New Jeep Grand Chicory

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

Geoff proclaimed:

>
> 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.

It looks more like a ZJ to me than a WJ.... if a bunch of Mitsupussy
designers got drunk and tried to draw a ZJ you'd pretty much get the
new Grand.

Geoff proclaimed:

>
> 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.

It looks more like a ZJ to me than a WJ.... if a bunch of Mitsupussy
designers got drunk and tried to draw a ZJ you'd pretty much get the
new Grand.

Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>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!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>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".

I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.

Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>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!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>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".

I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, DudLee Brennfoerder wrote:

> GM now selling the I5

Yeah, shame about what they're wrapping around it.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, DudLee Brennfoerder wrote:

> GM now selling the I5

Yeah, shame about what they're wrapping around it.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)

>
>
>>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".

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)

>
>
>>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".

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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

And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.

>
> 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?

My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.

> 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?

Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.