Jeep "Call of Duty Special Ops Edition" ...

you used to be able to get amc v8s in the old CJs and they were leaf sprung scary handling short wheelbase things.

the 4 door wrangler today is the closest thing to a cherokee except it has a better rear suspension, longer wheelbase by 15", removable top if thats your thing, and a full frame. i'd hope it wouldnt be too awful of a light/medium duty tow rig (obviously wouldnt replace a full size truck) but its somewhat heavy and the engine it came with was a dog, so a factory v8 (4.7L or 5.7L though i'd get the bigger) to cope with the newfound size doesnt really sound silly to me.

DILYSI Dave wrote: If the wrangler ever loses it's solid axles, I predict a similar deflation of the enthusiast support for the vehicle. Of course a solid axle Jeep sucks on road. That's not what it's for. A Corvette sucks off road. That's not what it's for.

I disagree. "Enthusiasts" don't buy the bulk of almost any vehicle, except high-performance sportscars maybe. Outside of the people I met on Jeep forums when I owned mine, I probably know 30 people who own wranglers of some sort. A few of them have lift kits or some mods. One or two actuall takes it off-road. 20 of them are females who (and not being sexist here) think "Dana" must have designed the seat patterns on their Jeep.

Point being, an IFS Wrangler would still retain most of it's off-road abilities while significantly improving the road manners for the 90% of the people who never drive it off the asphalt.

OR What I would do: Keep making the wrangler as-is in a more limited number, for the "enthusiasts." BUT add an IFS Wrangler and sell it seperately. Call it the "Wrangler Urban" or something (how's that for marketing?)

I think it would actually INCREASE sales. yeah, maybe you lose a few enthusiasts. But you gain people who like the idea of a wrangler but hate the way it drives compared to other medium SUVs.

--

also....to counterpoint your argument about losing sales let's look at Subaru. A few years ago they changed up the Impreza and Forester in particular. Alot of "enthusiasts" cried mightily about Subaru going soft/forgetting its heritage/catering to suburban moms.... whatever. Guess what? Subaru sales went up significantly...

Strizzo wrote: the liberty wasn't supposed to be a soft-roader, it was supposed to be a nearly-as-capable offroader as a stock xj, with a bit better ride. its been a long time since i've ridden in an xj, but i think they accomplished that. that's not to say they couldn't have done a bit better, as it almost seemed like they were trying to make an ifs libby ride like a SFA xj. .

The thing that killed the Liberty wasn't it's abilities. It is every bit as able as an XJ for mild off-roading. Not hardcore crawling, but very few people do that. The Liberty's problem is that it replaced the rugged-looking XJ, with it's boxiness and beam bumpers. And the liberty was bubbly and girly-looking.

If they made the Liberty with full XJ underpinnings, it STILL wouldn't be successful, because the styling was aimed at the Rav4/CR-V crowd (mostly girls), and guys just thought it didn't look tough like an XJ.

Conversely, if they continued the XJ look with Liberty underpinnings, it would have been considerably more successful. The XJ --> Liberty transition wasn't death by suspension change, it was death by style change.

In reply to irish44j:

And look at the second gen. Libby, It's a box.

I just want a TR Patriot...

neon4891 wrote: In reply to irish44j: And look at the second gen. Libby, It's a box. I just want a TR Patriot...

It would probably sell great, too, if there wasn't so much competition out there now in that class. The new Rav4 is excellent, the Escape is very good, the CR-V is good, and so on.

XJ had the advantage of not much competition in the class. Mostly it was competing against early Explorers and Bronco II perhaps?

and blazers.

i'm not convinced it would get significantly worse mileage performance... looking at the 1500 silverado base 4.3L v6 vs. 4.8/5.3/6.2L v8s, the optional v8 engines were rated only 1mpg worse or even 1mpg better depending on options. plus its more than 50% more power. and yet another reason to get rid of the ridiculous cafe garbage?

Realistically, look at all the 5000lb hemi trucks. The only one that doesnt avg 13mpg in the real world (ask someone) is the Chrysler Aspen 2-mode Hybrid. Now, i think it would be the BOMB DIGGITY to get a hemi/2mode hybrid wrangler, dont get me wrong.. but thats not gonna happen. There are plenty of JK Hemi swaps out there, and i can pretty well guarantee you they arent AVG'ing better than 13mpg, just like the trucks.

As for getting rid of CAFE... seriously? Hey, if you're happy about the domestics needing a bailout, then by all means keep thinking that, but honestly CAFE didnt move much in 20 years which is why now have 270hp in every midsize family sedan while only getting 2 more mpg after 20+ years of technological gain, and is also a major reason why the taxpayers had to bail out the domestics. The only thing CAFE has needed for the last 2 decades was to go UP. Now it has, and things will get better. They're getting better already!

pres589 wrote: If this company is so serious about offroad why can't they do better in 2010?

