If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The soon to be released Jeep Commander.
The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ Looks like a range rover knock off... |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BE wrote:
> The soon to be released Jeep Commander... > > http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ > > Looks like a range rover knock off... > I'd rather have a real Commander http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/55coupe.html It may not do as well off road, but it's sure prettier. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... > >http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ > >Looks like a range rover knock off... What a disappointment! I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I have now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage. This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 (401) and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its own road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru WRX wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and get some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will likely continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and up. Dave Head |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Head" > wrote in message
... > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote: > >>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >> >>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ >> >>Looks like a range rover knock off... > > What a disappointment! > > I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated > pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I > have > now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage. > > This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, > measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 > (401) > and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its > own > road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. > > It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru > WRX > wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and > get > some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will > likely > continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and > up. > > Dave Head It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 fuel mileage will be about the same. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message .. . >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote: >> >>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>> >>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ >>> >>>Looks like a range rover knock off... >> >> What a disappointment! >> >> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated >> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I >> have >> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage. >> >> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, >> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 >> (401) >> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its >> own >> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. >> >> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru >> WRX >> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and >> get >> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will >> likely >> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and >> up. >> >> Dave Head > >It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a >direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk >rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 >fuel mileage will be about the same. Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the horizon - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on electricity generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long enough for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point our energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. If we start building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much better off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a more fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. Dave Head |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Head" > wrote in message
... > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote: > Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the > horizon > - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be > ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable > future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of > breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on > electricity > generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long > enough > for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point > our > energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. If we > start > building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much > better > off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a > more > fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. > > Dave Head It's on the horizon: http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
> It's on the horizon:
> > http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html Uh oh - Bush and his crimina... uh.. buddies won't go for that. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Head" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote: > >>"Dave Head" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote: >>> >>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>>> >>>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ >>>> >>>>Looks like a range rover knock off... >>> >>> What a disappointment! >>> >>> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car >>> accelerated >>> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I >>> have >>> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good >>> mileage. >>> >>> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, >>> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 >>> (401) >>> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its >>> own >>> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. >>> >>> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru >>> WRX >>> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo >>> and >>> get >>> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will >>> likely >>> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and >>> up. >>> >>> Dave Head >> >>It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a >>direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk >>rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 >>fuel mileage will be about the same. > > Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the > horizon > - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be > ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable > future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of > breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on > electricity > generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long > enough > for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point > our > energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and plutonium. > If we start > building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much > better > off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a > more > fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:51:36 -0500, "Mark Stahl" >
wrote: > >"Dave Head" > wrote in message .. . >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote: >> >>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>>>> >>>>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ >>>>> >>>>>Looks like a range rover knock off... >>>> >>>> What a disappointment! >>>> >>>> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car >>>> accelerated >>>> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I >>>> have >>>> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good >>>> mileage. >>>> >>>> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, >>>> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 >>>> (401) >>>> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its >>>> own >>>> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. >>>> >>>> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru >>>> WRX >>>> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo >>>> and >>>> get >>>> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will >>>> likely >>>> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and >>>> up. >>>> >>>> Dave Head >>> >>>It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a >>>direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk >>>rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 >>>fuel mileage will be about the same. >> >> Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the >> horizon >> - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be >> ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable >> future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of >> breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on >> electricity >> generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long >> enough >> for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point >> our >> energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. > >Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and >plutonium. Right - not inconsistent with what I wrote. > >> If we start >> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much >> better >> off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a >> more >> fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. > >I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?" I've been hearing/using that for quite some time. Dunno... maybe its not world-wide. Dave Head |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I love my '98 Grand Cherokee and will drive it til it won't drive no
more, but I still sorta like what they could do with the commander. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is a TJ? | Brian Foster | Jeep | 23 | January 22nd 05 06:06 AM |
Jeep VS others | Elliot Westcott | Chrysler | 64 | December 19th 04 02:22 PM |
Chrysler to show Jeep pickup and "FirePower" sports car concepts inDetroit | MoPar Man | Chrysler | 4 | December 10th 04 07:45 PM |