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

miatame wrote: 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.

A miata is actually pretty economical and probably a great commuter car. Not seeing what advantage a Honda or Hyundai would provide in any category related to commuting.

miatame wrote: 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.

Again, that argument doesn't mesh. I "use" my car for track/autocross, so a crap can econobox isn't "what I need." Likewise, we own a 4Runner because I need the cargo, towing, and light off-road capability that an econobox cannot provide. I'm not arguing that everyone should have an econobox at all. Different vechile types (econo, pickup, etc) all have reasons to exist.

miatame wrote: 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?

Since when is improving a vehicle's ride and handling "pandering?" I was under the impression that manufacturers should try to improve their vehicles for what their prospective customers use them for. That isn't PANDERING, that is called "expanding your customer base" - which is an important thing for a manufacturer of anything. A Wrangler can be a perfectly capable off-roader with IFS (4Runners seem to do just fine), AND it would have the added benefit of improved on-road performance.

I guess it was "pandering" when they developed the Xbox or Playstation too, right? After all, people always had plenty of fun using their Atari and Commodore 64.

miatame wrote: 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?

People are using Corvettes and Miatas for off-roading? Really? (normal people, not the odd GRM rallycrosser)

I don't see how that analogy fits. The overwhelming majority of Jeep drivers drive them on roads 100% of the time. For most Wrangler owners, the vehicle IS an on-road vehicle. This isn't a "what-if"....it is a fact.

We could go back to a Subaru analogy though. Alot of people used to take their Legacy (and predecessors) off-road. So Subaru made the Outback, which is just a lifted Legacy basically. They adjusted the vehicle to suit their customer's needs and last I checked the Outback has been pretty popular.

miatame wrote: 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?

Like I said, make an IFS Wrangler. Call it "Wrangler Urban" or something. Also keep making the regular Wrangler in smaller numbers, for the people who really WANT a solid front axle for one reason or another. There's no reason they can't have a couple versions.

miatame wrote: 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.

you'll get no arguments from me on that point.

I'm not speaking from a personal want. I have no plans to get a wrangler so don't really care. I'm just throwing it out there as a good idea from the standpoint of Chrysler/Jeep as an opportunity to expand the market and improve a vehicle they sell in-line with who the actual customer base is. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Chrysler could use some fresh ideas for some of their products. And no matter how tried-and-true something might be, it can always be improved.

anyhow, whatever....

In reply to irish44j:

I'm making a little bit different of a point than miatame.

I think Jeep will continue to build Wranglers the way they have been, because there is a large group of people out there who have the satisfaction of knowing they could go off-road if they need to or driving with no doors or roof on. People like that feeling. People did the same with the Suzuki Samurai before they stopped producing them.

If you want the company to change your vehicle everytime a customer complains about ride or comfort or something else, take a look at the 4-Runner (I know you said you had one, but I'm gonna throw this out there anyway). It used to be an affordable on/off-roader, now its a luxo mid-size SUV. First they dumped the solid front axle to give a better ride, then added another set of doors so it was easier for the rear passengers to get in and out, then they removed the rollbar and removable top for safety, next they added leather for added comfort, and they dropped the manual transmission, brought it back, then dropped it again. Now you can't buy a new 4x4 4-Runner for under $30k.

You can buy a brand new "Sport" 4x4 Wrangler with all the off road and top down capability one needs for a security blanket for under $25k. When they came out with the Wrangler Unlimited 4-Door, 4 people (in my town of 2,000) bought them within 2 months of them being available to the public. The one major thing Chrysler upgraded on the Wrangler was the 4-Door Unlimited and those are being sold in the masses.

Honestly, I don't think people care about the crudeness of the Wrangler, I think there is a coolness factor to them that the general public enjoys. Plus, they are cheaper in price, there is a larger range of people who can buy them.

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.

Disagree. People ARE imagining it. Put it in a 3400lb car w/ a 6spd and it will run 14s just like all the other family car v6s with twice the valves. Instead we get avengers with 3.5s that make 20 less hp than they made 12 years ago and arent any faster than the LX 3.5s which have one less gear and weigh more.

And then there's the 3.7 (not for much longer, thankfully) that is master of nothing and should never have been built.. 3.8 should have been in those apps all along.

A JK Unlimited Rubicon with one normal size person in it weighs 4500+ lbs! The auto doesnt have enough gears, the drivetrain is super lossy, and for all those reasons the 3.8 doesnt perform well in it. It really has nothing to do with the motor itself.

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.

The HP wasnt there, but I wish subaru had brought the last-gen diesel/6speed legacy wagon to USA. I would have seriously considered throwing all sense of prudence to the wind and spent a lot of money i dont have to buy it.

Whenever I see a JK (Just Kidding?) coming at me on the road, I can't help but think "if you wanted a minivan, you should have bought one!" Plus, one of the main things that make me mad about JKs is the lack of real fenders. Now they have this weird flare thing, it's all plastic. But the JK isn't the first one to have a bunch of posers drive it. Same with the TJ and the yj and all the cj whatnots before it. They all end up with silly lifts and dumb jacks on the hood... And Jerry cans on the back? What do you need that for on the road? It's called a gas gauge!

Joey

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to irish44j: I'm making a little bit different of a point than miatame. I think Jeep will continue to build Wranglers the way they have been, because there is a large group of people out there who have the satisfaction of knowing they could go off-road if they need to or driving with no doors or roof on. People like that feeling. People did the same with the Suzuki Samurai before they stopped producing them. If you want the company to change your vehicle everytime a customer complains about ride or comfort or something else, take a look at the 4-Runner (I know you said you had one, but I'm gonna throw this out there anyway). It used to be an affordable on/off-roader, now its a luxo mid-size SUV. First they dumped the solid front axle to give a better ride, then added another set of doors so it was easier for the rear passengers to get in and out, then they removed the rollbar and removable top for safety, next they added leather for added comfort, and they dropped the manual transmission, brought it back, then dropped it again. Now you can't buy a new 4x4 4-Runner for under $30k. You can buy a brand new "Sport" 4x4 Wrangler with all the off road and top down capability one needs for a security blanket for under $25k. When they came out with the Wrangler Unlimited 4-Door, 4 people (in my town of 2,000) bought them within 2 months of them being available to the public. The one major thing Chrysler upgraded on the Wrangler was the 4-Door Unlimited and those are being sold in the masses. Honestly, I don't think people care about the crudeness of the Wrangler, I think there is a coolness factor to them that the general public enjoys. Plus, they are cheaper in price, there is a larger range of people who can buy them.

Minor correction: Toyota added the rear doors to avoid paying the 25% "Chicken Tax" levied by the US on trucks imported here. The Pathfinder was a 2-door in the early 90s too.

thatsnowinnebago wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to irish44j: I'm making a little bit different of a point than miatame. I think Jeep will continue to build Wranglers the way they have been, because there is a large group of people out there who have the satisfaction of knowing they could go off-road if they need to or driving with no doors or roof on. People like that feeling. People did the same with the Suzuki Samurai before they stopped producing them. If you want the company to change your vehicle everytime a customer complains about ride or comfort or something else, take a look at the 4-Runner (I know you said you had one, but I'm gonna throw this out there anyway). It used to be an affordable on/off-roader, now its a luxo mid-size SUV. First they dumped the solid front axle to give a better ride, then added another set of doors so it was easier for the rear passengers to get in and out, then they removed the rollbar and removable top for safety, next they added leather for added comfort, and they dropped the manual transmission, brought it back, then dropped it again. Now you can't buy a new 4x4 4-Runner for under $30k. You can buy a brand new "Sport" 4x4 Wrangler with all the off road and top down capability one needs for a security blanket for under $25k. When they came out with the Wrangler Unlimited 4-Door, 4 people (in my town of 2,000) bought them within 2 months of them being available to the public. The one major thing Chrysler upgraded on the Wrangler was the 4-Door Unlimited and those are being sold in the masses. Honestly, I don't think people care about the crudeness of the Wrangler, I think there is a coolness factor to them that the general public enjoys. Plus, they are cheaper in price, there is a larger range of people who can buy them.

Minor correction: Toyota added the rear doors to avoid paying the 25% "Chicken Tax" levied by the US on trucks imported here. The Pathfinder was a 2-door in the early 90s too.

Well no one can know everything. Haha.

But I will definitely remember that for next time.

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?

while I understand the new stuff is technically good. It's not the same.

Purchase a stock flat fender or early cj5. Drive it for a year, then you will understand.

Of course, I am not the consumer of today so my opinion is poop.

irish44j wrote:

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.

TJ = 93" / 3200#
JK2 = 95" / 3800#

So the difference between awesome and suck is 2" of wheelbase and 600#. Got it. Nevermind that wheelbase stretching is a common performance enhancement on crawlers.

Also - I already noted that for the wheeling I do, I'd prefer more wheelbase. I'd buy the 4 door. At least we agree that it sucks that it got heavier.

irish44j wrote: A Wrangler can be a perfectly capable off-roader with IFS (4Runners seem to do just fine)

This seems to be the disconnect. No it can't. And 4 Runners don't do just fine.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

irish44j wrote: A Wrangler can be a perfectly capable off-roader with IFS (4Runners seem to do just fine)

This seems to be the disconnect. No it can't. And 4 Runners don't do just fine.

QFT

4runners and the rest make due. they do this by getting something like 90% of their articulation from the rear (solid) axle.

Look at these two photos. the front tire has about a 1/2 inch of space under it. just before i stopped, i had the right rear light enough that it spun a bit and the truck went teeter-totter for a moment, so this is more or less full flex. look at how much work the rear axle is doing, you can see the amount of camber gain due to the other side drooping. this is on a slightly modified rig, strut spacers in the front, with tubular control arms to facilitate the extra travel, and a 2" add-a-leaf in the rear with the swaybar removed. if this were a solid front axle truck, it would be at the least, capable of similar flex front and rear.