It's the most capable Jeep that has ever been made. How is that not good enough?

DILYSI Dave wrote: It's the most capable Jeep that has ever been made. How is that not good enough?

Don't worry about it, they really just don't get it. That's fine as long as Jeep doesn't pander to them too much more.

irish44j wrote: also....to counterpoint your argument about losing sales let's look at Subaru. A few years ago they changed up the Impreza and Forester in particular. Alot of "enthusiasts" cried mightily about Subaru going soft/forgetting its heritage/catering to suburban moms.... whatever. Guess what? Subaru sales went up significantly...

Actually, they are doing exactly what every company before them has done, and will ruin themselves in their short-sited chase for the almighty dollar (just like Honda). The enthusiasts MADE the brand what it is. They'll be good for MAYBE a decade (if they are lucky), then sales will stagnate and they will face a financial crisis. Surprise? NOT!

neon4891 wrote: In reply to irish44j: And look at the second gen. Libby, It's a box. I just want a TR Patriot...

there IS a trail rated patriot, but only if you get it with the Freedom Drive II package, and it will still have the CVT auto and the same wheezy engine.

Maybe it would be easier if I went backwards and came to the answer; heavier, longer, wider vehicles don't wheel offroad as well. They're less maneuverable. So throwing more motor at the problem seems like a sloppy solution. Less weight, going back to the older / smaller dimensions, those sorts of things will help make these easier to get over or through tough terrain. A Hemi sounds cute and all but if you're really going nuts in Moab, a more balanced platform that is light and well suspended would probably be more of an unstoppable combination vs. an iron blocked 5.7.

Am I missing something or does this sound accurate to the guys here that don't think I understand the problem of crawling over a rock or through a muddy forest?

I'm with you all the way on lighter. But I personally like the wider and longer footprint of the JK. Yeah, it's less maneuverable in tight stuff, but it's much more stable in funky crawling off camber stuff. If I need to make the occasional 3-point turn to make a tight switchback, I'll live with that compromise. It's rare that I find myself wanting for more maneuverability. It's quite common for me to be going "Oh E36 M3 - I wish I had 20" more wheelbase for this hill climb."

In reply to pres589:

right, so you might say that a better solution would be an engine that makes similar power, but makes more torque low down in the rev range. this imaginary engine probably doesn't need to rev much over 4500 rpm either. hmm, sounds a lot like a job for the old 4.0 liner, no?

the point is, they made the wrangler better, but then neutered it with the crap motor. naturally, when more power is called for, more cylinders is an easy way to do it. the answer may or may not be hemi or v8, but that does not mean that people are imagining that the 3.8 is a crappy motor.

I wouldn't argue with the 3.8 being a poor replacement for the 4.0; the thing is a turd in any application and definitely in a Jeep. My thought is that the Pentastar V6 should rectify that and would be a better all around solution vs. the Hemi.

HiTempguy wrote:

irish44j wrote: also....to counterpoint your argument about losing sales let's look at Subaru. A few years ago they changed up the Impreza and Forester in particular. Alot of "enthusiasts" cried mightily about Subaru going soft/forgetting its heritage/catering to suburban moms.... whatever. Guess what? Subaru sales went up significantly...

Actually, they are doing exactly what every company before them has done, and will ruin themselves in their short-sited chase for the almighty dollar (just like Honda). The enthusiasts MADE the brand what it is. They'll be good for MAYBE a decade (if they are lucky), then sales will stagnate and they will face a financial crisis. Surprise? NOT!

I disagree, and I'm an example of why. I've always admired the performance potential of Subarus, but as a 30-something professional I prefer to have a daily driver that doesn't look like a kid racer, which is why I never bought a wrx before. As soon as the plaine-jane 09 came out, I bought one (literally, I bought the first 09 sedan our local dealer got). I track, autocross, and "mod" my 09 so I think I qualify as an "enthusiast". I am the type of customer Subaru never had before and now does. And as long as Subarus continue to give good performance for a good price, I'll continue to buy them.

Meanwhile, alot of the "OG" subaru types whined and moaned about the new "boring" look of the cars in 08, 09.....and guess what....most of them now drive them. Because when it comes down to it, subaru "enthusiasts" buy their cars for performance, and the new ones are superior to the old ones in every respect in the performance category.

And for the ones who want the "rallycar" or "tuner" look, there is plenty of aftermarket wings, rims, and body kits (including widebody) to get to accomplish that goal.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

pres589 wrote: If this company is so serious about offroad why can't they do better in 2010?

