New Jeep Grand Chicory

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:

> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> > > rather than discarded.

> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".

> Hmmpf!!! I challenge them to get it to run smoother than a well tuned
> slant six.

How it runs isn't the issue for the bananaheads in the motoring press.
Does it sound like a Honda? If yes, praise. If no, make dumb jokes and
then laugh.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ron McNeil wrote:

> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
> signals....

The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
signals".

Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? Or do you want the
"Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
right next to each other" badness?

It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.
I'd say "Just put on a separate amber blinker like the whole rest of the
world has required since 1963", but that wouldn't work because "Americans
prefer red turn signals".

Must be why Chevrolet and GMC didn't sell any of their trucks and
Suburbans between '00 and '03 -- they had amber rear blinkers.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ron McNeil wrote:

> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
> signals....

The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
signals".

Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? Or do you want the
"Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
right next to each other" badness?

It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.
I'd say "Just put on a separate amber blinker like the whole rest of the
world has required since 1963", but that wouldn't work because "Americans
prefer red turn signals".

Must be why Chevrolet and GMC didn't sell any of their trucks and
Suburbans between '00 and '03 -- they had amber rear blinkers.

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
>>
>>
>>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>>
>>Ptewph.
>>
>
>
> The ones I've seen on the road have made me think that perhaps they're
> trying to recapture some of the XJ Cherokee's fans. To me it looks
> boxier, and the lines are cleaner and straighter, more reminiscent of
> the XJ than the WJ. This is so especially when viewed from behind.
>
> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. OTOH, I like the round
> headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the
> hood.
>
> Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
> than discarded.

Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
right vs. Chrysler this time.


Matt

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
>>
>>
>>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>>
>>Ptewph.
>>
>
>
> The ones I've seen on the road have made me think that perhaps they're
> trying to recapture some of the XJ Cherokee's fans. To me it looks
> boxier, and the lines are cleaner and straighter, more reminiscent of
> the XJ than the WJ. This is so especially when viewed from behind.
>
> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. OTOH, I like the round
> headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the
> hood.
>
> Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
> than discarded.

Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
right vs. Chrysler this time.


Matt

GM now selling the I5

--
DudLee & Debbie
Brennfoerder
Edgar, NE 68935

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
> >>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
Durango.
> >>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
> >>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> >>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >>
> >>Ptewph.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The ones I've seen on the road have made me think that perhaps they're
> > trying to recapture some of the XJ Cherokee's fans. To me it looks
> > boxier, and the lines are cleaner and straighter, more reminiscent of
> > the XJ than the WJ. This is so especially when viewed from behind.
> >
> > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. OTOH, I like the round
> > headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the
> > hood.
> >
> > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
> > than discarded.
>
> Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
> right vs. Chrysler this time.
>
>
> Matt
>

GM now selling the I5

--
DudLee & Debbie
Brennfoerder
Edgar, NE 68935

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
> >>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
Durango.
> >>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
> >>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> >>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >>
> >>Ptewph.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The ones I've seen on the road have made me think that perhaps they're
> > trying to recapture some of the XJ Cherokee's fans. To me it looks
> > boxier, and the lines are cleaner and straighter, more reminiscent of
> > the XJ than the WJ. This is so especially when viewed from behind.
> >
> > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. OTOH, I like the round
> > headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the
> > hood.
> >
> > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
> > than discarded.
>
> Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
> right vs. Chrysler this time.
>
>
> Matt
>

Ah darn. I forgot about the Honda pacemakers they use which resonate at a
Honda's idle frequency.

-
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> > > > rather than discarded.
>
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> > Hmmpf!!! I challenge them to get it to run smoother than a well tuned
> > slant six.
>
> How it runs isn't the issue for the bananaheads in the motoring press.
> Does it sound like a Honda? If yes, praise. If no, make dumb jokes and
> then laugh.

Ah darn. I forgot about the Honda pacemakers they use which resonate at a
Honda's idle frequency.

-
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> > > > rather than discarded.
>
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> > Hmmpf!!! I challenge them to get it to run smoother than a well tuned
> > slant six.
>
> How it runs isn't the issue for the bananaheads in the motoring press.
> Does it sound like a Honda? If yes, praise. If no, make dumb jokes and
> then laugh.

In article ch.edu>,
says...
>
> Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
> Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
> Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
> on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>
> Ptewph.
>

It's not great, but looks wise, it blows the Durango away, looks wise.
The Dakota too, sadly.

BDK