New Jeep Grand Chicory
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
>>grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
>>than discarded.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> inline 6 it replaces".
I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
>>grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
>>than discarded.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> inline 6 it replaces".
I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
>>grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
>>than discarded.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> inline 6 it replaces".
I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango.
>>>Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went
>>>on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
>>>taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
>>grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather
>>than discarded.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> inline 6 it replaces".
I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> Durango.
> > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost
> went
> > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> >
> > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> >
> > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> >
> > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
rather
> > > than discarded.
> >
> > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > inline 6 it replaces".
>
> BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
>
> Dave Milne Scotland
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
My comment was simply that BMW and Mercedes have been building I6s for a
long time, have plenty of skill in that area, and could easily build another
one if they were so inclined, or update the rambler engine.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qIbbd.541672$OB3.529254@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> > Durango.
> > > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that
almost
> > went
> > > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> > >
> > > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> > >
> > > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> > >
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> rather
> > > > than discarded.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
> >
> > BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
> >
> > Dave Milne Scotland
> >
> >
>
>
long time, have plenty of skill in that area, and could easily build another
one if they were so inclined, or update the rambler engine.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qIbbd.541672$OB3.529254@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> > Durango.
> > > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that
almost
> > went
> > > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> > >
> > > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> > >
> > > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> > >
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> rather
> > > > than discarded.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
> >
> > BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
> >
> > Dave Milne Scotland
> >
> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
My comment was simply that BMW and Mercedes have been building I6s for a
long time, have plenty of skill in that area, and could easily build another
one if they were so inclined, or update the rambler engine.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qIbbd.541672$OB3.529254@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> > Durango.
> > > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that
almost
> > went
> > > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> > >
> > > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> > >
> > > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> > >
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> rather
> > > > than discarded.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
> >
> > BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
> >
> > Dave Milne Scotland
> >
> >
>
>
long time, have plenty of skill in that area, and could easily build another
one if they were so inclined, or update the rambler engine.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"attnews" <john .n. allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qIbbd.541672$OB3.529254@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> the I-6 was a Nash/American Motors engine....not a DC..
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:wQVad.7309$xb.3514@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> >
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410121453500.9994@alumni.engin .umich.edu...
> > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge
> > Durango.
> > > > > Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that
almost
> > went
> > > > > on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear
> > > > > taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!"
> > >
> > > > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
> > >
> > > And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
> > >
> > > > Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end
> > > > grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated
> rather
> > > > than discarded.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the
> > > "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod
> > > inline 6 it replaces".
> >
> > BMW manage to make great I6s, no reason why DC shouldnt.
> >
> > Dave Milne Scotland
> >
> >
>
>