It's the most capable Jeep that has ever been made. How is that not good enough?

in terms of mechanicals perhaps, but long wheelbase + heavy is not an "improvement" on a Jeep any more than it is on an autocross car.

irish44j wrote: *snip*

Sure, and the new Civic Si is great... sort of. I believe you're missing my point.

I saw one of these Black Ops edition Wranglers the other day. I pointed out to my wife while we were in traffic.

She asked "Why would someone buy that version?"

My reply? "Because they don't have a life I guess"

HiTempguy wrote:

irish44j wrote: *snip*

Sure, and the new Civic Si is great... sort of. I believe you're missing my point.

seems like your point is "car companies should not change their designs, ever, for fear of alienating a very small, very vocal base that...in the end, will still buy the redesigned product anyways, while bitching about it.

If, for instance, Jeep came out with an IFS Wrangler, do you really think that the "Jeep enthusiasts" would be so off-put they wouldn't buy another Jeep? Is there another wrangler-like vehicle out there that they would flock to? Not that I know of....

Besides, 90% of Wrangler owners wouldn't even care.

We all love our "old" cars here, but the bottom line is that when buying a new car, it should be BETTER than the old one....not the same as what it was 20 years ago. Otherwise, why not just buy one 20 years old for alot less $$....

irish44j wrote: lol at you thinking that I am a fan of VW, having owned two early-2000s Jettas (wife's). I think not. But again, marketing is nice. BUt how about offer this edition with some actual upgrades other than tires and interior. Stronger axles, lockers, whatever....even a trainable machine gun mount on the roof.

That's called sarcasm, i was simply trying to make a point that most fan boys of foreign marks, love to bash the American car manufacturers when most all other manufacturers do it!

irish44j wrote: We all love our "old" cars here, but the bottom line is that when buying a new car, it should be BETTER than the old one....not the same as what it was 20 years ago. Otherwise, why not just buy one 20 years old for alot less $$....

And by better you mean what? Better on road?

DirtyBird222 wrote:

irish44j wrote: lol at you thinking that I am a fan of VW, having owned two early-2000s Jettas (wife's). I think not. But again, marketing is nice. BUt how about offer this edition with some actual upgrades other than tires and interior. Stronger axles, lockers, whatever....even a trainable machine gun mount on the roof.

That's called sarcasm, i was simply trying to make a point that most fan boys of foreign marks, love to bash the American car manufacturers when most all other manufacturers do it!

I'm a fanboi of whatever car I enjoy driving the most....am not brand-focused so much and hardly "brand loyal" at all. Show me a mid-compact, AWD, 250+hp American car for under $30k and I'll think very hard about trading in the subaru. Make it a diesel and I'll stop thinking about it and actually make the trade immediately.

And I do love quite a few American cars. Or more accurately, quite a few cars made by American companies but sold only in Europe. Wish our own companies would actually give us the cool versions here.

I might revise that statement if the Focus ST actually makes it over here without being lamed-down too much.

miatame wrote:

irish44j wrote: We all love our "old" cars here, but the bottom line is that when buying a new car, it should be BETTER than the old one....not the same as what it was 20 years ago. Otherwise, why not just buy one 20 years old for alot less $$....

And by better you mean what? Better on road?

better for what people actually use it for.

and yes, road. Hence my suggestion on having 2 different wrangler types: the fullbore off-road version with solid axles, lockers, etc....and the "great majority of the population" version with IFS (and maybe IRS?), open diffs to keep cost down, eliminate 4L from the TC, etc.

I just wish better didn't always mean heavier, wider, longer, or include options I don't care about. Guess that's why I'm oldtin.

irish44j wrote: better for what people actually use it for. and yes, road. Hence my suggestion on having 2 different wrangler types: the fullbore off-road version with solid axles, lockers, etc....and the "great majority of the population" version with IFS (and maybe IRS?), open diffs to keep cost down, eliminate 4L from the TC, etc.

OK...I commute from my house to work every day. Do I NEED a Miata, or an M3, or a Jeep? No, I NEED a crap can new Honda or Hyundia econo box.

So do you think manufactures should only produce crap can econo boxes because they are "better for what people actually use it for"? I doubt you'd be here if you thought that. But the Wrangler was originally designed to be an off road vehicle so why just because tons of people never go off road should Jeep pander to them? Isn't that the same as if tons of people started taking Corvettes or Miatas off road and complaining they were too low and didn't have heavy duty axles and skid plates. Do you think Chevy and Mazda should start lifting them and beefing up the suspension because that's what people are using them for?

I do think having more options could make more people happy and an IFS Wrangler would probably be better on road but then what is it? I guess some people just want a convertible that sits tall and has 4wd for the winter. I dunno, I just think that's dumb.