So it wasn't AMC that designed the YJ with that cheap-*** failure-prone weak
French Peugeot BA-10 transmission and it wasn't AMC either that dropped the
Dana 44 and began using that weak Dana 35c tranny??? It was Chrysler that
at least brought the venerable Dana 44 rear axle back and made it available
again and dumped the Peugeot POS tranny in favor of the much stronger AX-15.
Sure, AMC was just the most brilliant organization... so brilliant that it's
Jeep sales had the most dramatic drop off of almost any vehicle that didn't
go belly-up. Chrysler took a failing vehicle that was ready to go belly-up
and look at it now... a robust vehicle with the TJ one of the best ever
performing off-road Jeeps ever.

Now go crawl back into your hole troll.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AquPc.165856$OB3.82615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm sure many are tired of hearing me cutting Chrysler, and praising
> AMC...it's just that I have some strong feelings. The Jeep concept was
> purely an American development. The little Jeep was given much credit for
> helping to win WW II. Jeep went thru several owners, but kept its
original
> basic intent and concept intact. Kaiser did well by Jeep. AMC took Jeep
> many steps forward, but without screwing up and burying the original Jeep
> intent. Along comes a foreign manufactuer, and according to chrysler, is
> intent on making the Jeep more car-like. When Chrysler redesigned AMC's
> grand cherokee, chrysler said they were making the gas tank smaller and
> reducing the departure angle because women said they needed more space in
> back for groceries. And IFS because they wanted to make the liberty more
> car-like. Duh. There are countless examples. My brand-new, frameless,
> all-AMC '87 Comanche is a much better vehicle than my AMC- designed,
> chrysler-built '95 JGC, which had over $5,500 in maintenance by the time
it
> had 9000 miles. I could go on, but......(and the TJ has AMC front
> suspension.) (there I go again...)
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:410E57BE.7835ABAC@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the Jeep label, same as the TJ.
> >
> > Time to get used to it too, attnews.
> > ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > attnews wrote:
> > >
> > > keep in mind that the liberty is not really a Jeep, not in anyway,
> except
> > > for the name that Krysler stuck on it. might investigate a good used
> > > cherokee, which was done by a completely different sent of engineering
> (and
> > > styling) parameters, by a different manufacturer. . The liberty is
> > > tip-prone by krysler's own admission, due to faulty (ignorant?)
design
> > > parameters. IF you can stand the styling (?) gawkiness and weird
> proportions
> > > and irrelevent dips and bulges and odd angles, then the liberty just
> might
> > > be for you. but please don't refer to it as Jeep. It is not.
> > > "j.lef" <j.lef@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2xcPc.4246$uk3.2178@trndny06...
> > > > Sorry if this is wrong newsgroup for posting this
> > > > message. I need a fairly small vehicle, that has got to get me to
> work
> > > > everyday without fail no matter the weather. I live in the
northeast,
> but
> > > > not too far north(one of the mid atlantic states). We can get heavy
> snow,
> > > > sleet and rain.
> > > > I have looked at the rav 4 , and the jeep liberty.
I
> am
> > > > looking at the automatic trannie only. I am leaning towards the
> liberty
> > > > sport because of the greater room behind the front seats, for
storing
> > > gear.
> > > > I have test driven them both, but only in city
> driving,
> > > > couldnt get the dealership to get to a highway with them.(but that
is
> > > > another story)
> > > >
> > > > 1) The rav four seemed excellent in fit and finish. The engine
> seemed
> > > > smooth and the car felt great, except its a little cramped for
space.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The jeep engine felt sound, but not as refined. The car also
felt
> to
> > > not
> > > > handle as well .
> > > >
> > > > Questions:
> > > > From your experiences, what has the dependibility of newer jeep
> > > liberty
> > > > 4wd vehicles have been? I cant afford to have a vehicle that is
> > > constantly
> > > > in the shop. If I dont get to work on time, It is serious.
> > > >
> > > > Is the highway driving that bad? From reading reviews
they
> talk
> > > > about the stiff drive, because the jeep is also a serious off
roader,
> and
> > > > thus comprimised. I am willing to compromise a bit, because when it
> snows
> > > > and sleets at three in the mourning, I have no choice but to be in
the
> > > > vehicle driving to or from work. I do like the jeeps rear room.
> > > >
> > > > So any actual experiences would be appreciated. One
> other
> > > > reason is that the wife actually likes the way the jeep fits her
body.
> She
> > > > is short, and she also likes the visibility on the jeep.
> > > >
> > > > This is a tough decision. I have a parking
> > > situation
> > > > at work, thus I cant bring my larger suv to work.
> > > > Looked at the honda crv, and the pedals are too far away for wife.
> > > >
> > > > So please help me
> out..LOL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
>
>

