Sure, there are different 4-wheel drive systems in different vehicles, but the point I was making you summarize in your last sentence. A fair number of people seem to think that a vehicle that can be “triple-locked” is functionally superior -
when in that triple-
locked state - to a part-time 4-wheel drive that has front and rear lockers. When both vehicles are fully locked, both vehicles are “triple-locked”.
The next point was that the difference between something like a full-time 4-wheel drive Grenadier equipped with front and rear lockers, and a Jeep Rubicon which comes standard with part-time 4-wheel drive, and front and rear lockers, is not going to be found comparing the two when fully locked. They are functionally the same. Differences will exist with regard to other features: the Jeep has a much lower low-range, and a disconnect-able front sway bar, for example. On the other hand, the gas-powered Grenadier has better low-end torque than the 3.6 Pentastar (the standard Jeep engine).
But the biggest difference (when comparing 4-wheel drive systems) will be noticed on-road, where the Grenadier has full-time 4-wheel drive, which provides better traction in daily driving. We’ve already had 2 snowfalls here at 8500 feet. Having full-time 4-wheel drive is great in the winter, which is basically 6 months here in the mountains.
As stated previously - the cost of full-time 4-wheel drive is poor fuel economy (and perhaps faster tire wear).
But I think you knew my point, and just wanted to talk about a Mitsubishi