"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
> That's buffering.

sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
years ago, but havent noticed one since.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:quaepv8eevhjqp9g4c8ugjr60i0r7kon2l@4ax.com...
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem

they do well even on uneven terrain. its only the really rocky areas that
seem to get em.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.

if youve got back troubles already, i think the lack of suspension would
answer that question.


> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.

the ones i looked at used a long chain that powered each side. there is no
articulation since there is no suspension. to build a machine like the argo
except with a suspension/articulation i think youd end up with a $20,000+
machine and thats out of range for most. the closest to fit that need
(assuming you dont need floatation) would be the 6x6 ranger
http://tinyurl.com/rzlk


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:quaepv8eevhjqp9g4c8ugjr60i0r7kon2l@4ax.com...
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem

they do well even on uneven terrain. its only the really rocky areas that
seem to get em.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.

if youve got back troubles already, i think the lack of suspension would
answer that question.


> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.

the ones i looked at used a long chain that powered each side. there is no
articulation since there is no suspension. to build a machine like the argo
except with a suspension/articulation i think youd end up with a $20,000+
machine and thats out of range for most. the closest to fit that need
(assuming you dont need floatation) would be the 6x6 ranger
http://tinyurl.com/rzlk


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:quaepv8eevhjqp9g4c8ugjr60i0r7kon2l@4ax.com...
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem

they do well even on uneven terrain. its only the really rocky areas that
seem to get em.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.

if youve got back troubles already, i think the lack of suspension would
answer that question.


> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.

the ones i looked at used a long chain that powered each side. there is no
articulation since there is no suspension. to build a machine like the argo
except with a suspension/articulation i think youd end up with a $20,000+
machine and thats out of range for most. the closest to fit that need
(assuming you dont need floatation) would be the 6x6 ranger
http://tinyurl.com/rzlk


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:03:53 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com.. .
>> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
>> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.
>
>you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
>limitations.

Well you are the Rock Rider after all. I've seen the pics of what you
go up and down and it's way out of my skill level.
Be interesting to see how well a side by side does.
I'd be very interested to see how well the Rhino does in water and
Mud. I guess where you ride you don't have much of either.


>> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
>> highway with all the other commuters.
>
>most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
>driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
>anyway).

Yeah once you get onto the nasty stuff but here there were/are a lot
of wooded trails. So on some sections you can open it right up. Too
fast and you'll eat a tree for certain. We don't have rocks like you
do. But like you I am considering a move and like to keep my opions
open.

>> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
>> know how well they will implement their IRS.
>
>since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
>if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
>rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
>swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
>trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
>heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
>was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
>a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
>else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
>independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
>direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
>ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.

Around here except for the big 4x4's it's all swingarm stuff as we
mostly have trails. I used to ride them. Now everything is built up or
private property. I think in something like the Rhino the way to go is
an Independant suspension. The ACT suspension is similar IIRC.
For trails either would be good as you can't get going really fast. At
least not until they open up.

>> But My back cannot handle
>> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
>
>i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
>becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
>atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
>rhinos. :-)

I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine. The Rhino
seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
I've seen the pics of the Rhino going up some steep stuff and I doubt
the Argo's could go up anything that steep. I'd imagine you'd have
looked at those as well as the other ATV's.

>> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.
>
>cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
>kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
>engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.

That is what the Argo needs something on that level for speed and
power. I guess Kawi now has a 700 as well.

>> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
>
>the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
>rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
>ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
>impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
>we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
>wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
>because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....
>
>power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
>seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
>tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
>towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
>suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
>clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"
>
>theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
>better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
>area.

I can imagine many guys will justify either the Ranger or the Rhino by
using it as a plow vehicle. I'm not married anymore so I can buy what
I like. I just have to tow it to where I want to go.
Throw some chains onto either add some sand bags into the back and it
should plow really well. You'll need that when you get up to South
Dakota.
Great info tho, thanks.

>we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
>:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
>get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
>much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
>front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
>rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
>needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
>fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
>little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
>rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
>only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
>rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
>bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.

That's pretty impressive if it does almost as well as your Cat.
Probably be a good idea to add a snorkel onto it and waterproof the
engine a bit.
Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:03:53 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com.. .
>> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
>> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.
>
>you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
>limitations.

Well you are the Rock Rider after all. I've seen the pics of what you
go up and down and it's way out of my skill level.
Be interesting to see how well a side by side does.
I'd be very interested to see how well the Rhino does in water and
Mud. I guess where you ride you don't have much of either.


>> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
>> highway with all the other commuters.
>
>most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
>driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
>anyway).

Yeah once you get onto the nasty stuff but here there were/are a lot
of wooded trails. So on some sections you can open it right up. Too
fast and you'll eat a tree for certain. We don't have rocks like you
do. But like you I am considering a move and like to keep my opions
open.

>> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
>> know how well they will implement their IRS.
>
>since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
>if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
>rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
>swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
>trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
>heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
>was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
>a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
>else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
>independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
>direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
>ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.

Around here except for the big 4x4's it's all swingarm stuff as we
mostly have trails. I used to ride them. Now everything is built up or
private property. I think in something like the Rhino the way to go is
an Independant suspension. The ACT suspension is similar IIRC.
For trails either would be good as you can't get going really fast. At
least not until they open up.

>> But My back cannot handle
>> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
>
>i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
>becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
>atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
>rhinos. :-)

I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine. The Rhino
seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
I've seen the pics of the Rhino going up some steep stuff and I doubt
the Argo's could go up anything that steep. I'd imagine you'd have
looked at those as well as the other ATV's.

>> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.
>
>cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
>kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
>engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.

That is what the Argo needs something on that level for speed and
power. I guess Kawi now has a 700 as well.

>> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
>
>the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
>rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
>ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
>impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
>we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
>wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
>because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....
>
>power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
>seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
>tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
>towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
>suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
>clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"
>
>theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
>better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
>area.

I can imagine many guys will justify either the Ranger or the Rhino by
using it as a plow vehicle. I'm not married anymore so I can buy what
I like. I just have to tow it to where I want to go.
Throw some chains onto either add some sand bags into the back and it
should plow really well. You'll need that when you get up to South
Dakota.
Great info tho, thanks.

>we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
>:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
>get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
>much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
>front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
>rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
>needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
>fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
>little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
>rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
>only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
>rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
>bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.

That's pretty impressive if it does almost as well as your Cat.
Probably be a good idea to add a snorkel onto it and waterproof the
engine a bit.
Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:03:53 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com.. .
>> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
>> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.
>
>you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
>limitations.

Well you are the Rock Rider after all. I've seen the pics of what you
go up and down and it's way out of my skill level.
Be interesting to see how well a side by side does.
I'd be very interested to see how well the Rhino does in water and
Mud. I guess where you ride you don't have much of either.


>> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
>> highway with all the other commuters.
>
>most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
>driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
>anyway).

Yeah once you get onto the nasty stuff but here there were/are a lot
of wooded trails. So on some sections you can open it right up. Too
fast and you'll eat a tree for certain. We don't have rocks like you
do. But like you I am considering a move and like to keep my opions
open.

>> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
>> know how well they will implement their IRS.
>
>since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
>if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
>rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
>swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
>trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
>heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
>was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
>a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
>else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
>independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
>direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
>ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.

Around here except for the big 4x4's it's all swingarm stuff as we
mostly have trails. I used to ride them. Now everything is built up or
private property. I think in something like the Rhino the way to go is
an Independant suspension. The ACT suspension is similar IIRC.
For trails either would be good as you can't get going really fast. At
least not until they open up.

>> But My back cannot handle
>> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
>
>i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
>becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
>atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
>rhinos. :-)

I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine. The Rhino
seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
I've seen the pics of the Rhino going up some steep stuff and I doubt
the Argo's could go up anything that steep. I'd imagine you'd have
looked at those as well as the other ATV's.

>> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.
>
>cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
>kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
>engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.

That is what the Argo needs something on that level for speed and
power. I guess Kawi now has a 700 as well.

>> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
>
>the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
>rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
>ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
>impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
>we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
>wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
>because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....
>
>power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
>seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
>tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
>towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
>suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
>clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"
>
>theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
>better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
>area.

I can imagine many guys will justify either the Ranger or the Rhino by
using it as a plow vehicle. I'm not married anymore so I can buy what
I like. I just have to tow it to where I want to go.
Throw some chains onto either add some sand bags into the back and it
should plow really well. You'll need that when you get up to South
Dakota.
Great info tho, thanks.

>we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
>:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
>get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
>much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
>front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
>rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
>needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
>fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
>little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
>rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
>only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
>rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
>bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.

