Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Opinions are just that!
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Opinions are just that!
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Opinions are just that!
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
HarryS
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
But, the Wrangler has been redesigned for next year:
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
But, the Wrangler has been redesigned for next year:
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
But, the Wrangler has been redesigned for next year:
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
http://www.----------.com/06wrangler.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
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
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
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
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.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.
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Uhh.. didn't Subaru just come out with a new 'Brat'-type vehicle??
http://www.subaru.com/servlet/showro...TrimName=TURBO
Eric
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>
http://www.subaru.com/servlet/showro...TrimName=TURBO
Eric
"Carl Taylor" <carl.taylor@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:1108228903.613319.209440@f14g2000cwb.googlegr 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.
>