It's Time To Stop Pretending Off-Roaders Are Comfortable
One of the biggest fallacies in motoring is the idea that off-roaders are comfortable. People look at them, see big cars on tall suspension and assume they must ride well. Well, that’s absolute nonsense, but first we have to separate the genres, because not everything that looks like an off-roader actually is one.
Yes, they’re often big, and yes, they’re usually on tall suspension, but proper 4x4s are cars built to do a rough job, unlike candy-ass soft-roaders that are just pretending. There’s a growing gap between those cars built to eat dirt and crap victory, and those built to take babies Tarquin and Arabella to Waitrose. But to the untrained, non-car-guy-eye they might look the same.
Lifestyle off-roaders (most SUVs, these days), aren’t built to take on mountains. Even the ones that can, like Mercedes’ GLE, have to be optioned-up beforehand with special off-road packs that upgrade key aspects of the car’s makeup. Softer standard suspension is great for cruising along pothole-scarred roads in town, but on trails a springy setup will just see the car’s underbelly kissing the mud, logs and rocks an unhealthy amount. You don’t want to start ripping parts off the chassis, do you? You just can’t call these cars off-roaders any more than you can say the same about a Volkswagen Golf.
There’s also a much greater chance of suspension damage. Slamming down off big drops too often could eventually punch pieces of the suspension through the bonnet, and if that happens you’d better hope it stays metaphorical.
Maybe when you look at what you think is a big, muscly, bearded off-roader, you might actually be looking at a big, comfy family bus. Then again you might be looking at a working man’s snot rag; a car built to take abuse; a car not to be looked after but to always carry on anyway. Take most modern double-cab pickups, for example, and any large SUV that’s actually built with the rough stuff in mind.
These cars are often about as comfortable as a night at the bottom of a well. Stiff, commercial vehicle-derived springs mean a lifetime of starry-eyed rock-hopping wonderment, but the shock that they transfer to the cabin over expansion joints, potholes and those nadgery little speed bumps can ultimately leave you on Christmas card terms with your chiropractor. Not ideal if you’ve got Junior asleep in his car seat, and even worse if your mother-in-law has a sensitive bladder.
The fact that big off-roady SUVs and pickups don’t handle well is a given. They’re too tall, too heavy and their steering is too slow. Sorry, Porsche, but even the hilariously mad Cayenne Turbo S feels too fat. The fact that so many SUVs are also damn uncomfortable most of the time makes their impressive sales figures all the more baffling.
The majority of Nissan Navaras, Volkswagen Amaroks and Mitsubishi L200s are sold as high-spec lifestyle-focused models, so they’re not necessarily working for their crust. There are so many other kinds of car that are better suited to daily life on Tarmac, and the problem isn’t limited to pick-ups. Get into a Jaguar F-Pace on 22s and after a few miles you’ll wish you’d bought something designed for your granddad.
On one side of the industry are SUVs that are built for comfort but could never hack it off-road, like the Lexus RX. On another are those that are built for pretend sportiness but still with no credible nod to off-roading. Then there are those that are built with roads as an afterthought; built primarily to take a beating on farms, mountains and coastlines around the world. Step forward, Isuzu D-Max.
What if you want the best of all worlds? Good luck finding that unicorn, because the Range Rover isn’t it. It’s hugely comfy, but too big for its own good on forest tracks. Just pick your poison and learn to live with it.
Comments
Now this is a rare sight….
This is even rarer..
When you accidentally double tap post
And this is so rare only a heavily copyrighted company is able to capture footage such as this (BBC……)
Not where I come from.
I remember once a guy came out to play with us, he trailered his purpose build shortened Defender. We were building out a course on a piece of land, and he managed to put it on it’s side. Oil went up into places it shouldn’t and the engine died.
So we towed it back to his trailer, and he unhooked the Range Rover (his wife’s brand new Range Rover) and promptly took it over to where he rolled his other vehicle, and successfully navigated it in said Rangey.
Still rare (depends on where you live)
It’s not even a question of compromise. The irony is that the majority of the ‘soft-roaders’ are neither soft nor off-roaders. Having been in a Merc ML and an E Class I can tell you the E Class rides better
People often make the mistake of thinking that a car with long suspension travel and a very soft suspension setup must be relatively comfortable. That’s a mistake, to say the least. Ever drove a Lada 4x4 or a LR Defender? It are superb off-road cars, no question, but they ride infeasible on paved roads.
