"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:p82dnWzoEJHB7KDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Like I said, If a product maker can't compete, they won't be making
>> products. You've never run your own business, I gather.
>
> I am part owner of a transportation company that opened its doors in 1931.
> However, this is a service-based company; we don't produce durable goods,
> so perhaps my perspective is biased.

Service is a lot different from manufacturing or retail.

>
> A couple of our employees have actually bought new '06 Rubicons and have
> stored them for their kids (ages 9 and 11) as gifts when they graduate
> High School. They feel as I do: These ARE the good old days, and they
> like products and concepts that stand the test of time, and are willing to
> support this belief with cash on the barrelhead.

That's great, but buying a vehicle to just put in storage for 7-9 years?
Good luck on warranty issues. Instead of investing in a depreciating asset,
they'd do better to put the money in a 529 account for the kids' college
tuition and wait till they graduate to find an '06 Rubicon on the used
market, it will be a LOT less expensive. But hey, it's their money.

>
> Also of interest, I have an Uncle who has recently finished restoring a
> '57 ****** and he too, has stored it for his nephew (age 8) as a gift when
> he turns 18. The boy has seen this beautiful V-8 powered grey beast and
> loves it, and he is eager for his inheritance.
>
My son will be getting my '00 TJ when he gets his license (he's 11) but he
does not know that yet.

> As a friend said once, "Newer aint' better."

Sometimes, it ain't. Sometimes it is.

I understand that
> carmakers must make money in order to offer products like this. I
> disagree however, that niche products like Jeep Wranglers must endure a
> redesign/freshing every X years to remain in production.

Seems like D-C want Wranglers to become more than a niche product. More
power to them. The more they sell, the better the aftermarket is and the
longer they will be able to make them.

Part of the redesigning has to do with marketing of course, but part of it
has to do with (a) staying competitive with the other products out there and
(b) updating Federal safety requirements. The TJ woudn't pass uncoming side
impact safety standards or new emissions requirements. Do you think an '86
CJ would pass modern standards?

I'd like to
> believe that the American public will go out of their way to support
> wonderful, iconic, American-built products like this and demand that
> changes never see the CAD screen, but this is not something that will
> happen in my lifetime.

The American public is a fickle beast. Manufacturers don't stay competitive,
and they disappear.

 

"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:p82dnWzoEJHB7KDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Like I said, If a product maker can't compete, they won't be making
>> products. You've never run your own business, I gather.
>
> I am part owner of a transportation company that opened its doors in 1931.
> However, this is a service-based company; we don't produce durable goods,
> so perhaps my perspective is biased.

Service is a lot different from manufacturing or retail.

>
> A couple of our employees have actually bought new '06 Rubicons and have
> stored them for their kids (ages 9 and 11) as gifts when they graduate
> High School. They feel as I do: These ARE the good old days, and they
> like products and concepts that stand the test of time, and are willing to
> support this belief with cash on the barrelhead.

That's great, but buying a vehicle to just put in storage for 7-9 years?
Good luck on warranty issues. Instead of investing in a depreciating asset,
they'd do better to put the money in a 529 account for the kids' college
tuition and wait till they graduate to find an '06 Rubicon on the used
market, it will be a LOT less expensive. But hey, it's their money.

>
> Also of interest, I have an Uncle who has recently finished restoring a
> '57 ****** and he too, has stored it for his nephew (age 8) as a gift when
> he turns 18. The boy has seen this beautiful V-8 powered grey beast and
> loves it, and he is eager for his inheritance.
>
My son will be getting my '00 TJ when he gets his license (he's 11) but he
does not know that yet.

> As a friend said once, "Newer aint' better."

Sometimes, it ain't. Sometimes it is.

I understand that
> carmakers must make money in order to offer products like this. I
> disagree however, that niche products like Jeep Wranglers must endure a
> redesign/freshing every X years to remain in production.

Seems like D-C want Wranglers to become more than a niche product. More
power to them. The more they sell, the better the aftermarket is and the
longer they will be able to make them.

Part of the redesigning has to do with marketing of course, but part of it
has to do with (a) staying competitive with the other products out there and
(b) updating Federal safety requirements. The TJ woudn't pass uncoming side
impact safety standards or new emissions requirements. Do you think an '86
CJ would pass modern standards?

I'd like to
> believe that the American public will go out of their way to support
> wonderful, iconic, American-built products like this and demand that
> changes never see the CAD screen, but this is not something that will
> happen in my lifetime.

The American public is a fickle beast. Manufacturers don't stay competitive,
and they disappear.

 

"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:p82dnWzoEJHB7KDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Like I said, If a product maker can't compete, they won't be making
>> products. You've never run your own business, I gather.
>
> I am part owner of a transportation company that opened its doors in 1931.
> However, this is a service-based company; we don't produce durable goods,
> so perhaps my perspective is biased.

Service is a lot different from manufacturing or retail.

>
> A couple of our employees have actually bought new '06 Rubicons and have
> stored them for their kids (ages 9 and 11) as gifts when they graduate
> High School. They feel as I do: These ARE the good old days, and they
> like products and concepts that stand the test of time, and are willing to
> support this belief with cash on the barrelhead.

That's great, but buying a vehicle to just put in storage for 7-9 years?
Good luck on warranty issues. Instead of investing in a depreciating asset,
they'd do better to put the money in a 529 account for the kids' college
tuition and wait till they graduate to find an '06 Rubicon on the used
market, it will be a LOT less expensive. But hey, it's their money.

>
> Also of interest, I have an Uncle who has recently finished restoring a
> '57 ****** and he too, has stored it for his nephew (age 8) as a gift when
> he turns 18. The boy has seen this beautiful V-8 powered grey beast and
> loves it, and he is eager for his inheritance.
>
My son will be getting my '00 TJ when he gets his license (he's 11) but he
does not know that yet.

