new wrangler - ug

"Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
news
> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction.
> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so.

i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall
spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more capable
than ever before.


> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than
> "capability."

it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage.
without the heritage, its just another 4x4.


> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers
> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid
> axle? Talk about picking nits.

the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the
vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release
was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but
this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Carry.com
http://GlockCarry.com

Nate Dog!
How have you been!?

I'm diggin my Rubi Unlimited. I've gone places I never could before,
especially in AZ.

Personally, I like how they've kept the basic jeep context...but I won't be
trading up basically due to the work I've put into my jeep. If I had one
complaint of my jeep, it would be shoulder room. I'm actually hurting after
a few hour ride. If the new one is 2" wider in the shoulder area, I'd be the
first to admit I'd rather have it over mine... I'm almost afraid to sit in
the new one.
--
mark
www.hydrotoys.com


"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> news
>> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction.
>> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so.
>
> i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall
> spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more
> capable than ever before.
>
>
>> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than
>> "capability."
>
> it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage.
> without the heritage, its just another 4x4.
>
>
>> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers
>> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid
>> axle? Talk about picking nits.
>
> the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the
> vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release
> was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but
> this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep.
>
> --
> Nathan W. Collier
> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> http://7SlotGrille.com
> http://InlineDiesel.com
> http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> http://1911Carry.com
> http://GlockCarry.com
>

Hi Sandman,
I will remind you of a number of Real Jeepers that believe in Real
Leaf springs:
http://www.sounddomain.com/member_pa...730_8_full.jpg
http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/susp/tjleafsprings/
http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/axl.../fronthang.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

"Nathan W. Collier" wrote:
>
> i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall
> spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more capable
> than ever before.
>
> it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage.
> without the heritage, its just another 4x4.
>
> the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the
> vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release
> was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but
> this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep.
>
> --
> Nathan W. Collier
> http://UtilityOffRoad.com
> http://7SlotGrille.com
> http://InlineDiesel.com
> http://BighornRefrigeration.com
> http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
> http://1911Carry.com
> http://GlockCarry.com

"Nathan W. Collier" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> news
>> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction.
>> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so.
>
> i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall
> spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more
> capable than ever before.
>
My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone"
in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land
Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the
Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I
agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in
the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth.


>
> the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the
> vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release
> was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but
> this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep.

The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard
TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier
Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar
disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and
other improvements in the design and you have the most capable
off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the
electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the
consumer expecting it than the actual need for it.

I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the
*true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar
concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why
we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of
the new model.

As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look
like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full
doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK
Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a
distance you can tell it's a Wrangler.

If bouncing off the ground, losing traction and having to be pulled
out of the pit, in exchange for cushy road ability is what your really
want: http://www.billhughes.com/bouncingFord.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O


Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone"
> in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land
> Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the
> Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I
> agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in
> the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth.
>
> The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard
> TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier
> Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar
> disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and
> other improvements in the design and you have the most capable
> off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the
> electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the
> consumer expecting it than the actual need for it.
>
> I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the
> *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar
> concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why
> we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of
> the new model.
>
> As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look
> like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full
> doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK
> Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a
> distance you can tell it's a Wrangler.

Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door
Wrangler.

Dan

Naperville, IL

And I thought it was ten years earlier.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

" wrote:
>
> Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door
> Wrangler.
>
> Dan
>
> Naperville, IL

I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said.

O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they
are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door.

I don't know if it's possible to overestimate the stupidity of the DC
management but even they can't be THAT stupid!

Jeff DeWitt

wrote:
> Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door
> Wrangler.
>
> Dan
>
> Naperville, IL
>

Jeffrey DeWitt wrote:
> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said.
>
> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they
> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door.
>

Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but
regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the
exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty
hard to misinterpret:

"The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two
doors."

It goes on to say

"The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first
four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline
(cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel
drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup."

Full article is he

http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html

Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance
around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of
rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07
is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an
announcement to gauge backlash?

Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't
make sense to me either.

- Dan -

This is paragraph two from that new report:

"The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors.
The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door
model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a
row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the
standard four-wheel-drive setup."

You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and 4
door models are slated for production.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote:
>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they
>> said.
>>
>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they
>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door.
>>
>
> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but
> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the
> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty
> hard to misinterpret:
>
> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two
> doors."
>
> It goes on to say
>
> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first
> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline
> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel
> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup."
>
> Full article is he
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html
>
> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance
> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of
> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07
> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an
> announcement to gauge backlash?
>
> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't
> make sense to me either.
>
> - Dan -
>