A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Jeep
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 12th 05, 06:21 PM
Carl Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler

This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
capability.

Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.

The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
drivetrain.

Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.

A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.

My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.

C.T.

Ads
  #2  
Old February 12th 05, 07:50 PM
John Hinkley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You forgot one thing: With every new restyle, the price has jumped exponentially. Tacomas and ****ans are edging closer to
$30,000. Have you seen what Toy wants for a ****ing RAV? Give me a break! The auto mfgrs. know that these vehicles (SUVS in
particular as opposed to pickups) hardly ever see dirt. So don't expect any positive changes. The few of us who do go offroad are
the .05% percentile; hence we are overlooked and forgotten. Sad but true. I'd like to just have an old 68 Bronco and Land Cruiser
rather than anything new today, including the Tacoma. Forget Nissan; it's strictly all show and no go.
It must have been back in 1999 I was reading an offroad mag while having a stereo installed in my truck and the big news was that
Jeep was going to dump the Wrangler for something called an Icon. It looked very SUVish with the jellybean shape, eunuch body
construction and diminutive ground clearance. I almost **** when I thought the Wrangler was going bye bye. Well, something must
have obviously changed because the Wrangler stayed and instead we got the Liberty, which looks like a fat RAV. I hope Jeep
doesn't **** with the Wrangler because its one of the few left that has any offroad balls.

"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message oups.com...
: This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
: like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
: range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
: in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
: capability.
:
: Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
: low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
: RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
: forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
: 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
: they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
:
: The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
: over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
: while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
: have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
: went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
: wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
: drivetrain.
:
: Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
: Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
: potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
: mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
:
: A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
: done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
: to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
: less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
: pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
: perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
: needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
: lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
:
: My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
: wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
: usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
: Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
: low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
: car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
: dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
:
: C.T.
:


  #3  
Old February 12th 05, 08:06 PM
Peter D. Hipson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ancient Styling? Then get a Liberty! That was the whole intention with
the Liberty--a vehicle for those who didn't like the simple style of
the Wrangler. Even a minor change (such as that temporary change to
non-round headlights a few years ago) is fought by Jeep owners and
affectenados <sp?> alike.

If you want mileage, get a Prius (or the Honda hybrid) and use the
Wrangler off-road only.

On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
> wrote:

>Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
>Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
>potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
>mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>


  #4  
Old February 12th 05, 08:09 PM
Hallraker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>


As I understand it, attempts to physically modify the Wrangler have been met
with harsh criticism from Jeep enthusiasts. Making it "more aerodynamic"
might alienate current customers. But I've never owned one myself, so I may
be wrong.

I know that the idea of a 250+ HP minivan would have seemed absurd just a
decade ago, but apparently people do want such things. Horsepower sells as
much now as it did in the 1960s, only now it sells across the entire model
line rather than just on the muscle cars and pony cars. On the other hand,
although I don't *need* 250+ HP in my daily driver, I've found that with
"only" 135 HP, I'm being tailgated a lot. I also have to deal with scary
merges onto the expressway, when the plodding SUV in front of me goes 25 on
the entire onramp until the final straight, and then accelerates up to
speed. At that point, I'm left with 3-5 seconds to get to about 70 MPH in a
car that takes about 11 seconds to reach 60. Not a problem if I would have
been able to use the entire onramp as intended. In that instance, I'd love
to have tons of power.

In regards to vehicle hydraulics, some of the older Subarus were available
with air shocks which could raise and lower the vehicle. I know it was
available on the XT, and perhaps also on the Legacy/Liberty. The system had
an "auto" mode which would raise/lower the car as needed, as well as a
manual override. Unfortunately, the shocks eventually would leak, and you
don't even want to know how expensive those parts were. I believe the Audi
Allroad (expensive Outback copycat) has a similar system, but I don't know
how it compares to the Subaru air shocks of 15-20 years ago.

-Matt


  #5  
Old February 12th 05, 08:50 PM
HarryS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Opinions are just that!

HarryS


"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>



  #6  
Old February 12th 05, 08:53 PM
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But, the Wrangler has been redesigned for next year:
http://www.billhughes.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O


Hallraker wrote:
>
> As I understand it, attempts to physically modify the Wrangler have been met
> with harsh criticism from Jeep enthusiasts. Making it "more aerodynamic"
> might alienate current customers. But I've never owned one myself, so I may
> be wrong.
>
> I know that the idea of a 250+ HP minivan would have seemed absurd just a
> decade ago, but apparently people do want such things. Horsepower sells as
> much now as it did in the 1960s, only now it sells across the entire model
> line rather than just on the muscle cars and pony cars. On the other hand,
> although I don't *need* 250+ HP in my daily driver, I've found that with
> "only" 135 HP, I'm being tailgated a lot. I also have to deal with scary
> merges onto the expressway, when the plodding SUV in front of me goes 25 on
> the entire onramp until the final straight, and then accelerates up to
> speed. At that point, I'm left with 3-5 seconds to get to about 70 MPH in a
> car that takes about 11 seconds to reach 60. Not a problem if I would have
> been able to use the entire onramp as intended. In that instance, I'd love
> to have tons of power.
>
> In regards to vehicle hydraulics, some of the older Subarus were available
> with air shocks which could raise and lower the vehicle. I know it was
> available on the XT, and perhaps also on the Legacy/Liberty. The system had
> an "auto" mode which would raise/lower the car as needed, as well as a
> manual override. Unfortunately, the shocks eventually would leak, and you
> don't even want to know how expensive those parts were. I believe the Audi
> Allroad (expensive Outback copycat) has a similar system, but I don't know
> how it compares to the Subaru air shocks of 15-20 years ago.
>
> -Matt

  #7  
Old February 12th 05, 09:04 PM
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Trolls, like you seem incapable of understanding that just adding a
two speed transfer case to your little economical car with knock the
hell out of any gas mileage. Think of the additional weight we must
transport, it's not just the box, it's additional frame support to take
the additional torque, plus it's drag, even though your not using low
range you're still spinning all those reduction gears. Strap an old gear
box on your bicycle and ride up a hill and tell me that doesn't cost
you.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

Carl Taylor wrote:
>
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.