 

So it wasn't AMC that designed the YJ with that cheap-*** failure-prone weak
French Peugeot BA-10 transmission and it wasn't AMC either that dropped the
Dana 44 and began using that weak Dana 35c tranny??? It was Chrysler that
at least brought the venerable Dana 44 rear axle back and made it available
again and dumped the Peugeot POS tranny in favor of the much stronger AX-15.
Sure, AMC was just the most brilliant organization... so brilliant that it's
Jeep sales had the most dramatic drop off of almost any vehicle that didn't
go belly-up. Chrysler took a failing vehicle that was ready to go belly-up
and look at it now... a robust vehicle with the TJ one of the best ever
performing off-road Jeeps ever.

Now go crawl back into your hole troll.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AquPc.165856$OB3.82615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm sure many are tired of hearing me cutting Chrysler, and praising
> AMC...it's just that I have some strong feelings. The Jeep concept was
> purely an American development. The little Jeep was given much credit for
> helping to win WW II. Jeep went thru several owners, but kept its
original
> basic intent and concept intact. Kaiser did well by Jeep. AMC took Jeep
> many steps forward, but without screwing up and burying the original Jeep
> intent. Along comes a foreign manufactuer, and according to chrysler, is
> intent on making the Jeep more car-like. When Chrysler redesigned AMC's
> grand cherokee, chrysler said they were making the gas tank smaller and
> reducing the departure angle because women said they needed more space in
> back for groceries. And IFS because they wanted to make the liberty more
> car-like. Duh. There are countless examples. My brand-new, frameless,
> all-AMC '87 Comanche is a much better vehicle than my AMC- designed,
> chrysler-built '95 JGC, which had over $5,500 in maintenance by the time
it
> had 9000 miles. I could go on, but......(and the TJ has AMC front
> suspension.) (there I go again...)
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:410E57BE.7835ABAC@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the Jeep label, same as the TJ.
> >
> > Time to get used to it too, attnews.
> > ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > attnews wrote:
> > >
> > > keep in mind that the liberty is not really a Jeep, not in anyway,
> except
> > > for the name that Krysler stuck on it. might investigate a good used
> > > cherokee, which was done by a completely different sent of engineering
> (and
> > > styling) parameters, by a different manufacturer. . The liberty is
> > > tip-prone by krysler's own admission, due to faulty (ignorant?)
design
> > > parameters. IF you can stand the styling (?) gawkiness and weird
> proportions
> > > and irrelevent dips and bulges and odd angles, then the liberty just
> might
> > > be for you. but please don't refer to it as Jeep. It is not.
> > > "j.lef" <j.lef@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2xcPc.4246$uk3.2178@trndny06...
> > > > Sorry if this is wrong newsgroup for posting this
> > > > message. I need a fairly small vehicle, that has got to get me to
> work
> > > > everyday without fail no matter the weather. I live in the
northeast,
> but
> > > > not too far north(one of the mid atlantic states). We can get heavy
> snow,
> > > > sleet and rain.
> > > > I have looked at the rav 4 , and the jeep liberty.
I
> am
> > > > looking at the automatic trannie only. I am leaning towards the
> liberty
> > > > sport because of the greater room behind the front seats, for
storing
> > > gear.
> > > > I have test driven them both, but only in city
> driving,
> > > > couldnt get the dealership to get to a highway with them.(but that
is
> > > > another story)
> > > >
> > > > 1) The rav four seemed excellent in fit and finish. The engine
> seemed
> > > > smooth and the car felt great, except its a little cramped for
space.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The jeep engine felt sound, but not as refined. The car also
felt
> to
> > > not
> > > > handle as well .
> > > >
> > > > Questions:
> > > > From your experiences, what has the dependibility of newer jeep
> > > liberty
> > > > 4wd vehicles have been? I cant afford to have a vehicle that is
> > > constantly
> > > > in the shop. If I dont get to work on time, It is serious.
> > > >
> > > > Is the highway driving that bad? From reading reviews
they
> talk
> > > > about the stiff drive, because the jeep is also a serious off
roader,
> and
> > > > thus comprimised. I am willing to compromise a bit, because when it
> snows
> > > > and sleets at three in the mourning, I have no choice but to be in
the
> > > > vehicle driving to or from work. I do like the jeeps rear room.
> > > >
> > > > So any actual experiences would be appreciated. One
> other
> > > > reason is that the wife actually likes the way the jeep fits her
body.
> She
> > > > is short, and she also likes the visibility on the jeep.
> > > >
> > > > This is a tough decision. I have a parking
> > > situation
> > > > at work, thus I cant bring my larger suv to work.
> > > > Looked at the honda crv, and the pedals are too far away for wife.
> > > >
> > > > So please help me
> out..LOL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
>
>

 

So it wasn't AMC that designed the YJ with that cheap-*** failure-prone weak
French Peugeot BA-10 transmission and it wasn't AMC either that dropped the
Dana 44 and began using that weak Dana 35c tranny??? It was Chrysler that
at least brought the venerable Dana 44 rear axle back and made it available
again and dumped the Peugeot POS tranny in favor of the much stronger AX-15.
Sure, AMC was just the most brilliant organization... so brilliant that it's
Jeep sales had the most dramatic drop off of almost any vehicle that didn't
go belly-up. Chrysler took a failing vehicle that was ready to go belly-up
and look at it now... a robust vehicle with the TJ one of the best ever
performing off-road Jeeps ever.

Now go crawl back into your hole troll.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:AquPc.165856$OB3.82615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm sure many are tired of hearing me cutting Chrysler, and praising
> AMC...it's just that I have some strong feelings. The Jeep concept was
> purely an American development. The little Jeep was given much credit for
> helping to win WW II. Jeep went thru several owners, but kept its
original
> basic intent and concept intact. Kaiser did well by Jeep. AMC took Jeep
> many steps forward, but without screwing up and burying the original Jeep
> intent. Along comes a foreign manufactuer, and according to chrysler, is
> intent on making the Jeep more car-like. When Chrysler redesigned AMC's
> grand cherokee, chrysler said they were making the gas tank smaller and
> reducing the departure angle because women said they needed more space in
> back for groceries. And IFS because they wanted to make the liberty more
> car-like. Duh. There are countless examples. My brand-new, frameless,
> all-AMC '87 Comanche is a much better vehicle than my AMC- designed,
> chrysler-built '95 JGC, which had over $5,500 in maintenance by the time
it
> had 9000 miles. I could go on, but......(and the TJ has AMC front
> suspension.) (there I go again...)
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:410E57BE.7835ABAC@sympatico.ca...
> > It has the Jeep label, same as the TJ.
> >
> > Time to get used to it too, attnews.
> > ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > attnews wrote:
> > >
> > > keep in mind that the liberty is not really a Jeep, not in anyway,
> except
> > > for the name that Krysler stuck on it. might investigate a good used
> > > cherokee, which was done by a completely different sent of engineering
> (and
> > > styling) parameters, by a different manufacturer. . The liberty is
> > > tip-prone by krysler's own admission, due to faulty (ignorant?)
design
> > > parameters. IF you can stand the styling (?) gawkiness and weird
> proportions
> > > and irrelevent dips and bulges and odd angles, then the liberty just
> might
> > > be for you. but please don't refer to it as Jeep. It is not.
> > > "j.lef" <j.lef@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:2xcPc.4246$uk3.2178@trndny06...
> > > > Sorry if this is wrong newsgroup for posting this
> > > > message. I need a fairly small vehicle, that has got to get me to
> work
> > > > everyday without fail no matter the weather. I live in the
northeast,
> but
> > > > not too far north(one of the mid atlantic states). We can get heavy
> snow,
> > > > sleet and rain.
> > > > I have looked at the rav 4 , and the jeep liberty.
I
> am
> > > > looking at the automatic trannie only. I am leaning towards the
> liberty
> > > > sport because of the greater room behind the front seats, for
storing
> > > gear.
> > > > I have test driven them both, but only in city
> driving,
> > > > couldnt get the dealership to get to a highway with them.(but that
is
> > > > another story)
> > > >
> > > > 1) The rav four seemed excellent in fit and finish. The engine
> seemed
> > > > smooth and the car felt great, except its a little cramped for
space.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The jeep engine felt sound, but not as refined. The car also
felt
> to
> > > not
> > > > handle as well .
> > > >
> > > > Questions:
> > > > From your experiences, what has the dependibility of newer jeep
> > > liberty
> > > > 4wd vehicles have been? I cant afford to have a vehicle that is
> > > constantly
> > > > in the shop. If I dont get to work on time, It is serious.
> > > >
> > > > Is the highway driving that bad? From reading reviews
they
> talk
> > > > about the stiff drive, because the jeep is also a serious off
roader,
> and
> > > > thus comprimised. I am willing to compromise a bit, because when it
> snows
> > > > and sleets at three in the mourning, I have no choice but to be in
the
> > > > vehicle driving to or from work. I do like the jeeps rear room.
> > > >
> > > > So any actual experiences would be appreciated. One
> other
> > > > reason is that the wife actually likes the way the jeep fits her
body.
> She
> > > > is short, and she also likes the visibility on the jeep.
> > > >
> > > > This is a tough decision. I have a parking
> > > situation
> > > > at work, thus I cant bring my larger suv to work.
> > > > Looked at the honda crv, and the pedals are too far away for wife.
> > > >
> > > > So please help me
> out..LOL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
>
>

