What factors make Off Road Ability?

I do like Pajeros though.....I have always considered that once I outgrow my Forester (growing family) I might have to move up to a Pajero. Some digging around on YouTube shows very little evidence that a Pajero can outperform a Forester. In fact I am so used to driving my Forester that I am afraid that upgrading to a Pajero will give me false confidence and I'll get the big heavy thing stuck......
 
I am not familiar with Pajero, but I have been hearing mostly negative comments for 20+ years.
 
Well lifted pajero with front/rear locker is totally different story. Even older models can make good overland cars for travels. Just small lift bigger tires and lockers for offroadability. As most other 4wd cars they can have lockers and that would make all difference
ffplnmpdneh9oltpxofm.jpg

As from most 4wd's you can build good offroader from it . but you cannot do much with subaru.
960.jpg

Well build pajero can be as good offroad as patrol or cherokee. And short 2 door versions are even better. It depends what you want from car. You want build tank and beet it eveyday then repair couple days or just have car that is capable doing offroad for weekends.
Not to say that forester is worse but for me subaru is just for some lift and some higher tires and pajero/patrol/cherokee is for other stuff more hardcore more lift more stuff.
Subaru will allways be better handling on road or as rally car go fast offroad and have fun.

Short black pajero with mean MT tires looks so good and goes well even without lockers
https://youtu.be/0LAdM8CtKtw

Of course with your city pajero you must know what its clearance is and what your tires are and you cant just pretend to do offroad in places that not for your car.
Really forester have nothing on Pajero with some lift and tires. And with locker its beast
https://youtu.be/1a0Qi-bdFtg

2c3b818090cfae97d83fa24313e34abb--off-road-mitsubishi-pajero-sport.jpg

But yes they heavy cars and models 2.8 engines maybe too weak for offroad well serious offroad. But i just love how they look. And newer models with independant front are good on road as well.
 
2000 onwards Pajeros have front and rear independent suspension. Like a Forester, when you fit a lift they have too much axle clearance to be considered a real 4wd. They are more of a high clearance 4wd.

Having driven newer Pajero and SG Forester offroad, they are just different. The better gearing makes up for the lack of power weight ratio which just requires different driving style. The Pajero has the better drive system, and lockers are more readily available. Pajero also has a wider range of tyre sizes to suit needs. Weight and shorter wheel base are the main pros of the Forester.

They also have rally pedigree in Dakar, like Subaru have in WRC. Pajero dominated because of front and rear independent suspension while competitors stubbornly stuck with solid axles for far too long.

There's always going to be videos on the internet of people making every vehicle look good and bad. As usual the driving makes most of this variation and different levels of modification is another major factor.
 
Subaru had some monsters on dakar too. Forester based. But subaru just cheaper to maintain cheaper to fix . and they pretty much ok to go without lots modifications well some minor ones and they fine.
You not making monster from subaru so you can spend so little money on it but it then can surprise you on tracks. When you put lots money and parts into some 4wd you then expect from it a lot and most time people think they have some tank that could go anywhere then getting dissapointed. Subaru surprise you in good way to not braking, to be abble to perform better then you would think. Thatd why people love them i guess. And me too.
 
and people making cars look bad just when they don't know what they doing or where they can go and where cant. as in that video it was all just driver fault not cars. you not taking your car offroad if it doesn't have ground clearance for that track and tires. And you never listen if people outside tell you: yeeah man just go for it you will be good dont worry its not deep its fine.. most time you just getting into big trouble right there.
 
Basically I see the Pajero as a BIG subie in some ways.....monocoque unibody, independent suspension and AWD.

For long overland remote outback trips my Forester is only big enough for the two of us. We have had it fully packed to the roof from behind the front seats all the way to the tailgate. On my most recent trip to the Simpson I had to unload 100 litres of water and 40 litres of fuel jerrys to reduce the load on my rear spring perches before playing on the sand dunes (including Big Red). Now that we have bub, his baby seat will limit our carrying capacity even more so my only option may be to find a larger vehicle with more carrying capacity.

Pajero has Japanese reliability and is not as big as a Patrol or Cruiser. I hate huge 4x4s. Safety is my No 1 priority as is offroad ability. What I'd really like is a big Forester - like maybe the new Subaru Ascent - although it looks a bit too "nice" to treat rough out in the middle of nowhere.
 
Basically I see the Pajero as a BIG subie in some ways.....

As is my Triton that also offers AWD, 4WD and RWD. I think the Challenger / Pajero Sport would also be like a big subie.

Of course a Range Rover would come close too but who can afford one these days! I had one in the '80s when they were just twice the price of your standard Ford or Holden.
 
So how long after you sold the Rangie did you start going off road? ��
 
:lol:

Actually before the RR I had an SWB FJ Land Cruiser but my choice was either trade it or buy a kidney strap! So I traded it on the RR. My kids never wanted me to lock the centre diff or engage low range on the RR to increase our chances of getting stuck because they really enjoyed that part of our adventures.
 
:lol:

Actually before the RR

Maybe I'm old, or a bit toffy, but the letters RR signifies Rolls Royce and no other. :poke:
 
You had fj40 ? Thats cool and old school. Classic.
No idea whats rr is.
 
I learned to drive on a WWII Jeep that had no brakes. The brake lines weren't even connected.

Bought my FJ45PB Landcruiser in the early 1970s. Fully understand about the kidney killer, Kevin! And the FJ45PB had a 116" wheelbase vs. 90" on the "rocking horse" FJ40 SWB. Mine handled and rode well - IF it had about half a tonne in the back ...
 
You had fj40 ? Thats cool and old school. Classic.
No idea whats rr is.

A civilised person would know it's Rolls Royce.

the-famous-rolls-royce-silver-lady-d9er8k.jpg


:lildevil:
 
I learned to drive on a WWII Jeep

SNAP! Although the one I learnt in (on?) had brakes. A Willys, it was fun :ebiggrin:
Somewhere in the middle of NT that was, big station.
 
Maybe I'm old, or a bit toffy, but the letters RR signifies Rolls Royce and no other. :poke:

Except on an offroad forum :iconwink:

You had fj40 ? Thats cool and old school. Classic.

Yes, a very solid vehicle - more suited to farm work than on the highway!

on the "rocking horse" FJ40 SWB. Mine handled and rode well - IF it had about half a tonne in the back ...

It certainly "rocked". Mine handled very well when returning from the Hunter Valley completely loaded to the roof with cartons of wine!
 
On the topic of Range Rovers, when I was a kid not long after the Range Rovers came out (early/mid '70s?) some friends of ours bought one.
They were travelling outback SA/NT and lost a trailer behind it. The trailer literally rattled to bits. Apparently they didn't even realise until the last of it was out of view behind them.
 
SNAP! Although the one I learnt in (on?) had brakes. A Willys, it was fun :ebiggrin:
Somewhere in the middle of NT that was, big station.

We had two of these. One on our property in the Dawson Valley, one on our other property east of Cunnamulla. Probably could have made one good one out of the two of them!

Can't recall the maker of our two. Both the same. Three main makers, IIRC.
 
Back
Top