  #8  
Old February 12th 05, 10:21 PM
Eric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uhh.. didn't Subaru just come out with a new 'Brat'-type vehicle??
http://www.subaru.com/servlet/showro...TrimName=TURBO

Eric
"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>



  #9  
Old February 13th 05, 12:13 AM
Nathan Otis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Didn't you post that all last year as the 2005 Wrangler redesign?
n.

"L.W. ("ßill") Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> But, the Wrangler has been redesigned for next year:
> http://www.billhughes.com/06wrangler.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>
>
> Hallraker wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, attempts to physically modify the Wrangler have been
>> met
>> with harsh criticism from Jeep enthusiasts. Making it "more aerodynamic"
>> might alienate current customers. But I've never owned one myself, so I
>> may
>> be wrong.
>>
>> I know that the idea of a 250+ HP minivan would have seemed absurd just a
>> decade ago, but apparently people do want such things. Horsepower sells
>> as
>> much now as it did in the 1960s, only now it sells across the entire
>> model
>> line rather than just on the muscle cars and pony cars. On the other
>> hand,
>> although I don't *need* 250+ HP in my daily driver, I've found that with
>> "only" 135 HP, I'm being tailgated a lot. I also have to deal with scary
>> merges onto the expressway, when the plodding SUV in front of me goes 25
>> on
>> the entire onramp until the final straight, and then accelerates up to
>> speed. At that point, I'm left with 3-5 seconds to get to about 70 MPH
>> in a
>> car that takes about 11 seconds to reach 60. Not a problem if I would
>> have
>> been able to use the entire onramp as intended. In that instance, I'd
>> love
>> to have tons of power.
>>
>> In regards to vehicle hydraulics, some of the older Subarus were
>> available
>> with air shocks which could raise and lower the vehicle. I know it was
>> available on the XT, and perhaps also on the Legacy/Liberty. The system
>> had
>> an "auto" mode which would raise/lower the car as needed, as well as a
>> manual override. Unfortunately, the shocks eventually would leak, and
>> you
>> don't even want to know how expensive those parts were. I believe the
>> Audi
>> Allroad (expensive Outback copycat) has a similar system, but I don't
>> know
>> how it compares to the Subaru air shocks of 15-20 years ago.
>>
>> -Matt



  #10  
Old February 13th 05, 12:17 AM
Warren Weber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Carl Taylor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is a request for Subaru, Jeep, Toyota, etc. to produce something
> like the old Subaru Brat, which was essentially a 4WD car with low
> range gearing. With today's engine technology it could get gas mileage
> in the low to mid 30s on the highway, while having true off-road
> capability.
>
> Today's options are limited to "cute utes" or "soft utes" which lack
> low range and are designated AWD rather than 4WD (Honda CR-V, Toyota
> RAV-4, Ford Escape, and so on). To get offroad-capable 4WD, you're
> forced to buy a truck or SUV that can only get MPG in the teens to low
> 20s. There are plenty of conservationists who want to go off-road and
> they shouldn't have to buy a bloated rig.
>
> The 2005 Toyota Tacomas and Nissan Frontiers show the trend toward size
> over efficiency. Engineers managed to maintain mediocre fuel mileage
> while making them as big as possible (using vvt, etc.) , but they could
> have made them smaller, more agile and more efficient. A truck that
> went from compact to midsize and became 5" wider with a 10" longer
> wheelbase is not "better" off-road just because of a fancy new
> drivetrain.
>
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic. I see a lot of
> potential for redesigning the Wrangler into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
>
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis. We need to stop building bigger engines just
> to move bigger trucks or satisfy high school egos. People did fine with
> less before they were hyped into "needing" 200+ HP to keep up with the
> pack. For nitwits, tailgating someone on a 7% grade at 80 MPH may be
> perceived as vital, but when you're off-road, excessive power is rarely
> needed. Low-end torque (relative to body weight) is more important, and
> lighter vehicles need less of it. Smaller engines reduce weight also.
>
> My perfect vehicle would have AWD aspects (auto torque split based on
> wheel spin) but would also be a tough off-roader with at least 9" of
> usable ground clearance; not just at the high points. The current
> Subaru Outback is rated at over 8" of clearance but the frame sits too
> low to make that very useful. I also see a practical use for ghetto
> car-hopping technology. They could use hydraulics to lift the frame on
> dirt roads and drop it back down for aerodynamics on pavement.
>
> C.T.
>


I would like to have my 67 289ci bronco again. Only change I would want is a
4 instead of a 3 speed gear box. Never let me stranded, close one time in a
bog up to the doors. W W


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler Carl Taylor 4x4 26 March 6th 05 08:06 AM
Saturn rear-ended at low speed, but back still hurts Rich Wales Saturn 0 October 27th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.