pajero vs outlander?

My 2c worth...

Quoted clearance is just 1 measurement of the lowest point. It doesn't give any indication of how high the bottom of the doors are (water crossings), or ramp over or approach/departure angles. The other thing is that it does not give an indication of what is low... something solid or something that might get damaged.

Eg. a low measurement is usually on a 4wd something like a diff, which is between the wheels so less important than something dangling down in the middle of the car which might belly out. On other cars the low point is more uniform.

I am not familliar with the car models in question so you will have to go have a look under them to make a judgment. From my experience with a RAV and a Prado.

1. Rav had a lot of vunerable items low down... sump, exhaust, oil filter. Damage to these things could stop you. Prado has all of this stuff high up with tougher components like axles/diffs down low.
2. Rav.. plastic under body protection. Prado steel.
3. Rav. Not designed to wade in any depth of water (eg air intake down low and at the front of the car). Prado has obvious design to help waging depth. (eg extended front diff breather from factory, electronics high up in the cabin)
4. Rav. Nothing solid to bolt a bull bar to. Prado proper chassis.

So. I am a saftey nut, so I like things to be designed to cope with the edge cases, so I went for a 4wd. Heaps of people will do it in all sorts of cars, motorbikes etc. without any trouble.

For me, Fuel is more about range than consumption. What is the touring range of a fully laden outlander, compared with a fully laden Pajero?

2.4 in my Rav used more fuel than the turbo diesel prado does. Rav 50lt tank. Prado 180Lt tank...

D

I drive a NL pajero have had it for 8 years mainly drive on bitumen however on the odd occasion I have taken it off-road it looked ok a couple of times but soon turned nasty the pajero had no trouble on these unexpected conditions I have my doubts that the outlander would have done the same

I believe that it is better to have more ability than less but hey each have their opinion on the risks they take on beach etc
all the best Steve

If you're looking at buying new, why not split the difference and have a look at the new Mitsi Challenger?
Basically he same as a Triton underneath but coils in the rear susp instead of leaf springs.
I've used an ML Triton to tow my van for approx 16,000kms so far and hasn't missed a beat.Had the challenger been available when I bought the Triton I probably would have gone that way instead.

I have a 2008 Pajero and during the short time we have had the vehicle it has performed extremely well in all types of terrain. We tow a 2 tonne van and have experienced all road conditions and the Paj has come through each time. I have confidence to tackle any road surface knowing my chances of getting through are good.

The vehicle is important of course but good tyres and adjusting of pressures to meet road conditions can also make a considerable difference as does a good four wheel drive course before you take off (assuming you have no experience)
You are going to see a range of surfaces as you travel our great country.

My daughter has an Overlander and it is also a good vehicle for hard roads and city travel. In my opinion there is no comparison betweeen the two vehicles for your application. Some time, some where as you travel around Oz you will need the grunt and flexibilty the Paj offers with true low range.

The Challenger may also be a solution but I dont have any experience with this model and it seems to me that price wise you may be able to get a good used Paj for similar dollars.

I sound like a salesman for Mitsubishi but my experience is all good.

Hope this helps