 

Barry Bean wrote:
> Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in news:celsc6$93u$1
> @daisy.noc.ucla.edu:
>
>
>>j.lef wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This car will almost never be taken off road. 98 percent of
>>>time will be on paved roads.
>>
>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>
>
> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>
> 1) Personal preference
no 'sense' involved here ;o)

> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
rent

> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
... and much easier to roll over...

> 4) hauling/towing capacity
yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ? :o[

> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
SUV or not...

> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
see #3

lukasz
happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

 

Barry Bean wrote:
> Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in news:celsc6$93u$1
> @daisy.noc.ucla.edu:
>
>
>>j.lef wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This car will almost never be taken off road. 98 percent of
>>>time will be on paved roads.
>>
>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>
>
> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>
> 1) Personal preference
no 'sense' involved here ;o)

> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
rent

> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
... and much easier to roll over...

> 4) hauling/towing capacity
yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ? :o[

> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
SUV or not...

> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
see #3

lukasz
happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

 

Barry Bean wrote:
> Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in news:celsc6$93u$1
> @daisy.noc.ucla.edu:
>
>
>>j.lef wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This car will almost never be taken off road. 98 percent of
>>>time will be on paved roads.
>>
>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>
>
> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>
> 1) Personal preference
no 'sense' involved here ;o)

> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
rent

> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
... and much easier to roll over...

> 4) hauling/towing capacity
yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ? :o[

> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
SUV or not...

> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
see #3

lukasz
happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

 

Barry Bean wrote:
> Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in news:celsc6$93u$1
> @daisy.noc.ucla.edu:
>
>
>>j.lef wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This car will almost never be taken off road. 98 percent of
>>>time will be on paved roads.
>>
>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>
>
> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>
> 1) Personal preference
no 'sense' involved here ;o)

> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
rent

> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
... and much easier to roll over...

> 4) hauling/towing capacity
yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ? :o[

> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
SUV or not...

> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
see #3

lukasz
happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

 

Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in
news:ceml55$llg$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu:

>>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>>
>>
>> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>>
>> 1) Personal preference
> no 'sense' involved here ;o)

It makes perfect sense to drive a vehicle that meets my personal needs
and that I enjoy.

>> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
> rent

LOL! This assumes that rentals are available and off road needs are
preedictable. Would you seriously suggest that Thursday afternoon at 4
when my farm hand calls me and tells me he's broke down at the back end
of the farm, I should run out and rent a 4X4 instead of simply driving
back to pick him up? Remember, not all off road driving is a recreational
rock crawl.

>> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
> ... and much easier to roll over...

Given the option is a lower car that doesn't offer the same view of the
road or visibility, and is lighter and less safe in a head on collision,
I'd say the trade off is 6 of one or a half dozen of the other. Since I
know a tal vehicle is more likely to roll over, I drive in ways that
minimize that danger.

>> 4) hauling/towing capacity
> yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

I'd be the one to decide that, wouldn't I?

>> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
> huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ?

Yes I have. I owned a Cherokee from 1987 through 1996. Took a lot of road
trips in it, and hauled a lot of passengers in the back seat. I've also
owned or driven at least 8 other SUVs, including the one I drive now, and
have always found the back seats to be more spacious and comfortable than
those in most of the cars I've ridde n in.

>> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
> ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
> SUV or not...

As in my SUV will go anywhere on dry pavement that a car will, but will
also go many places a car won't.

>> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
> see #3

An SUV saved my life when a woman in an F150 pulled out in front of my
SUV. I was doing 55 and she pulled out 30 feet in front of me.
Fortunately, we both had our seat belts on, and everyone walked away. The
F150 was totaled, and my SUV took a lot of damage, but I was able to
repair it and continued to drive it. The trooper who investigated the
accident said he believed that seatbelts and vehicle size saved our
lives. I agree.

> lukasz
> happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

Why feed the anti-SUV crowd?

