[PhilMraz]

I generally concur with those analogies and would like to think I’ve got a vehicle that can take me anywhere, but I also acknowledge that it’ll rarely be crossing the outback or even fording a big stream. When that occasion does arise, I’ll mount a luggage carrier and strap on some jerry cans to get me by. Might even make our own water, if we could ever get one that ran without fossil fuel. (Saw one I could tow, but it seemed like a hoax.) A Wagoneer would sure be sufficient to handle all this.

Still, a healthy power to weight ratio is a desirable trait. It can come in handy for the occasional rally or when passing on an open roadstead. Pressure on the accelerator can always be reduced if we ever get going too fast. I would not think of an Audi producing white knuckle rides, as it is not a Formula 1, but I certainly don’t want a large crew to manage it, only just the navigator and me. Good ride quality is an important feature too, but tough to predict without benefit of a test ride. Here I also would expect more from the Audi than a Jeep, precisely because of that low center of gravity.

Durability for the hard miles and extended use is definitely a critical virtue. We don’t want it shaking and rattling and hate stopping to fix it all the time. I don’t personally think of performance vehicles as more delicate than your standard cruiser, though. Some may be engineered to within an inch of their limits, but often the structural requirements are established much higher than for standard craft, in order to permit more extreme abuse and allow for occasional meat hanging out.

We will rarely encounter real 4-wheel terrain and I don’t plan to see any ice. The sort of ground clearance required for surmounting large obstacles, we won’t normally need, but I’d definitely like to have sufficient underbody depth to avoid the curse of oil floating about the pan. Here a true compromise may be in order, even if flat out performance is impaired. I’ll be looking to see what can be done. -Phil