Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
02-13-2005, 03:08 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:03:07 +1300, "dundee" <far_canel@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>isn't the hummer independent front.?
Right. Have you compared tires and ground clearance?
I have a Subaru Outback and a '99 TJ. The Outback actually has better
center clearance than a Liberty, even slightly more than the TJ, as
there isn't a pumpkin. There are places the Outback excels, if it
had a low range in the transfer case (center diff in this case), there
would be more.
However, nothing gets over rocks and in and out of holes like the TJ's
solid axles.
Remember when Jeep dropped the Liberty's ride height 1/2" so the
soccer moms wouldn't flip them?
Barry
wrote:
>isn't the hummer independent front.?
Right. Have you compared tires and ground clearance?
I have a Subaru Outback and a '99 TJ. The Outback actually has better
center clearance than a Liberty, even slightly more than the TJ, as
there isn't a pumpkin. There are places the Outback excels, if it
had a low range in the transfer case (center diff in this case), there
would be more.
However, nothing gets over rocks and in and out of holes like the TJ's
solid axles.
Remember when Jeep dropped the Liberty's ride height 1/2" so the
soccer moms wouldn't flip them?
Barry
02-13-2005, 03:10 PM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:46:38 -0800, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
02-13-2005, 03:10 PM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:46:38 -0800, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
02-13-2005, 03:10 PM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:46:38 -0800, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
wrote:
> Feh. You can drive a Volvo on dirt roads, troll.
Of course, people who disagree with you are always trolls.
My Outback, the mate to my Jeep, is quite similar to a Volvo, so I
agree with your point.
Barry
02-13-2005, 11:44 PM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
I kinda like it.. but haven't driven one. I wonder if the turbo made any
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
02-13-2005, 11:44 PM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
I kinda like it.. but haven't driven one. I wonder if the turbo made any
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
02-13-2005, 11:44 PM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bring back the Brat or modernize the Wrangler
I kinda like it.. but haven't driven one. I wonder if the turbo made any
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
difference in sales...
Eric
"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cunt3t0na1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>