Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
02-13-2005, 12:00 AM
#31
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
02-13-2005, 12:18 AM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
02-13-2005, 12:18 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
02-13-2005, 12:18 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
Matt
Doo owner
Manta owner
On 12 Feb 2005 09:21:43 -0800, "Carl Taylor"
<carl.taylor@altavista.com> 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.
02-13-2005, 08:12 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:18:04 -0800, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
02-13-2005, 08:12 AM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:18:04 -0800, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
02-13-2005, 08:12 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:18:04 -0800, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:
>How about the Jeep Liberty with the new diesel engine option?
The Liberty has independent front suspension, and is not intended for
actual off-roading beyond dirt roads. It is, however, quite popular
with the soccer mom who is too politically correct for a Suburban, in
my area.
Plus, the roof is welded on! <G>
Barry
02-13-2005, 10:51 AM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Yeah, and it's a flop.
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
02-13-2005, 10:51 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Yeah, and it's a flop.
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
02-13-2005, 10:51 AM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
Yeah, and it's a flop.
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
"Eric" <gymrat@baileyscorner.com> wrote in message
news:0ruPd.52022$uA.50566@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> 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.
>>
>
>
