Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
#21
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.
>
#22
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.
>
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Didn't you post that all last year as the 2005 Wrangler redesign?
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Didn't you post that all last year as the 2005 Wrangler redesign?
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Didn't you post that all last year as the 2005 Wrangler redesign?
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
n.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:420E5EBE.2DD89931@***.net...
> 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
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
"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.
>
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
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
"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.
>
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
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
"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.
>
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
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
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.
You shouldn't be looking at Wranglers if you don't like they way they
look. The Wrangler looks like a Jeep, just like it is supposed to.
Ever watch a WWII movie? I was thinking my windshield has too much
angle to it, for a Jeep ('05).
> I see a lot of potential for redesigning the Wrangler
It doesn't need a redesign. That's why they put the round headlights
back! :-)
> into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
Just using a diesel instead of the 4.0L would get good mileage.
Driving slower gets better mileage too, even for aerodynamic vehicles.
While I wouldn't mind spending less money on gas, I don't want a weak
ricer in my Jeep and I want my Jeep to look like a Jeep.
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis.
I read that the old CJs had ~60-80 HP in their engines. The
difference is they had the torque they needed.
-D
--
No harm befalls the righteous,
but the wicked have their fill of trouble.
Proverbs 12:21
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic.
You shouldn't be looking at Wranglers if you don't like they way they
look. The Wrangler looks like a Jeep, just like it is supposed to.
Ever watch a WWII movie? I was thinking my windshield has too much
angle to it, for a Jeep ('05).
> I see a lot of potential for redesigning the Wrangler
It doesn't need a redesign. That's why they put the round headlights
back! :-)
> into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
Just using a diesel instead of the 4.0L would get good mileage.
Driving slower gets better mileage too, even for aerodynamic vehicles.
While I wouldn't mind spending less money on gas, I don't want a weak
ricer in my Jeep and I want my Jeep to look like a Jeep.
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis.
I read that the old CJs had ~60-80 HP in their engines. The
difference is they had the torque they needed.
-D
--
No harm befalls the righteous,
but the wicked have their fill of trouble.
Proverbs 12:21
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
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.
You shouldn't be looking at Wranglers if you don't like they way they
look. The Wrangler looks like a Jeep, just like it is supposed to.
Ever watch a WWII movie? I was thinking my windshield has too much
angle to it, for a Jeep ('05).
> I see a lot of potential for redesigning the Wrangler
It doesn't need a redesign. That's why they put the round headlights
back! :-)
> into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
Just using a diesel instead of the 4.0L would get good mileage.
Driving slower gets better mileage too, even for aerodynamic vehicles.
While I wouldn't mind spending less money on gas, I don't want a weak
ricer in my Jeep and I want my Jeep to look like a Jeep.
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis.
I read that the old CJs had ~60-80 HP in their engines. The
difference is they had the torque they needed.
-D
--
No harm befalls the righteous,
but the wicked have their fill of trouble.
Proverbs 12:21
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
> Jeeps, including the Liberty, are still gas guzzlers and the ancient
> Wrangler styling could be made a lot more aerodynamic.
You shouldn't be looking at Wranglers if you don't like they way they
look. The Wrangler looks like a Jeep, just like it is supposed to.
Ever watch a WWII movie? I was thinking my windshield has too much
angle to it, for a Jeep ('05).
> I see a lot of potential for redesigning the Wrangler
It doesn't need a redesign. That's why they put the round headlights
back! :-)
> into something that could manage
> mid to upper 20s MPG and wouldn't even have to be a hybrid.
Just using a diesel instead of the 4.0L would get good mileage.
Driving slower gets better mileage too, even for aerodynamic vehicles.
While I wouldn't mind spending less money on gas, I don't want a weak
ricer in my Jeep and I want my Jeep to look like a Jeep.
> A powerplant with "only" 150 HP and similar torque could get the job
> done in the right chassis.
I read that the old CJs had ~60-80 HP in their engines. The
difference is they had the torque they needed.
-D
--
No harm befalls the righteous,
but the wicked have their fill of trouble.
Proverbs 12:21
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org