I think there are two different senses of "off-road" here; the kind of off-road a regular person would expect, i.e. basic ground clearance, traction, and uneven surface issues, and the kind of off-road that means being able to crawl over giant rocks or cock your axle lines at 45 degree angles. The Rubicon's capabilities are impractical; it's aimed at people who off-road for recreation.
I mean seriously, if an SUV can't do this, is it REALLY that bad at off-roading?

I think it's a rather silly standard considering the current expectations of the market.

[SaltyDog]

That guy should be slapped for that grille.

[93JC]

I mean seriously, if an SUV can't do this, is it REALLY that bad at off-roading?

I think it's a rather silly standard considering the current expectations of the market.

No, an SUV is not bad at offroading if it cannot crawl rocks as well as that. (my nearly-bone-stock Cherokee couldn't)

But this:

taunts the limits of most SUVs' offroad ability. And that is exceedingly bad, ifcar's relativism bedamned.

[Raza]

I love the Commander!

(Big, slab sided SUVs that are good offroad + soft spot)

You must love my Disco then :P

I also love the Commander

As a matter of fact, I do love the Disco!  Big, slab sided, way too tall, and British to boot.  

[TBR]

I mean seriously, if an SUV can't do this, is it REALLY that bad at off-roading?

I think it's a rather silly standard considering the current expectations of the market.

No, an SUV is not bad at offroading if it cannot crawl rocks as well as that. (my nearly-bone-stock Cherokee couldn't)

But this:

taunts the limits of most SUVs' offroad ability. And that is exceedingly bad, ifcar's relativism bedamned.

Who said anything about the Pilot? This is about the Commander and compared to its competitors (like the Pilot!) it is very good offroad.

[93JC]

The Pilot picture was the first photo I could find that exemplifies poor off-road ability. It doesn't have anything to do with the Pilot.


Pilot sucks offroad though.


Trust me, the Commander is no better.

[TBR]

The Commander is no better offroad than the Pilot? Yeah, I have a hard time believing that.

[ifcar]

The Pilot is FWD-based and the Commander is RWD-based with real 4WD and higher ground clearance. Easily above the levels of an AWD Odyssey.  

[VetteZ06]

I think it was obvious that I was talking about trucks/SUVs, not Legacy vs. Accord.

It obviously wasn't.  

I'll stick with Mark's system. Telling me that a vehicle is good off-road for its class is absolutely useless. Telling me that a vehicle is good off-road when compared with all others, on the other hand, is not. As was mentioned earlier, a good off-roader based on class comparison may still be poor overall, but its closest competitors are even worse, therefore making it look "good" somehow.

It's not too hard to grasp what we're trying to say here, ifcar.

Really.

I promise.

[ifcar]

Even basing it on all other SUVs/trucks would be fine. 93JC is basing his entire system on the performance of ONE current SUV.