D-C might become just D and C.

"Jeff DeWitt" > wrote in message
...
> That would REALLY suck, Damlier Chrysler is bad enough, if Toyota buys
> Jeep that will be it for me and Jeep.
>

> Ken Finney wrote:
< snip >
>>
>>
>> Toyota is the most likely buyer for Jeep.
>>
>

I'd never buy a DC Jeep, largely because of the way they did the "merger".
If Toyota did things differently, I'd very likely buy a T Jeep.

My wife's BMW has to go in for it's yearly software upgrade, she always
gets a loaner car for one of these. Seems that although the dealer has
hired a couple of software geeks to do the upgrade, the upgrade process
is so flakey that they have no idea how long any individual vehicle is
going to take. Sounds like V***a from microworst!!

Dave Milne wrote:
> Matt,
>
> A Jeep by Microsoft would refuse to work after you had changed any tyres
> or any ancilliaries on the grounds that it wasn't the same car that you
> initially registered with them. After 2 oil changes, it would refuse to work
> as you had serviced it too many times. It would claim that it worked ok on
> 8" wheels, but that 18" wheels were better. Other people would be able to
> easily hack into your alarm system and lock you out for good. The engine
> would stop while you were driving it as it had downloaded an update from the
> last petrol station unbeknownst to you. It would take 10 minutes to switch
> off and 20 minutes to start. Your radio would introduce static as you
> couldn't prove you were NOT violating Digital Rights Management by listening
> to it. Your Sat Nav would ask "where do you want to go today" in an annoying
> voice and then take you were it wanted to go. And so on, and so forth !
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ, '91 Grand Wagoneer, mumble LandRover Discovery 2 ES mumble.
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
>>Imagine Jeep by Microsoft! I shudder at the thought...you'd have to reboot
>>the ECM every other day.
>>
>>
>
>
>

I'm one of those old-timers that built a 461 Chevy engine, Nitrous, etc and
put it in a Pontiac, <gasp>

Bought an every option 1987 Buick Grand national, chip, no converter, etc
and put in my garage and haven't driven it except Sundays for 30 miles a
week since. I've had that 20 years now!

Then last month I read the Road & Track and Car & Driver tests. Went to my
local dealer and bought a new Grand Cherokee SRT8. THAT puppy is MUCH, MUCH
faster that either of the above two hot rods or a 1997 Corvette I had a
few years. I live up high in the mountains of North Carolina and it is much
better at screaming around these twisty mountain roads. All wheel drive 4
wheel power slides are new to me so I need lots more practice at it. I still
can't believe it's a JEEP!

And I am not going to believe what those 285/40 VR20 run flat tires are
gonna cost either!

And yes I do offroad in a 1999 Wrangler, lifted, ARB's, winch, etc.
Love the seldom ever traveled ridge roads with it.

The road cars are great fun !


> Even though the actual percentage of Jeep owners who actually do wander
> off the nearest Walmart parking lot is possibly higher than for other
> makes, I'd be willing to bet it is still a minority of even Rubicon models
> that are still bought for off roading as opposed to image or necessity.
>
> It would be nice to see Jeep make ALL models truly trailworthy, then aim
> them at the different market segments so they might have enough sales
> volume to either survive or keep the price of a basic Wrangler from
> hitting $100K As for off road, a Range Rover with ride height control
> may not be as fast in a straight line or in the twisties as an SRT8
> Cherokee, but I'd bet it would get more than 20 feet off the Interstate
> and be able to get back...unlike the SRT8. Too bad Mercedes doesn't have
> a good ride height control technology, at least that way the Grands could
> have decent on road cruising and still have some illusion of being at
> least moderate trail ready.
>
> Personally I'd like to see the non-trail models go away, but have no
> problem with something like an SRT6 Wrangler or SRT8 Grand that has a
> suspension that would allow it to survive all but possibly the most hard
> core trails. Street rods have done a lot for a lot lesser makes, e.g.
> the 396 and secret 427 El Caminos that were otherwise a piece of crap.
>

My Disco has the active air suspension which uses gyros to detect body roll
and stiffen up air shocks on corners. It is unbelievalbly good, to the point
that it doesn't feel like you are driving a truck at all, LR engineers said
they could have made it corner almost totally flat but didn't to stop the
twits going round corners too fast.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" > wrote in message
. ..
> Bill Kearney proclaimed:

As for off road, a Range Rover with ride height
> control may not be as fast in a straight line or in the twisties as an
> SRT8 Cherokee, but I'd bet it would get more than 20 feet off the
> Interstate and be able to get back...unlike the SRT8.

Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
permissions.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> However Dave, allow me to point out that a Jeep by Microsoft would allow
> anyone ELSE to drive it, in particular sociopathic 12 year old script
> kiddies. Or in the latest edition, by anyone playing a tape of voice
> controls instructing the Jeep to drive away without you.
>
> To be fair, a Linux Jeep would have a user interface that almost doesn't
> suck but crashes randomly over even stupider things than a Microsoft
> one, and for some reason none of the engineers could be bothered to read
> architectural standards, so the camshafts would be rotating backwards
> with an epicycle just because someone thought it would be TR3WLY K3WL to
> do so.

Dave Milne wrote:
> Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
> A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
> fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
> which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
> the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
> neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
> how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
> you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
> permissions.
>


Actually, once you got it fired up you'd find out 50% of your options
wouldn't work because the hardware wasn't supported yet. Six months and
many frustrating configuration hours later you might be up to 75% supported.