Consultant: GM merger would eliminate most Chrysler vehicles

Actually you're only partly correct. The Armada is faster off the line. The Hemi Durango will flat out run away from it at highway speeds. Loaded or unloaded the Durango will easily out accelerate it from 50-80+ mph. Up hills the hemi will easily out tow the Armada. The ONLY time the Armada is faster is off the line and thats not where or when I need the performance.

I also do not like the rear suspension of the Armada for towing. Great for unloaded highway travel though.

Reply to
Miles
Loading thread data ...

My 2004 Durango Hemi predates the newer multi-displacement Hemi. Yet it will hit 20+mpg on the highway if I keep it 60-65mph.

Dunno about current line up. But my 2004 Durango has AWD as well as part time low and hi 4wd. Most of the Dodge and Jeep products are AWD where I'd prefer part time.

Reply to
Miles

There is no Excursion anymore. The Expedition comes in regular and long size.

Expedition length =3D 206.5" Armada length =3D 207.7"

Expedition EL (replaced Excursion) length =3D 221.3"

So far you've told me the Xterra is the same size as the Yukon/Tahoe, then the Pathfinder is, and now you've told me the Armada is the size of the Yukon XL/Suburban. Let's see, that's 3 strikes.

It is not. Pathfinder 192" long. First gen Durango 193.5" long. Strike 4

Commander is just 188.5" long. Grand Cherokee is 186.7" long. Strike

5
Reply to
Lloyd

Hey, you claimed it was the old platform. And the new GM pickup/SUV platform is very different.

Reply to
Lloyd

Well, I kinda disagree. What they've failed to do is offer a stripped-down version that I'd be WILLING to take offroad, but the basic platform is still about the same.

The Chrysler/AMC merger really was a MERGER, with Chrysler taking and RETAINING the best engineering of AMC. If you look under the front end of a 1992-present Dodge Ram 4x4 truck, what do you see? You see a scaled-up version of the front suspension of a Jeep Cherokee, because its among the best. AMC also had a lasting mark on the Jeep/Truck Engineering engine divison. The Magnum version of the Chrysler v8s owed a good bit to an infusion of AMC engineers. The valve train was lifted wholesale from the AMC v8, in fact. Not that that was necessarily an improvement- the previous Chrysler-designed shaft-mounted rocker arms were actually more stable, but the AMC pedestal mount style was cheaper to produce, 98% as good, and easier to service in the field too. And it went the other way, too- Chrysler worked wonders on the already-good AMC

4.0, and turned it into an engine that will go down in history next to the slant-6 and 318 as all-time greats. They got rid of the problematic Renix fuel injection, beefed up the bottom end with a bearing-cap girdle and block structure improvements, vastly improved the head, exhaust manifold, and intake manifold, and never caved in to the push to give it a huge horsepower rating at the expense of its more important flat torque curve and off-idle torque.

But why blame Chrysler? Blame a) safety regulations that wouldn't let you sell a CJ-5 today at any price, and b) a market that has shifted so far to poseur-style SUVS that there's a market for stupid things like Hummers and FJ Cruisers. Those things would have been laughed off the showroom floors in 1980, but not today :-(

Truth is, Jeep would have ceased to exist in 1985 were it not for Chrysler. Because of Chrysler's handling of Jeep, the real decline in offroad capability didn't start until about 4-5 years ago, and in fact it really got better and better until then. Who out there would argue that the coil-spring Wrangler wasn't a significant OFF ROAD improvement over the previous version because of the improved travel and articulation? No one.

Its certainly good, but I'd take my '99 4.0 Cherokee over it ANY day.

Reply to
Steve

Ooooh 1.5 inches of plastic-covered bumper. Technical win for Lloyd.

Now go check the WEIGHTS, which is what really matters, dumbass.

Or better yet, park them side by side and note for yourself that the Pathfinder is bigger. Oh, that's right- you never actually go outside and see or touch vehicles yourself. I forgot.

Reply to
Steve

Steve, why are you forgetting the Rule of Lloyd?

Anything produced by the Big 3 is BAD Anything produced by any foreign firm (including Yugo & Tata ) is GOOD

You see, a few years ago Lloyd tried committing suicide in his rice-burner by the old time method of parking it in the garage with the door closed and the car running. Unfortunately nobody told him that today's cars emissions are so clean that you can't do that anymore. So instead he just suffered partial brain damage and spends his days trolling Usenet. ;-)

As long as you keep that in mind you will be fine.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

OK. 2008 Durango base model, 4988 lb (Dodge web site); Pathfinder

4446 lb (Nissan web site).

Let's see, in this universe, 4988 > 4446.

OK, let's go back to the first gen Durango. 2003 model weighs 4513 lb (Consumer Guide site); 2003 Pathfinder weighs 4131 lb.

Again, in this universe, 4513 > 4131.

So... measuring the vehicles shows the Durango is 1.5" longer, but if I touch them, I'll find the Durango is shorter? Do you mean touching a vehicle repeals the laws of physics somehow? Wow. Maybe we can write a sci-fi story about this. We touch a Durango long enough, all the measuring sticks contract and we're back to the universe the size of the Big Bang!

Reply to
Lloyd

How are they different?

Reply to
Steve

And in lieu of the above, anything Lloyd says is right, everything anyone else says is wrong. Yeah, I'll go say my hail mary's now....

