None really, but it saves your engine should your passenger front dip down unexpectedly and/or you get stuck. Your vent tubes should still be fine but the snorkel buys you time from water getting sucked in from the unexpected depth increase
Yep, on the modern engines, the electronics are the big issue. Get water in them and no go.
That's all post trail maintenance. If your 4x4 is in good shape, you won't have issue during the trail run. However, once you get back from a deep water trip, you'll want to grease everything, change fluids etc.
, then we were 
!
I get it man but if I'm stuck in 3'+ of water I'm turning it off. Because at that point the only thing your saving is the engine. Everything below the water line is compromised.
Right. I am thinking the breather tubes for diffs and transferfcase, which should be at 30" on a stock JT, should be fine once in water if submerged below 30". I'm talking worst-case scenario. They have been reported to be, and look to be, Gore membrane caps - let air pass, but not water. So, once the diff and transfer case are in water, but below 30", the temp is low enough where the vacuum force isn't sucking in a lot of air very forcefully through the breather tubes, and thus the submerged breather tubes should allow air out, but not water in by simply being under water a little (because you're not going down depths where there's significant pressure. On the old differential breather tubes, as I have read here, they were valves, opening and closing with the pressure/vacuum force. Hence, if they were submerged too quickly water could get sucked in before they closed all the way, or below a certain depth under water the water could push it's way past the valve. Just my reasoning/thoughts anyway, I am a novice.
None, because the fording depth isn't based on the intake alone and that's really why this is just as good as the fender and up type. I get hate for saying this every time but snorkels in modern vehicles are almost entirely for dust and at that, it excels so far.
Neither do I, but stuff happens. Driving down a creek or flooded road due to emergency and suddenly the road dips further than you remember...
Yeah but at what point are you sacrificing what you want for the .01% where you must drive through 4' of standing water? It all comes down to the look you want and I'm all for preparation but there gets to be a point where you're making sacrifices for something that has little chance of happening.
Right and that's where I think is a good middle ground. This thread was created because 30y later Jeeps done seem as...resilient/rugged as Landcruisers were. When I see an old LC, I think "tough as railroad ties!"
On some M35a1 2 1/2 trucks they had a slight positive pressure of air added to help (???) When flipping a toggle switch on bottom of dash. Did it work well as far as I know it did in a few that I drove that had it did some didn't. Rockwell axles hold a lot of gear oil too and have a few points to leak.
I mean a Jeep has never been as tough and reliable in the remotest parts of the earth as a Land Cruiser. Jeeps were throw-away crate vehicles to start and while the LC was originally a Jeep copy, Toyota has long built them with a standard of 25 years in any conditions. We see the 80/100/200 here but the real Land Cruisers were built as work vehicles for farming, oil fields, and other industries where reliability and general capability in Bumfuckistan are paramount.
Right, and Landcruisers have always cost way more. So, with added money, people should be able to raise Jeeps to LC toughness of old. And this thread (mostly) answered that was mostly possible. Still looking into the bit about axles being different
