Wrangler Unlimited Contends for Greatest Survival Vehicle
04-27-2016, 11:12 AM
#1
JK-Forum Editor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrangler Unlimited Contends for Greatest Survival Vehicle
As far as SUVs to help you survive the apocalypse go, how does a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon stack up against a Mercedes-Benz G550 and a Toyota Land Cruiser? Motor Trend finds out.
Read the rest on the JK Forum homepage. >>
04-28-2016, 07:13 AM
#2
That was a flawed comparison on many levels. The main one is that they chose the wrong Wrangler package for the comparison, and then of course the glaring omission of price as a factor.
A JKU Rubicon Hard Rock is what? $43K? The Land Cruiser they tested starts at $83K and the G550 at $120K+. To say this is an unfair comparison is a complete understatement. But worse than that, what they were comparing was a balance of three basic performance categories: long distance highway and mountain roads for the "road" portion, snow, and in particular how fast can you drive in snow, and then off-road on rocks. Considering this combination they should have tested with a Sahara rather than a RHR, and the Wrangler would have probably come in first even against vehicles that cost 2-3x as much.
I would say their test was also somewhat flawed, because their stated premise of "go anywhere, any time, in any conditions" meant mostly "anywhere" being 99% on public roads, "any conditions" means either ordinary weather or snow, and "any time" means "in a hurry". But they are a car magazine used to testing road cars on the road. But real-life disasters where you might need to evacuate or bug out are going to involve public roads that are packed to a standstill so you might need a vehicle capable of taking a long-distance alternate route that might not include actual public roads. And you might have conditions like hurricanes or floods that would make water crossing be a critical performance factor. Anyway, hardly matters. I'm actually super surprised the lowly Jeep came in 2nd. But I'm not at all surprised the TLC won.
A JKU Rubicon Hard Rock is what? $43K? The Land Cruiser they tested starts at $83K and the G550 at $120K+. To say this is an unfair comparison is a complete understatement. But worse than that, what they were comparing was a balance of three basic performance categories: long distance highway and mountain roads for the "road" portion, snow, and in particular how fast can you drive in snow, and then off-road on rocks. Considering this combination they should have tested with a Sahara rather than a RHR, and the Wrangler would have probably come in first even against vehicles that cost 2-3x as much.
I would say their test was also somewhat flawed, because their stated premise of "go anywhere, any time, in any conditions" meant mostly "anywhere" being 99% on public roads, "any conditions" means either ordinary weather or snow, and "any time" means "in a hurry". But they are a car magazine used to testing road cars on the road. But real-life disasters where you might need to evacuate or bug out are going to involve public roads that are packed to a standstill so you might need a vehicle capable of taking a long-distance alternate route that might not include actual public roads. And you might have conditions like hurricanes or floods that would make water crossing be a critical performance factor. Anyway, hardly matters. I'm actually super surprised the lowly Jeep came in 2nd. But I'm not at all surprised the TLC won.
04-28-2016, 02:37 PM
#3
Super Moderator
They made their disclaimer about the Price which makes sense. When all hell breaks loose in an apocalypse, price becomes a non factor because you're basically stealing either of the vehicles.
However, using their same reasoning where their argument then becomes flawed is that they placed a weighting factor on interior "comfort" for the long drive from the East coast to get to the highest mountains in the West. So when I think of that situation, I could care less about comfort because when all hell breaks loose the last thought on my mind is going to be how comfortable the seat is in each vehicle and if anything, I want the seat that I'm not sunken into that I can get in and out of the quickest for escape purposes and jumping up easily to be able to pump a slug in an attacking zombies skull.
However, using their same reasoning where their argument then becomes flawed is that they placed a weighting factor on interior "comfort" for the long drive from the East coast to get to the highest mountains in the West. So when I think of that situation, I could care less about comfort because when all hell breaks loose the last thought on my mind is going to be how comfortable the seat is in each vehicle and if anything, I want the seat that I'm not sunken into that I can get in and out of the quickest for escape purposes and jumping up easily to be able to pump a slug in an attacking zombies skull.
Last edited by Rednroll; 04-28-2016 at 02:40 PM.