The only off-roaders that drive more or less well on the road are cars like a Range Rover, which in return is way too expensive and too large to make it a “real” off-road car.
And don’t even start with these modern SUVs. They are neither comfortable nor off-road capable. The BMW X1, for example, has a terrible suspension setup, the interior is too cramped compared to the outside dimensions and it’s not capable of off-roading at all.
A standard defender doesn’t actually have much travel, they have ground clearance, yes, but not a lot of travel, and being stuck on two axles instead of independent suspension doesn’t help either.
How come my ‘14 FXT feels somewhat comfortable on paved roads yet it can keep up with a Range Rover on the beaten paths……
Matt, I really think that you don’t know what you are writing about. I have been driving real offroaders for a long time (Toyota Lancruiser, Chevy Suburban, Sorentos, Mercedes G wagon) and they are more comfortable than normal cars and many limo’s. Yes they are wallowy … yes they are slow in corners … but shock absorption is perfect.
That.
Not at all. If you take one of the cars you’re talking about, you have the exact ground clearance problems I mention. Great over speed bumps, terrible off-road because the front and rear compress so easily that you can quickly catch bits on rocks. Take Jeep’s Trail Rated cars, built to tackle hard-core stuff. They’re stiffer than standard for a good reason. :)
What about this?https://youtu.be/f4NhCxm-vlE
Any car with AWD and a tow hook could do that, just saying.
I feel like this is a greatly mis-informed article.
Toyota Land Cruiser?
Unless you meant the newer ones, then it’s a no.
So true,went dune bashing in dubai in a stock 200 series, handled the dunes like a champ and cruised to the hotel back like a limo
Matt Kimberley
I’m… not sure you have ever actually been off roading. You need softness for axle articulation and for soaking up the big bumps so the jarring isn’t pushed into the chassis. Hence the term shock absorber.
You go back to the earlier Range Rovers before air suspension and they were awesome comfort machines as well as off roaders because of that. You’re making ride height and stiffness out to be the same thing.
Big off-roady SUVs and pickups don’t handle well is a given. They’re too tall, too heavy and their steering is too slow…. and the chassis rolls around to much on that suspension.
Commercial suspension is stiff because the vehicles have to take weight.
Things like the F-Pace are not designed for off road, they are stiff to make up for the high roll centre as they are sold as performance SUV’s for the road.
I spent years off roading in Range Rovers… too big for forest tracks is not really a thing.
I disagree on several counts, buddy. Having driven most pickups on the European market I can tell you they’re almost all too hard. Brilliant on the rough stuff, but too hard and/or jiggly on the road.
We’re in complete agreement about CV suspension. Yep, it has to take weight, but it seems like so few buyers actually extrapolate the consequences in terms of ride quality before they sign on the dotted line. My point is that they could have got something much more comfortable.
The main point of the article is to criticise what we sometimes see where people think 4x4s must be comfortable by default because they’re big and tall with chunky tyres. Quite often the opposite is true because of excess chassis stiffening - due in turn to excess weight. I think it’s important for buyers to stop generalising about SUVs being comfortable.
As for off-roading in Range Rovers, only you know the exact details of which models and which tracks you drove on. Maybe it was all good for you, which is great, but having driven a Discovery Sport around some of the more difficult tracks in Land Rover’s Eastnor centre, I’d have hated to have been in a Range!
Having driven hundreds of vehicle’s, I agree with Matt. SUVs and truck don’t have great ride quality. Especially body on frame trucks/SUV’s. I drove a Ford Raptor recently and was surprised by how bumpy it drove. On the way back I drove a 2016 Explorer Sport (unibody car frame) and it drove smoother even with big wheels and low profile tires. A raptor is still a lot smoother than an f-350 super duty because heavy duty pickups stiff to handle big loads. Jeep Wranglers ride very bad too, every bump is felt, short wheelbase doesn’t help either. The most comfortable off roader is an old Mercedes. I bought one for that reason.
I feel like the Isuzu D-Max is underappreciated in the market compared to its competitors.
Look at the Toyota Hilux that rolls and fails the moose test, the Nissan Navara that came so spartan equipped in its last generation filled with plastic, and the Ford Ranger, which, in my country anyway, comes with a massive price tag.
To me, the only true pickups of the utilitarian type and size are the D-Max and Mitsubishi L200, or Triton.