New Jeep Grand Chicory
10-13-2004, 06:21 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
10-13-2004, 06:21 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
10-13-2004, 06:21 PM
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
>
> The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
> signals".
And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.
>
> Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
> Or do you want the
> "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next
> to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out
> just what-all your vehicle's assortment of
> bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once
> they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds
> right next to each other" badness?
Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.
10-13-2004, 07:38 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
I'm not into Ghia lights either.
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
10-13-2004, 07:38 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
I'm not into Ghia lights either.
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
10-13-2004, 07:38 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
I'm not into Ghia lights either.
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
The flat head was also the old Chrysler marine. Their blocks were
aged for six years before they were machined.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Steve wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
10-13-2004, 08:12 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
10-13-2004, 08:12 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
10-13-2004, 08:12 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
> > Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions
> > all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if
> > it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness?
>
> My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
Halfassedly.
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
10-14-2004, 06:16 AM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory
Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1>
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...
But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1>
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...
But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.
