TJ vs. JK
07-20-2007, 02:57 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
07-20-2007, 02:57 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
07-20-2007, 02:57 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the
complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the
main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail
is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point
turn. A pain in the ***, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in
most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved
stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous
cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the
wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load
of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler
for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK
would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a
wash.
2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
I bet it's more, don't you?
One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their
reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your
mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge
division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my
bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would
love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions
and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad
press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s
and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large
work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or
Mustang.
07-23-2007, 11:25 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
07-23-2007, 11:25 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
07-23-2007, 11:25 AM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
07-23-2007, 11:25 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor
> difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant
> failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the
> Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---...
> hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried
> about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size,
> especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty
> to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs....
> I bet it's more, don't you?
The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is
4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took
it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway.
Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be
standard, but having options is nice.
07-23-2007, 07:22 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
07-23-2007, 07:22 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
07-23-2007, 07:22 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not
with that ignoramus, Dik
chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to
Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha..
Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit
different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a
follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else.
Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their
so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin
the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo.
which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.")
Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the
letters J and
ee and P and make a Jeep. No way.
Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully
so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and
skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous
slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined
amc's XJ in oh, so many ways.
The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and
handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated.
If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum
awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements.
The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a
mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced,
clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive."
I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious
sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful
proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new
Jeep "thingies."
The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line "
becomes.
Es Verdad.
The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of
the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
> was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the
> suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!)
> I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and
> long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews?
>
> "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
>> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to
>> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version.
>>
>> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and
>> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to
>> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective
>> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL
>> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have
>> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely
>> nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is
>> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference.
>>
>> B
>>
>> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
>> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has
>>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is
>>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line!
>>>
>>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and
>>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like
>>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy."
>>>
>>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds
>>> like an offroader's dream!
>>>
>
>