 

Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in
news:ceml55$llg$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu:

>>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>>
>>
>> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>>
>> 1) Personal preference
> no 'sense' involved here ;o)

It makes perfect sense to drive a vehicle that meets my personal needs
and that I enjoy.

>> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
> rent

LOL! This assumes that rentals are available and off road needs are
preedictable. Would you seriously suggest that Thursday afternoon at 4
when my farm hand calls me and tells me he's broke down at the back end
of the farm, I should run out and rent a 4X4 instead of simply driving
back to pick him up? Remember, not all off road driving is a recreational
rock crawl.

>> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
> ... and much easier to roll over...

Given the option is a lower car that doesn't offer the same view of the
road or visibility, and is lighter and less safe in a head on collision,
I'd say the trade off is 6 of one or a half dozen of the other. Since I
know a tal vehicle is more likely to roll over, I drive in ways that
minimize that danger.

>> 4) hauling/towing capacity
> yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

I'd be the one to decide that, wouldn't I?

>> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
> huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ?

Yes I have. I owned a Cherokee from 1987 through 1996. Took a lot of road
trips in it, and hauled a lot of passengers in the back seat. I've also
owned or driven at least 8 other SUVs, including the one I drive now, and
have always found the back seats to be more spacious and comfortable than
those in most of the cars I've ridde n in.

>> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
> ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
> SUV or not...

As in my SUV will go anywhere on dry pavement that a car will, but will
also go many places a car won't.

>> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
> see #3

An SUV saved my life when a woman in an F150 pulled out in front of my
SUV. I was doing 55 and she pulled out 30 feet in front of me.
Fortunately, we both had our seat belts on, and everyone walked away. The
F150 was totaled, and my SUV took a lot of damage, but I was able to
repair it and continued to drive it. The trooper who investigated the
accident said he believed that seatbelts and vehicle size saved our
lives. I agree.

> lukasz
> happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

Why feed the anti-SUV crowd?

 

Lukasz Salwinski <lukasz@mbi.ucla.edu> wrote in
news:ceml55$llg$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu:

>>>so why suffer in SUV ??? wouldn't any of the AWD cars (like subaru
>>>outback) be enough ? IMHO getting SUV to solely drive on pavement
>>>doesn't make much sense no matter which side is one looking from.
>>
>>
>> Why "suffer" in SUV?
>>
>> 1) Personal preference
> no 'sense' involved here ;o)

It makes perfect sense to drive a vehicle that meets my personal needs
and that I enjoy.

>> 2) That 2% of the time you go off road
> rent

LOL! This assumes that rentals are available and off road needs are
preedictable. Would you seriously suggest that Thursday afternoon at 4
when my farm hand calls me and tells me he's broke down at the back end
of the farm, I should run out and rent a 4X4 instead of simply driving
back to pick him up? Remember, not all off road driving is a recreational
rock crawl.

>> 3) Higher seating = better view of road and higher visibility
> ... and much easier to roll over...

Given the option is a lower car that doesn't offer the same view of the
road or visibility, and is lighter and less safe in a head on collision,
I'd say the trade off is 6 of one or a half dozen of the other. Since I
know a tal vehicle is more likely to roll over, I drive in ways that
minimize that danger.

>> 4) hauling/towing capacity
> yup, this one's valid (provided there's a need)

I'd be the one to decide that, wouldn't I?

>> 5) More head/leg room for passengers
> huh ??? ever tried to squeeze in the back of, say, a Cherokee ?

Yes I have. I owned a Cherokee from 1987 through 1996. Took a lot of road
trips in it, and hauled a lot of passengers in the back seat. I've also
owned or driven at least 8 other SUVs, including the one I drive now, and
have always found the back seats to be more spacious and comfortable than
those in most of the cars I've ridde n in.

>> 6) More options for bad weather/road conditions
> ABS ? fog lights ? those are offered as options
> SUV or not...

As in my SUV will go anywhere on dry pavement that a car will, but will
also go many places a car won't.

>> 7) Larger vehicle mass in collision
> see #3

An SUV saved my life when a woman in an F150 pulled out in front of my
SUV. I was doing 55 and she pulled out 30 feet in front of me.
Fortunately, we both had our seat belts on, and everyone walked away. The
F150 was totaled, and my SUV took a lot of damage, but I was able to
repair it and continued to drive it. The trooper who investigated the
accident said he believed that seatbelts and vehicle size saved our
lives. I agree.

> lukasz
> happy owner of a Liberty (and a part-time devil's advocate ;o)

Why feed the anti-SUV crowd?