JKBANDIT55
New member
Where is this?
It is in Saudi.
Where is this?
It is in Saudi.
So an expedition build isn't as capable on more extream terrain but is built for maximum cargo? :thinking:
Spotted this on Saturday, would love to own it! I was going to post it in the "Spotted; any 4x4 other than a JK" thread because it didn't have a snorkel, however it was not a 4x4 so this thread wins out. Despite it not having rocksliders to protect those loooonngg sills, it did have some really ingenious low tech steps for climbing into the van. Looks like he adapted the wire rope steps you typically find on heavy construction equipment or made his own. Pretty badass since they would just fold out of the way on obstacles. He was running 35" BFG Project race rubber on stock wheels made into beadlocks too, had really sweet homemade front and rear bumpers, nice roof rack and a pretty cool flat camouflage pant job.
An expedition build is a vehicle built with the intent to travel, not 4 wheel. Your not going to throw 40" tires on a rig and say its gas friendly. Although 4 wheeling may occur while overlanding, your primary goal is travel. So therefor you build your rig to be ready for the unexpected conditions you will come by. Normally, you wouldn't see an expo vehicle heavily modified. Its more of the things you carry that make it what it is. While still having enough room of storage to be totally self efficient. So having a rig with 40" tires, plus a full rack of cargo, gas, materials to fix the vehicle, is simply too much for long adventure. If you are overlanding and something breaks, I highly doubt the nearest city will have the part you need to fix the problem since your vehicle is heavily modified and wont have the part. Ya it can be done, but wont be very efficient and more of a hassle than anything.
I would guess a JK with 42" tires alone weighs a lot more than a Jk on 33s loaded with full cargo. which means less money spent to do what you intend to do.
Hope this helps
An expedition build as a vehicle built with the intent to travel, not 4 wheel... although 4 wheeling may occur while overlanding, your primary goal is travel.
So therefor you build your rig to be ready for the unexpected conditions you will come by. While still having enough room of storage to be totally self efficient. So having a rig with 40" tires, plus a full rack of cargo, gas, materials to fix the vehicle, is simply too much for long adventure. Ya it can be done, but wont be very efficient and more of a hassle than anything.
Your not going to throw 40" tires on a rig and say its gas friendly.
I would guess a JK with 42" tires alone weighs a lot more than a Jk on 33s loaded with full cargo. which means less money spent to do what you intend to do.
An expedition build is a vehicle built with the intent to travel, not 4 wheel. Your not going to throw 40" tires on a rig and say its gas friendly. Although 4 wheeling may occur while overlanding, your primary goal is travel. So therefor you build your rig to be ready for the unexpected conditions you will come by. Normally, you wouldn't see an expo vehicle heavily modified. Its more of the things you carry that make it what it is. While still having enough room of storage to be totally self efficient. So having a rig with 40" tires, plus a full rack of cargo, gas, materials to fix the vehicle, is simply too much for long adventure. If you are overlanding and something breaks, I highly doubt the nearest city will have the part you need to fix the problem since your vehicle is heavily modified and wont have the part. Ya it can be done, but wont be very efficient and more of a hassle than anything.
I would guess a JK with 42" tires alone weighs a lot more than a Jk on 33s loaded with full cargo. which means less money spent to do what you intend to do.
Hope this helps
Some people build there rigs not to break. I think a JK on 40's could be a capable rig for overlanding if done correctly.
Funny, I always thought that's what I do now. :idontknow:
Well, you would know more about this than me. Certainly, I have no experience being on long adventures, running 40" tires or having the means to not only be self-sufficient but, to be able to fix my rig as well those of others. I can only imagine that it'd be such a hassle that I would never want to do it.
You're not going to put an air dragging brillo pad on top of a brick, load it up with 2,000 lbs. of gear and say that it's gas friendly.
no your not, but its going to be more efficient, than a jk on 40s!
If an overland build is all about money or the lack there of to build something more substantial, I might be able to understand it. However, I've seen some serious coin being spent on fancy roof top tents and Snowpeak kitchens to think that's the case. But, I could be wrong.
An expedition build is a vehicle built with the intent to travel, not 4 wheel. Your not going to throw 40" tires on a rig and say its gas friendly. Although 4 wheeling may occur while overlanding, your primary goal is travel. So therefor you build your rig to be ready for the unexpected conditions you will come by. Normally, you wouldn't see an expo vehicle heavily modified. Its more of the things you carry that make it what it is. While still having enough room of storage to be totally self efficient. So having a rig with 40" tires, plus a full rack of cargo, gas, materials to fix the vehicle, is simply too much for long adventure. If you are overlanding and something breaks, I highly doubt the nearest city will have the part you need to fix the problem since your vehicle is heavily modified and wont have the part. Ya it can be done, but wont be very efficient and more of a hassle than anything.