That's pretty impressive if it does almost as well as your Cat.
Probably be a good idea to add a snorkel onto it and waterproof the
engine a bit.
Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:04:48 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
>news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> That's buffering.
>
>sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
>years ago, but havent noticed one since.

Nathan many of the newer CD players offer buffering I had one a while
bac that had like 60 seconds of buffering. I didn't believe the guy at
Best Buy so he's like go ahead shake it up. So I shook it up like a
beer on a hot day. no skips at all. but CD's honestly suck for off
roading. Most guys I used to hitthe pits with had tape because it
didn't get ruined as quick. Even with buffering all the pounding the
CD takes will throw the laser out of whack. Your best bet is to get an
MP3 player that is digital no skips and less stuff to vibrate loose.
But back when I used to work at the Airport. You's see all the sea
planes needing their electronics replaced radios 4 tiimes as much as
tarmac only craft Ditto for stuff that lands on fields or gravel.
My advice buy a cheap tape player or a Digital MP3 player you will
lose both in time to vibration. As much as you hate Hummers. Check out
a full blown Military version and look at the center radio mount. The
springs on that are incredicle and that's to keep the radios from
being pounded while off road. Even with that they don't last long.
If you have a Boat/U.S near you for Marine supply get a waterproof
tape player no electronics are really waterproof but they can handle
being splashed. That way when it dies and for certain it will you
won't have thrown away a lot of dough on an expensive CD system that
will last just a few outings.
If you go with a CD get a portable unit as they can take much more of
a pounding than like an in dash unit.
You get more buffering as well.

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:04:48 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
>news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> That's buffering.
>
>sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
>years ago, but havent noticed one since.

Nathan many of the newer CD players offer buffering I had one a while
bac that had like 60 seconds of buffering. I didn't believe the guy at
Best Buy so he's like go ahead shake it up. So I shook it up like a
beer on a hot day. no skips at all. but CD's honestly suck for off
roading. Most guys I used to hitthe pits with had tape because it
didn't get ruined as quick. Even with buffering all the pounding the
CD takes will throw the laser out of whack. Your best bet is to get an
MP3 player that is digital no skips and less stuff to vibrate loose.
But back when I used to work at the Airport. You's see all the sea
planes needing their electronics replaced radios 4 tiimes as much as
tarmac only craft Ditto for stuff that lands on fields or gravel.
My advice buy a cheap tape player or a Digital MP3 player you will
lose both in time to vibration. As much as you hate Hummers. Check out
a full blown Military version and look at the center radio mount. The
springs on that are incredicle and that's to keep the radios from
being pounded while off road. Even with that they don't last long.
If you have a Boat/U.S near you for Marine supply get a waterproof
tape player no electronics are really waterproof but they can handle
being splashed. That way when it dies and for certain it will you
won't have thrown away a lot of dough on an expensive CD system that
will last just a few outings.
If you go with a CD get a portable unit as they can take much more of
a pounding than like an in dash unit.
You get more buffering as well.

 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:04:48 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
>news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> That's buffering.
>
>sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
>years ago, but havent noticed one since.

Nathan many of the newer CD players offer buffering I had one a while
bac that had like 60 seconds of buffering. I didn't believe the guy at
Best Buy so he's like go ahead shake it up. So I shook it up like a
beer on a hot day. no skips at all. but CD's honestly suck for off
roading. Most guys I used to hitthe pits with had tape because it
didn't get ruined as quick. Even with buffering all the pounding the
CD takes will throw the laser out of whack. Your best bet is to get an
MP3 player that is digital no skips and less stuff to vibrate loose.
But back when I used to work at the Airport. You's see all the sea
planes needing their electronics replaced radios 4 tiimes as much as
tarmac only craft Ditto for stuff that lands on fields or gravel.
My advice buy a cheap tape player or a Digital MP3 player you will
lose both in time to vibration. As much as you hate Hummers. Check out
a full blown Military version and look at the center radio mount. The
springs on that are incredicle and that's to keep the radios from
being pounded while off road. Even with that they don't last long.
If you have a Boat/U.S near you for Marine supply get a waterproof
tape player no electronics are really waterproof but they can handle
being splashed. That way when it dies and for certain it will you
won't have thrown away a lot of dough on an expensive CD system that
will last just a few outings.
If you go with a CD get a portable unit as they can take much more of
a pounding than like an in dash unit.
You get more buffering as well.