Locking Hubs or Not?
For what it's worth: I don't worry about locking hubs, and I don't feel deprived that my truck doesn't have them. The only thing I worry about is when the vacuum hoses might give out, or what to do if some internal mechanical gizmo wears out.
I've done an anecdotal study on hub stuff. (For the academics amongst us, an anecdotal study is one done by someone without a PhD, and the results are thus automatically suspect. I do not have a PhD. You are warned!)
1. In my limited experience, it appeared that people who drove 4X4s with locking hubs and rarely, if ever, locked them up, tended to have more drive line problems, due to lack of lubrication.
2. In my job, one of the best field vehicles I ever used was a 1977 Jeep Cherokee, with an AMC 360 V8, a T-18a transmission, a Dana 20 part-time transfer case (NOT QuadraTrac), and permanently engaged hubs. Hubs were a $50 option, and this was a low bid truck. When I was forced to give it up, it had 97,000 miles on it, and never, ever had a drive line problem.
3. My wife's uncle was a mechanical engineer at Sandia. In his spare time, he built up a Jeep FC-170, and installed a Ford 300 CI inline six, with a four speed manual transmission (dunno what model). He installed Spicer locking front hubs, and with that rig, he regularly pulled a 32 foot Airstream trailer from coast to coast. (The mental image makes me grimace. ) Being the sort of wacko engineer he was, he kept meticulous track of everything that went into the FC-170, including fuel. On one round trip from Albq. to NY, circa 1974, the front hubs gave some sort of trouble when unlocked. He didn't have time to fix them, so he locked them and made the round trip--towing--in 2WD with the hubs locked. On his return, he fixed whatever the problem was, and then made the same trip again, hubs unlocked, in 2WD. He found no statistical difference in fuel consumption between the trips.