Hope this helps
You guys are killing me.....and once again I speak from experience, no urban soccer mom legend, no far away foreign-land myth, this is not hearsay or "I have a friend who...". I have owned the "overland" rigs and I have owned the "rock crawlers on 40"s" rig. Guess what, on the trail both types of rigs get the same mileage. My Land Rovers fully loaded on the trail over days of "exploring" saw a best of 8-12mpgs. Offroad, my JK on 40"s, loaded with lots of gear and parts, sees EXACTLY the same. Now if you think having 31-35" tires, little to no lift, a roof rack with gear on it, or a roof top tent and an interior also filled with comfort items is going to get great hwy mileage.......WRONG! Again, best I ever saw with Land Rovers on the highway was about 10-14mpg. The JK on 40"s sees exactly the same full of gear for a week and a half and thousands of miles of JK Experience.
Everyone on here that keeps trying to sell this "overlanders" are going to be better because....... It just doesn't work. If you guys had a well built vehicle on 40"s, with proper gearing you would know this. If you build your vehicle with stout, quality parts designed to do serious work, you aren't worried about looking for a replacement piece in some austere location.
-Picture 1) Overlander: 8-12mpg trail/10-14mpg hwy.
-Picture 2) Overlander: 8-12mpg trail/10- 14mpg hwy.
-Picture 3) Rock crawler on 40"s: 8-12mpg trail/10-14mpg hwy, also reliable enough to drive to michigan, make 10 jumps consecutively, finish the JKX, then drive back to Arizona. Parts broken in four years of driving like this; one wheel speed sensor, one transfer cable linkage bushing.......
I will await the perpetuation of any and all overlanding mythological responses. Thank you for your time and most importantly your patronage
Haha Lets be honest, you have one of the best rigs built, but I know you wouldn't dare to take your rig on a 2k mile+ adventure in unmarked land in Saudi. Heck if you were, might as well get you a roof rack, and leave all your mechanical parts, sleeping equip, and food at home. As you will only have enough storage for gas.
Your right. You also dont need an expensive lift and 40" tires to do the rubicon either. But you do it anyway to make your rig more efficient.
Just like the expensive rooftop tents. Not needed, but there to make the intent of the vehicle more efficient as not only are they a tent on top, but provide good water proof storage when on the road, leaving more room in the jeep for other things.
No one is saying a JK on 40s cant overland. But its not going to be as efficient as a rig built intended of off road travel.
Where are you going to have all the room for food, gas, parts, tools, water, cookware, sleeping equip etc.. all in the back of the jeep? Unorganized making your vehicle less efficient than one who who has their rig properly built for that kind of travel and adventure?
Thats more money out your wallet, getting your rig on 40s, mostly made for extreme wheeling to do these types of adventures. You dont need that big of a lift and tires to do a lot of the trails in the JKX, but you do it anyway to make your vehicle more efficient for that type of wheeling.
Get two JKs. One built like yours, on 40s, packed up with full gear for a week long adventure all in the back of the jeep. Then one not as modified with 33" tires, and the same weight load of gear.
Which one get better gas milage? Making their vehicle more efficient.
Your right. And you put the two different builds in two different categories. Which is my point.
No one is saying a JK on 40s cant overland. But its not going to be as efficient as a rig built intended of off road travel.
Where are you going to have all the room for food, gas, parts, tools, water, cookware, sleeping equip etc.. all in the back of the jeep? Unorganized making your vehicle less efficient than one who who has their rig properly built for that kind of travel and adventure? Thats more money out your wallet, getting your rig on 40s, mostly made for extreme wheeling to do these types of adventures. You dont need that big of a lift and tires to do a lot of the trails in the JKX, but you do it anyway to make your vehicle more efficient for that type of wheeling.
Get two JKs. One built like yours, on 40s, packed up with full gear for a week long adventure all in the back of the jeep.
Then one not as modified with 33" tires, and the same weight load of gear.
Which one get better gas milage? Making their vehicle more efficient.
An overland build is going to be better fuel economy
cost less to maintain
better cargo room
less moving parts
smaller in size
more efficient for long travel...
The cost of travel with a JK on 40s loaded, is going to be A LOT more than a JK on 33s loaded properly.
So the point of an expedition build is just that!
Each build is going to be better at what its made for.
What kind of fuel economy do you get?
How so?
Not everyone needs or wants a big center of gravity throwing roof rack and/or roof top tent. Also, not everyone runs components that are prone to breaking thus requiring the need to carry tons of spare parts.
Meaning what?
A clear disadvantage on any trail that requires the ability to negotiate obstacles.
You know this based on personal experience?
So, the point of an expedition build to to make a good camper! If it were me, I might just get a Sportsmobile or Superduty with a camper top on it.
I disagree. My build can take me anywhere and it does all the time. An overland expedition build cannot go where I can go.