I couldn't understand this either. I think they are referring to the lower tailgate pushing one away from the cargo hold, making it difficult to reach further into it? And because the cargo area is so much deeper and larger than the rest of the vehicles in the matchup, they knock the ease of reach? Which is so ass backwards. It would be like knocking a pickup with a long bed, as apposed to commending it for the extra storage space which it has in spades over the others in the comparo. Then knocking the handling and power up a hill (which we know it had oodles of) because they overburdened said cargo hold.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I couldn't understand this either. I think they are referring to the lower tailgate pushing one away from the cargo hold, making it difficult to reach further into it? And because the cargo area is so much deeper and larger than the rest of the vehicles in the matchup, they knock the ease of reach? Which is so ass backwards. It would be like knocking a pickup with a long bed, as apposed to commending it for the extra storage space which it has in spades over the others in the comparo. Then knocking the handling and power up a hill (which we know it had oodles of) because they overburdened said cargo hold.
Canyonero
Beating up Land Cruisers since 2015
That article reminded me of reading SCOTUS opinions in law school. It was apparent the writers already had an opinion and worked backwards to support said opinion in their writing.
These journalists always seem to miss the point, and I’m guessing FCA threw some dollars their way.
It’s disappointing when reviewers review vehicles that really need to be durable (4x4’s, trucks, etc.), and they always rate them based on CURRENT performance criteria in a given head to head, and never based on engineering excellence over the long term.
Just once I’d like to see an auto review entity take new vehicles in a segment and drive them over the worst terrain imaginable, for a year. Then let us know what’s what.
These journalists always seem to miss the point, and I’m guessing FCA threw some dollars their way.
It’s disappointing when reviewers review vehicles that really need to be durable (4x4’s, trucks, etc.), and they always rate them based on CURRENT performance criteria in a given head to head, and never based on engineering excellence over the long term.
Just once I’d like to see an auto review entity take new vehicles in a segment and drive them over the worst terrain imaginable, for a year. Then let us know what’s what.
Markuson
SILVER Star
That’s why Zi’d love to see a “review” done by a serious mechanic with tons of wheeling experience such as @Taco2Cruiser .
Until you crawl UNDER the LC/LX, you can’t really appreciate the sense that they “did it right” especially where it counts...and where an external glance never appreciates.
Right?
It reminds me of a MTB trip to Fruita Colorado years ago in the 80. The pic attached is not from that specific trip, but gives you the idea. Everyone, and I mean everyone overpacked, and I ended up carrying all the extra s--t. So my aging underpowered 80, had 4 adults, 1 dog, multiple bikes, and every inch of available space filled to capacity. Yet over beers at the camp fire once the Denver to Fruita trip was complete (4 hrs), they all bragged about their gas mileage in their f-----g Honda's. Clueless.
Same applies to the article, entertainment only.