> As a friend said once, "Newer aint' better."

Sometimes, it ain't. Sometimes it is.

I understand that
> carmakers must make money in order to offer products like this. I
> disagree however, that niche products like Jeep Wranglers must endure a
> redesign/freshing every X years to remain in production.

Seems like D-C want Wranglers to become more than a niche product. More
power to them. The more they sell, the better the aftermarket is and the
longer they will be able to make them.

Part of the redesigning has to do with marketing of course, but part of it
has to do with (a) staying competitive with the other products out there and
(b) updating Federal safety requirements. The TJ woudn't pass uncoming side
impact safety standards or new emissions requirements. Do you think an '86
CJ would pass modern standards?

I'd like to
> believe that the American public will go out of their way to support
> wonderful, iconic, American-built products like this and demand that
> changes never see the CAD screen, but this is not something that will
> happen in my lifetime.

The American public is a fickle beast. Manufacturers don't stay competitive,
and they disappear.

 

Well, I love my TJ, coil springs included.
However, I'd like it more if it had stuff my Land Rover Series 2A had in
1970.

a) I could put 1/2 a ton in the back.
b) I could wash it out with a hose
c) It came with a lockable metal cabinet somewhere (Land Rover Series 2A had
them under the passenger seat)
d) It had a power take off for a winch
e) It had decent hubs, preferably fully floating
f) A decent rear bumper or cross member
g) Tow hooks. For pity's sake, it doesn't even come with decent tow hooks !

Some other things the Land Rover didn't have

h) a better front axle than the Dana 30 (yeah, I know the Rubicon has 44s,
but they don't sell it here).
i) A rollcage that would inspire a little more confidence

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

"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:KPWdnXlih8vApqHYnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Kate wrote:
> Change is good when it replaces something worse. There isn't anything
> wrong with the TJ model. The bugs are finally worked out, they're
> attractive and ultra-durable, and even have a comfortable ride.

 

Well, I love my TJ, coil springs included.
However, I'd like it more if it had stuff my Land Rover Series 2A had in
1970.

a) I could put 1/2 a ton in the back.
b) I could wash it out with a hose
c) It came with a lockable metal cabinet somewhere (Land Rover Series 2A had
them under the passenger seat)
d) It had a power take off for a winch
e) It had decent hubs, preferably fully floating
f) A decent rear bumper or cross member
g) Tow hooks. For pity's sake, it doesn't even come with decent tow hooks !

Some other things the Land Rover didn't have

h) a better front axle than the Dana 30 (yeah, I know the Rubicon has 44s,
but they don't sell it here).
i) A rollcage that would inspire a little more confidence

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

"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:KPWdnXlih8vApqHYnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Kate wrote:
> Change is good when it replaces something worse. There isn't anything
> wrong with the TJ model. The bugs are finally worked out, they're
> attractive and ultra-durable, and even have a comfortable ride.

 

Well, I love my TJ, coil springs included.
However, I'd like it more if it had stuff my Land Rover Series 2A had in
1970.

a) I could put 1/2 a ton in the back.
b) I could wash it out with a hose
c) It came with a lockable metal cabinet somewhere (Land Rover Series 2A had
them under the passenger seat)
d) It had a power take off for a winch
e) It had decent hubs, preferably fully floating
f) A decent rear bumper or cross member
g) Tow hooks. For pity's sake, it doesn't even come with decent tow hooks !

Some other things the Land Rover didn't have

h) a better front axle than the Dana 30 (yeah, I know the Rubicon has 44s,
but they don't sell it here).
i) A rollcage that would inspire a little more confidence

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

"Outatime" <WhoKnows@here.com> wrote in message
news:KPWdnXlih8vApqHYnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@softcom.net. ..
> Kate wrote:
> Change is good when it replaces something worse. There isn't anything
> wrong with the TJ model. The bugs are finally worked out, they're
> attractive and ultra-durable, and even have a comfortable ride.

 

Wild is not the word I'd use... too damn big is more to the point.

I really wanted to like these things but so far I'm disappointed. Guess
I'll keep driving my old XJ for another 300k.

Jeff DeWitt

Brian wrote:
> What I think is wild is that the 4-door Wrangler is bigger in every way
> than my XJ. It's noticeable longer, wider, taller. Personally, I
> wouldn't want anything bigger than the XJ, except a truck for reasons of
> hauling stuff. The XJ is a decent size for a family hauler.
>
> B

 

Wild is not the word I'd use... too damn big is more to the point.

I really wanted to like these things but so far I'm disappointed. Guess
I'll keep driving my old XJ for another 300k.

Jeff DeWitt

Brian wrote:
> What I think is wild is that the 4-door Wrangler is bigger in every way
> than my XJ. It's noticeable longer, wider, taller. Personally, I
> wouldn't want anything bigger than the XJ, except a truck for reasons of
> hauling stuff. The XJ is a decent size for a family hauler.
>
> B

 

Wild is not the word I'd use... too damn big is more to the point.

I really wanted to like these things but so far I'm disappointed. Guess
I'll keep driving my old XJ for another 300k.

Jeff DeWitt

Brian wrote:
> What I think is wild is that the 4-door Wrangler is bigger in every way
> than my XJ. It's noticeable longer, wider, taller. Personally, I
> wouldn't want anything bigger than the XJ, except a truck for reasons of
> hauling stuff. The XJ is a decent size for a family hauler.
>
> B

 

> Personally, I
> wouldn't want anything bigger than the XJ, except a truck for reasons of
> hauling stuff. The XJ is a decent size for a family hauler.

Yes, and they've now corrected the Liberty's ugly body style for 2008 to
make it more like and XJ. Without the SFA though.