When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
Buying a '64 model in '65 is either a used car, or a new car that was an
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
Buying a '64 model in '65 is either a used car, or a new car that was an
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
Buying a '64 model in '65 is either a used car, or a new car that was an
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
overstock. There is no confusion here at all.
Buying a new '65 model in the last quarter of '64 has been happening for as
long as I can remember. My father was the general manager at some car
dealerships when I was a kid, and this is just the way it has always worked.
There are Marketing Considerations that make the car makers do it this way.
When the next year's models are purchased in the last quarter of the
previous year, there isn't much confusion among the buying public, but I
agree that there is some confusion when the next year's model goes on sale
in April of the previous year (as what happened in the case of the Mustang
that I described earlier). There is always a one-upmanship thing that is
going on among the automakers. The first one to market with next year's
model has the edge over the others.The fact that you are confused makes
absolutely no difference to them; it's a "bean counter" thing.
"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4B7_b.623$253.121175@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
> news:103hnrimobm52c9@corp.supernews.com...
> > No.
> >
> > 1960 models would have been launched at the dealerships in late
September
> or
> > early October of 1959. If my memory serves me, the 1965 Mustang was the
> > first that was launched in April. That car is sometimes referred to as a
> '64
> > and one-half, but the factory called it a '65. In September of '64, the
> > Mustang got a few minor changes and was offered again as the '65
Mustang.
> > The later '65 Mustang got the 289 V8 instead of the 265 of the earlier
> car,
> > and the 170 I6 was replaced by the 200 I6. There was also some body-trim
> > changes, most notably was the chrome piece that was added below the rear
> > windows (behind the doors).
> >
>
> Some find it confusing when one talks about a car that was purchased in
> 1964, but was actually a '65 model.. likewise, buying a car in '65 that
was
> a '64 model.. maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember that
> while dealerships showed the next years model, they were not always
> immediately available.. more of a 'what is coming soon' display.. oh
well..
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote:
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote:
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote:
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
> they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more rear
> seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought home
> the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after that ,but
> this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while they
> finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there is
> more but i just can't remember
Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks manning
the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
"package".
In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary specs
online:
Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
cargo cap
behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
"wannabe"):
1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
wheelbase 101.4"
track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
it online right now)
cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited is
greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
doesn't matter to me... :)
Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit that
I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards IFS
and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute ute"
body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to their
Jeep customers?
Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
-John
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
>Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks
>manning
>the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
>I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
There was one at the Detroit auto show last month. It's not wider than the
standard Wrangler.
>
>In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
>and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
>rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
>seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
>"package".
>
The manual trannys will come out later, possibly later in the model year; this
was a marketing decision rather than technical, similar to when the Liberty was
introduced...D-C believes they will sell better with autos.
>In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
>simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
That's because the soft top is so big it can't be folded down...you either fold
back the front section or remove it altogether.
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
>Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks
>manning
>the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
>I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
There was one at the Detroit auto show last month. It's not wider than the
standard Wrangler.
>
>In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
>and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
>rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
>seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
>"package".
>
The manual trannys will come out later, possibly later in the model year; this
was a marketing decision rather than technical, similar to when the Liberty was
introduced...D-C believes they will sell better with autos.
>In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
>simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
That's because the soft top is so big it can't be folded down...you either fold
back the front section or remove it altogether.
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
>Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks
>manning
>the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me, so
>I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
There was one at the Detroit auto show last month. It's not wider than the
standard Wrangler.
>
>In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc brakes,
>and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
>rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission. This
>seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for this
>"package".
>
The manual trannys will come out later, possibly later in the model year; this
was a marketing decision rather than technical, similar to when the Liberty was
introduced...D-C believes they will sell better with autos.
>In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
>simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
That's because the soft top is so big it can't be folded down...you either fold
back the front section or remove it altogether.
* * *
Matt Macchiarolo
www.townpeddler.com
www.wolverine4wd.org
http://wolverine4wd.org/rigs/macchiarolo_ml.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: When will the 2005 Wranglers be available?
"John Sevey" <seveyj@no.spam.like.substance.wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v2u_b.28897$Dg1.19794@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> mic canic <dbrider@cac.net> wrote:
> > they will be introducing a new longer wrangler this spring that has more
rear
> > seat foot room and more storage room behind the seat and wish i brought
home
> > the new model highlites sheet for it it will be the same as the other
> > wrangler's from the front to the rear of the doors but changes after
that ,but
> > this version will be a 2 door stiill but with a longer wheel base.while
they
> > finalize the 4dr. the towing cap. will go from 2500lbs to 3500lbs there
is
> > more but i just can't remember
>
> Just saw one of these at the Milwaukee Auto Show yesterday. The folks
manning
> the Jeep booth claimed that it was also wider. It didn't look it to me,
so
> I have my doubts. It is going to be called the Wrangler Unlimited.
>
> In addition, it had the Dana 44 rear, Dana 30 up front, 4 wheer disc
brakes,
> and auto tranny. The "babe" on the turntable platform, while giving the
> rundown of options said that it would have the automatic transmission.
This
> seemed to imply to me that it wasn't an option, but rather standard for
this
> "package".
>
> In addition, she mentioned that the soft top had an option where you could
> simply fold back the front part for a sunroof feature.
>
> OK, taking a look at Jeep's website, I see that they now have preliminary
specs
> online:
>
> Unlimited Sahara Rubicon
> wheelbase 103.4" 93.4" 93.4"
> track F/R 58/58" 58.5/58.5" 59.5/59.5"
> cargo cap
> behind rear seat 23.42cuft 11.9cuft same
> rear seat removed 74.4cuft 47.1cuft same
> rear folded+tumbled 53.41cuft (not listed)
>
> If it is "wider" (whatever the sales folks meant by that), it is probably
> due to the tire/rim combination that they chose for it.
>
While the *said* it was wider, the specs do not prove that statement. By the
specs, it is a half inch narrower. But, you are right, it is probably from
the tire/rim package they are using.
> The site lists maximum trailer weight w/4.0L engine as 3500 pounds.
>
> Hmmm, looking up the specs for a Cherokee (a _real_ Cherokee, not the
> "wannabe"):
>
> 1998 Cherokee 2 door Sport (mine)
> wheelbase 101.4"
> track F/R (I have to look this up in my old books, since I can't find
> it online right now)
> cargo cap 32.9cuft (69cuft - rear seat folded)
>
> Looks like the cargo capacity and wheelbase on the new Wrangler Unlimited
is
> greater than that of my 1998 Cherokee. Interesting.
>
> It looks like that's as close as we're going to get to having the real
> Cherokee back. Since I have a 2-door Cherokee, the lack of 2 extra doors
> doesn't matter to me... :)
>
> Actually, I was quite blindsided by this introduction. When I heard that
> Jeep was going to be producing these stretched Wranglers, I must admit
that
> I was confused. Their current "direction" seems to be pointing towards
IFS
> and high-revving-rubber-timing-belt-infested V6 engines wrapped in "cute
ute"
> body cladding. Could this mean that Daimler is actually listening to
their
> Jeep customers?
>
> Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming again...
>
> -John
In the olden days, the Unlimited was called a Scrambler.