DrBoost wrote:alfadriver wrote: It sure seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of proposition. For about 20 years, SUV's were one of the most popular kinds of vehicles out there, with one major problem- fuel economy. I know a lot of other issues are put out there, but you can trace it to that with a few connections. So car companies do something about it, to placate buyers who want better fuel economy, at the risk of alienating real drivers. Seems to me, this is another case of that. Make some people happy- it probably drive better for 70% of the customers, and gets better fuel economy, but you make off roaders really mad. No car is going to be perfect.I have to agree here. It's the same thing as when Jeep released the Libby, Compass, and the Patriot. Jeeps got 14 mpg. Period. CAFE standards demand just a bit better. The difference here is, I accepted those watered-down vehicles because it allowed the Rubicon to go on sale, then the 4-door Wrangler (something I wanted to see for many years). The thing here I guess is, Nissan is making a watered-down SUV but not using that to facilitate better, more capable 4X4's.
my 99 Cherokee got 19mpg stock when it had 70k miles. it got 14.5mpg when I lifted it 5.5 inches, put 33s on, and did not regear.
