|
Re: new wrangler - ug
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:44ee6d6e$0$10297$815e3792@news.qwest.net... > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message > news:o86dnXe4v7PNhXPZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction. >> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so. > > i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall > spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more > capable than ever before. > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the > vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release > was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but > this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep. The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and other improvements in the design and you have the most capable off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of the new model. As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:44ee6d6e$0$10297$815e3792@news.qwest.net... > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message > news:o86dnXe4v7PNhXPZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction. >> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so. > > i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall > spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more > capable than ever before. > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the > vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release > was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but > this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep. The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and other improvements in the design and you have the most capable off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of the new model. As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:44ee6d6e$0$10297$815e3792@news.qwest.net... > "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message > news:o86dnXe4v7PNhXPZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com. .. >> Nate, many similar complaints were made about the TJ at its introduction. >> Coil springs like Land Rover? Say it ain't so. > > i feel coils springs were a natural evolution without changing the overall > spirit of the vehicle. in fact, i feel they made the jeep even more > capable than ever before. > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > the majority of my negative opinion is based on the overall size of the > vehicle. jeep was heading in the right direction......the rubicon release > was a huge boost, and the unlimited was also an awesome addition......but > this new wrangler is just to big to be a SWB jeep. The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and other improvements in the design and you have the most capable off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of the new model. As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
If bouncing off the ground, losing traction and having to be pulled
out of the pit, in exchange for cushy road ability is what your really want: http://www.----------.com/bouncingFord.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" > in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land > Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the > Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I > agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in > the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard > TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier > Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar > disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and > other improvements in the design and you have the most capable > off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the > electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the > consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. > > I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the > *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar > concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why > we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of > the new model. > > As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look > like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full > doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK > Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a > distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
If bouncing off the ground, losing traction and having to be pulled
out of the pit, in exchange for cushy road ability is what your really want: http://www.----------.com/bouncingFord.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" > in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land > Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the > Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I > agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in > the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard > TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier > Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar > disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and > other improvements in the design and you have the most capable > off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the > electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the > consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. > > I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the > *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar > concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why > we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of > the new model. > > As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look > like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full > doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK > Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a > distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
If bouncing off the ground, losing traction and having to be pulled
out of the pit, in exchange for cushy road ability is what your really want: http://www.----------.com/bouncingFord.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" > in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land > Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the > Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I > agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in > the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard > TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier > Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar > disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and > other improvements in the design and you have the most capable > off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the > electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the > consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. > > I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the > *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar > concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why > we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of > the new model. > > As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look > like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full > doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK > Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a > distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
If bouncing off the ground, losing traction and having to be pulled
out of the pit, in exchange for cushy road ability is what your really want: http://www.----------.com/bouncingFord.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- Matt Macchiarolo wrote: > > My point being every redesign brings out the "Why don't they leave it alone" > in a lot of people. Your comment about DC turning the Wrangler into a Land > Rover wannabe made me remember that Land Rover had coils way before the > Wrangler, so you could say they have been trying to do this for 10 years. I > agree about the coils, but remember were lambasted when they were intro'd in > the Wrangler, and time has proven their worth. > > The 2-door JK's wheelbase (95.4") is only 2 inches longer than the standard > TJ (93.4), so I would consider it qualifying as a SWB. Throw in a heftier > Tcase with no more slipjoint on the output shaft, an electric swaybar > disconnect, electric lockers (on the Rubicon), longer control arms, and > other improvements in the design and you have the most capable > off-the-sales floor Wrangler to date. Of course it comes with all the > electronic crap like stability control but that has to do more with the > consumer expecting it than the actual need for it. > > I agree that the 4-door Wrangler is huge, but I think of that one as the > *true* replacement for the XJ, (or finally the incarnation of the Dakar > concept) with solid axles, seating for 5 and a decent cargo area. That's why > we might consider getting one in 08 or 09, once the bugs are worked out of > the new model. > > As for me, it will take a while to get used to the front fenders...they look > like they are barely hanging on, and the front bumper is butt-ugly. And full > doors with the top off look stupid. That said I've seen pre-production JK > Wranglers all over SE Michigan for months now, believe me, even from a > distance you can tell it's a Wrangler. |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door Wrangler. Dan Naperville, IL |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door Wrangler. Dan Naperville, IL |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door Wrangler. Dan Naperville, IL |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands