|
Re: new wrangler - ug
"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. > I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than > "capability." it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers > considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid > axle? Talk about picking nits. 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. -- Nathan W. Collier http://UtilityOffRoad.com http://7SlotGrille.com http://InlineDiesel.com http://BighornRefrigeration.com http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Carry.com http://GlockCarry.com |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Nate Dog!
How have you been!? I'm diggin my Rubi Unlimited. I've gone places I never could before, especially in AZ. Personally, I like how they've kept the basic jeep context...but I won't be trading up basically due to the work I've put into my jeep. If I had one complaint of my jeep, it would be shoulder room. I'm actually hurting after a few hour ride. If the new one is 2" wider in the shoulder area, I'd be the first to admit I'd rather have it over mine... I'm almost afraid to sit in the new one. -- mark www.hydrotoys.com "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. > > >> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than >> "capability." > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > >> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers >> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid >> axle? Talk about picking nits. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Nate Dog!
How have you been!? I'm diggin my Rubi Unlimited. I've gone places I never could before, especially in AZ. Personally, I like how they've kept the basic jeep context...but I won't be trading up basically due to the work I've put into my jeep. If I had one complaint of my jeep, it would be shoulder room. I'm actually hurting after a few hour ride. If the new one is 2" wider in the shoulder area, I'd be the first to admit I'd rather have it over mine... I'm almost afraid to sit in the new one. -- mark www.hydrotoys.com "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. > > >> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than >> "capability." > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > >> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers >> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid >> axle? Talk about picking nits. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Nate Dog!
How have you been!? I'm diggin my Rubi Unlimited. I've gone places I never could before, especially in AZ. Personally, I like how they've kept the basic jeep context...but I won't be trading up basically due to the work I've put into my jeep. If I had one complaint of my jeep, it would be shoulder room. I'm actually hurting after a few hour ride. If the new one is 2" wider in the shoulder area, I'd be the first to admit I'd rather have it over mine... I'm almost afraid to sit in the new one. -- mark www.hydrotoys.com "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. > > >> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than >> "capability." > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > >> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers >> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid >> axle? Talk about picking nits. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Nate Dog!
How have you been!? I'm diggin my Rubi Unlimited. I've gone places I never could before, especially in AZ. Personally, I like how they've kept the basic jeep context...but I won't be trading up basically due to the work I've put into my jeep. If I had one complaint of my jeep, it would be shoulder room. I'm actually hurting after a few hour ride. If the new one is 2" wider in the shoulder area, I'd be the first to admit I'd rather have it over mine... I'm almost afraid to sit in the new one. -- mark www.hydrotoys.com "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. > > >> I wonder why "heritage" seems to be more important to you than >> "capability." > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > >> You are basing your negative opinion on the fact that the designers >> considered at one time IFS, even though the final design keeps the solid >> axle? Talk about picking nits. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Hi Sandman,
I will remind you of a number of Real Jeepers that believe in Real Leaf springs: http://www.sounddomain.com/member_pa...730_8_full.jpg http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/susp/tjleafsprings/ http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/axl.../fronthang.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Nathan W. Collier" wrote: > > 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. > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Hi Sandman,
I will remind you of a number of Real Jeepers that believe in Real Leaf springs: http://www.sounddomain.com/member_pa...730_8_full.jpg http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/susp/tjleafsprings/ http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/axl.../fronthang.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Nathan W. Collier" wrote: > > 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. > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Hi Sandman,
I will remind you of a number of Real Jeepers that believe in Real Leaf springs: http://www.sounddomain.com/member_pa...730_8_full.jpg http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/susp/tjleafsprings/ http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/axl.../fronthang.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Nathan W. Collier" wrote: > > 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. > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Hi Sandman,
I will remind you of a number of Real Jeepers that believe in Real Leaf springs: http://www.sounddomain.com/member_pa...730_8_full.jpg http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/susp/tjleafsprings/ http://www.4x4wire.com/jeep/tech/axl.../fronthang.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Nathan W. Collier" wrote: > > 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. > > it isnt "more" important, but capability is what built jeep heritage. > without the heritage, its just another 4x4. > > 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. > > -- > Nathan W. Collier > http://UtilityOffRoad.com > http://7SlotGrille.com > http://InlineDiesel.com > http://BighornRefrigeration.com > http://ConcealedCarryForum.com > http://1911Carry.com > http://GlockCarry.com |
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
"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 |
Re: new wrangler - ug
And I thought it was ten years earlier.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "dvitous@gmail.com" wrote: > > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL |
Re: new wrangler - ug
And I thought it was ten years earlier.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "dvitous@gmail.com" wrote: > > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL |
Re: new wrangler - ug
And I thought it was ten years earlier.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "dvitous@gmail.com" wrote: > > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said.
O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. I don't know if it's possible to overestimate the stupidity of the DC management but even they can't be THAT stupid! Jeff DeWitt dvitous@gmail.com wrote: > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said.
O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. I don't know if it's possible to overestimate the stupidity of the DC management but even they can't be THAT stupid! Jeff DeWitt dvitous@gmail.com wrote: > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said.
O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. I don't know if it's possible to overestimate the stupidity of the DC management but even they can't be THAT stupid! Jeff DeWitt dvitous@gmail.com wrote: > Caught it in the paper today... '07 is the last year for the 2-door > Wrangler. > > Dan > > Naperville, IL > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said. > > O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty hard to misinterpret: "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors." It goes on to say "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." Full article is here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an announcement to gauge backlash? Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't make sense to me either. - Dan - |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said. > > O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty hard to misinterpret: "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors." It goes on to say "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." Full article is here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an announcement to gauge backlash? Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't make sense to me either. - Dan - |
Re: new wrangler - ug
Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they said. > > O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty hard to misinterpret: "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors." It goes on to say "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." Full article is here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an announcement to gauge backlash? Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't make sense to me either. - Dan - |
Re: new wrangler - ug
This is paragraph two from that new report:
"The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and 4 door models are slated for production. <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > > Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >> said. >> >> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >> > > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > hard to misinterpret: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > doors." > > It goes on to say > > "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > Full article is here: > > http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > > Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > announcement to gauge backlash? > > Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > make sense to me either. > > - Dan - > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
This is paragraph two from that new report:
"The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and 4 door models are slated for production. <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > > Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >> said. >> >> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >> > > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > hard to misinterpret: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > doors." > > It goes on to say > > "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > Full article is here: > > http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > > Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > announcement to gauge backlash? > > Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > make sense to me either. > > - Dan - > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
This is paragraph two from that new report:
"The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and 4 door models are slated for production. <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > > Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >> said. >> >> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >> > > Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > hard to misinterpret: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > doors." > > It goes on to say > > "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > Full article is here: > > http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > > Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > announcement to gauge backlash? > > Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > make sense to me either. > > - Dan - > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
That is the way I understood it also.
Chris "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... >> >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >>> said. >>> >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >>> >> >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty >> hard to misinterpret: >> >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two >> doors." >> >> It goes on to say >> >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." >> >> Full article is here: >> >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html >> >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an >> announcement to gauge backlash? >> >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't >> make sense to me either. >> >> - Dan - >> > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
That is the way I understood it also.
Chris "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... >> >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >>> said. >>> >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >>> >> >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty >> hard to misinterpret: >> >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two >> doors." >> >> It goes on to say >> >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." >> >> Full article is here: >> >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html >> >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an >> announcement to gauge backlash? >> >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't >> make sense to me either. >> >> - Dan - >> > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
That is the way I understood it also.
Chris "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... >> >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they >>> said. >>> >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. >>> >> >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty >> hard to misinterpret: >> >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two >> doors." >> >> It goes on to say >> >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." >> >> Full article is here: >> >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html >> >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an >> announcement to gauge backlash? >> >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't >> make sense to me either. >> >> - Dan - >> > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I figure anything those Bozos do is just going to increase the potential
collector value of my Jeep. If I take good care of it, as I plan to do, my heirs stand to make a pile of money out of a "non-lifted, non-hacked, original condition" 1995 Wrangler. Earle "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message news:2dVQg.70$QT.43@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com... > That is the way I understood it also. > > Chris > > "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message > news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > >> > >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they > >>> said. > >>> > >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > >>> > >> > >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > >> hard to misinterpret: > >> > >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > >> doors." > >> > >> It goes on to say > >> > >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > >> > >> Full article is here: > >> > >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > >> > >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > >> announcement to gauge backlash? > >> > >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > >> make sense to me either. > >> > >> - Dan - > >> > > > > > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I figure anything those Bozos do is just going to increase the potential
collector value of my Jeep. If I take good care of it, as I plan to do, my heirs stand to make a pile of money out of a "non-lifted, non-hacked, original condition" 1995 Wrangler. Earle "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message news:2dVQg.70$QT.43@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com... > That is the way I understood it also. > > Chris > > "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message > news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > >> > >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they > >>> said. > >>> > >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > >>> > >> > >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > >> hard to misinterpret: > >> > >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > >> doors." > >> > >> It goes on to say > >> > >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > >> > >> Full article is here: > >> > >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > >> > >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > >> announcement to gauge backlash? > >> > >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > >> make sense to me either. > >> > >> - Dan - > >> > > > > > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
I figure anything those Bozos do is just going to increase the potential
collector value of my Jeep. If I take good care of it, as I plan to do, my heirs stand to make a pile of money out of a "non-lifted, non-hacked, original condition" 1995 Wrangler. Earle "c" <c@me.org> wrote in message news:2dVQg.70$QT.43@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com... > That is the way I understood it also. > > Chris > > "billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message > news:a2fdc$451415a5$422afc51$15161@FUSE.NET... > > This is paragraph two from that new report: > > > > "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two doors. > > The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first four-door > > model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline (cylinders all in a > > row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel drive instead of the > > standard four-wheel-drive setup." > > > > You could also take this to mean that in future years '07+ that both 2 and > > 4 door models are slated for production. > > > > > > <dvitous@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1158943161.704127.95400@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com... > >> > >> Jeffrey DeWitt wrote: > >>> I don't believe it, your paper is wrong or you misunderstood what they > >>> said. > >>> > >>> O7 is the first year for the 4 door Wrangler, but there is no way they > >>> are getting rid of the "iconic" 2 door. > >>> > >> > >> Granted... I am the product of the public school system... but > >> regardless of what part of the world you're from... (perhaps with the > >> exception of some certain parts of some southern states...) it's pretty > >> hard to misinterpret: > >> > >> "The 2006 Jeep Wrangler is the last SUV to be offered with only two > >> doors." > >> > >> It goes on to say > >> > >> "The 2007 Wrangler soon arrives with availability of its first > >> four-door model, a V-6 engine instead of the traditional inline > >> (cylinders all in a row) six-cylinder and the chance to get rear-wheel > >> drive instead of the standard four-wheel-drive setup." > >> > >> Full article is here: > >> > >> http://www.suntimes.com/output/auto/car-news-car11.html > >> > >> Could be wrong? Sure. But reliable auto writers typically dance > >> around "absolutes" when talking rumor - as there's always plenty of > >> rumor to go around. It runs rampant in the motorcycle press. But '07 > >> is a ways away, and decisions could change. Perhaps its an > >> announcement to gauge backlash? > >> > >> Dropping a popular, well-selling vehicle with a strong fan base doesn't > >> make sense to me either. > >> > >> - Dan - > >> > > > > > > |
Re: new wrangler - ug
The United States of American may have won the battles, but we lost
World War II. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ |
Re: new wrangler - ug
The United States of American may have won the battles, but we lost
World War II. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands