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
> >
> >
>
>

 

Yup, just Ford's skilled in making horse power, building V8s since
'32.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

 

Yup, just Ford's skilled in making horse power, building V8s since
'32.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

 

Yup, just Ford's skilled in making horse power, building V8s since
'32.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> 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...
It's a Jeep, so the intent is for it to suddenly be 1943...
>
> > 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".
Car and Driver and the other such magazines will never even test six
cylinder versions of the GC. In fact, most of them will test it only
with the "hemi" and not the 4.7.

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> 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...
It's a Jeep, so the intent is for it to suddenly be 1943...
>
> > 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".
Car and Driver and the other such magazines will never even test six
cylinder versions of the GC. In fact, most of them will test it only
with the "hemi" and not the 4.7.

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> 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...
It's a Jeep, so the intent is for it to suddenly be 1943...
>
> > 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".
Car and Driver and the other such magazines will never even test six
cylinder versions of the GC. In fact, most of them will test it only
with the "hemi" and not the 4.7.

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)

>
>
>>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".

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)

>
>
>>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".

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)

>
>
>>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".

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)