Reply to
Steve

Don't forget that I was comparing the current (bloat) Nissan, to the first-gen Durango, not to the current (bloated) Durango.

So the real numbers to compare are 4446 and 4513. But 4513 isn't the number that shows up on my folks' 2000 2wd Durango, its more like 4100. So the Nissan (if I can believe your number) is indeed heavier.

Reply to
Steve

Can you say 'death-wobble'? If you don't know what that refers to google Dodge death-wobble.

Because of the narrow width. Has nothing to do with the Chrysler changes relating to lightweight cheap construction. Take a look at the AMC trannies used in the old CJ's. They could take a beating and were hard to put a rock through! Todays are light duty not made for off road abuse. I also loved the old inline 6 that Chrysler did away with in favor of the far less dependable V6.

Possibly. The market for tough rugged off road capable vehicles has dropped some. But that market remains strong with high growth in aftermarket off road parts. Todays Jeeps are nothing more than on pavement smooth riding cars with a different body on them and a Jeep label.

I'd say far longer than that. 1980's still had some off road capable Jeeps stock. 1990's saw far fewer and for at least the past 10 years the only real off road vehicle made by anyone is the Wrangler and Rubicon and those aren't nearly as capable as earlier versions stock.

Most serious off roaders still install an aftermarket suspension that wont break or bend but thats true of the earlier years too. I hear the new Dodge Ram has coil springs but not sure if thats just on the 1500 or not.

The older Cherokees were great. Too big for some of the areas I 4x4 in. Nothing but a small CJ or Wrangler can navigate the tight narrow spots. My 4x4 Durango is too big as well but sure does good in deep snow.

Reply to
Miles

It is? I figured the Armada is more about the size of the 2nd Gen Durango. The Excursion I thought was based on a full sized truck platform.

Reply to
Miles

Can you say, "so easy to fix its ridiculous?" Seriously, I've never seen such a mountain out of a molehill. The problem I've found with about half the Jeep community online is that they are technically inept, and just like to go out and break things. Kinda like the modern performance car crowd. The other half doesn't even use the stupid term "death wobble." IF your trackbar gets worn enough to "death wobble," you REALLY should fix your whole front end.

No, that has NOTHING to do with it. IT has to do with safety regulations and requirements.

You're showing a credibility gap. Did you know that AMC *NEVER* made a transmission? They purchased their transmissions from Chrysler (Torqueflites- used in their cars and the FSJ trucks from 1980-up), GM (Hydramatics used in the FSJs in the 70s) , Borg-Warner (automatics and manuals in the 60s and 70s, and Asin-Warner (automatic in the XJ Cherokee and later Wranglers, manual in the XJ and Wranglers).

Actually, they switched from the AX-15 in the XJ to a stronger NVG manual shared with the Dakota. Automatics, well, yeah. ALL autmatics today are wimpy compared to a Torqueflite or even a Hydramatic from the

70s and 80s. But again, its CAFE and emissions that are driving that, not engineering decisions.

Todays are light duty not made for off road

I agree with you that the 4.0 inline was a bit better suited to rock-crawling, but there is nothing at all "less dependable" about the

3.8L v6. Now the 3.7L v6 in the Liberty is a different matter- its a "bastard" v6 (90-degree block, its a 4.7L v8 with two cylinders lopped off) and is overhead-cam to boot- not good for offroading. But the 3.8- thats a very simple, iron block, pushrod v6 whose roots go back to the Chrysler 3.3L introduced around 1990.

Going back to the 4.0, it also had some pretty fundamental problems when Chrysler inherited it from AMC which, to their credit, Chrysler fixed. The block was too flexible, and the crank was unstable in the earlier versions. They'd often put a rod out the side of the block if pushed hard. Not so in the later ones- stiffer block casting, crankshaft girdle, and a whole host of little tweaks all contributed to fixing that problem. All things considered, it would probably have been stronger overall if it had been a 4-bearing crank design like the slant-6. Fewer bearings, but a shorter, stronger crankshaft seems to be better for midsize torque engines, let the BMW sixes that rev to 9 grand keep the 7 bearing setup. They don't put out the same kind of torque. that would also have allowed it to be short enough to fit under more modern hood profiles and be used in a wider range of vehicles. But that's all dreamland anyway... Given that the 4.0 was probably never going to keep up with emissions requirements without a very extensive rework of the cylinder head and control system, combined with the fact that it was a

7-bearing six and therefore too long to fit under most hoods, it really didn't stand much of a chance. I hated to see it go (and you'd have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands) but again, its reality in the over-regulated world of automobiles these day.

The LAST Cherokees were actually the best. I'd never even look at a pre-1990, and the only ones I'd seriously consider buying now are the

97-01 models.
Reply to
Steve

I was exaggerating a wee bit to bait Lloyd... In reality the Armada is about the same size or maybe a little bigger than a 2nd gen Durango, a little smaller than an Explorer. And as Lloyd actually proved for me, the 2nd Gen Pathfinder is essentially the same size (within 100 lb depending on options) of the first-gen Durango. SUVs have just been growing and growing over the past decade.

The Armada is also a POS with a horrible reputation, just like the Titan its based on. I have to laugh every time I see a Titan on the road and look at the tiny little differential carrier that looks like it came out of a 1975 Datsun pickup... but they put this huge finned cover on it to try to cool it enough to make it live under a full-size truck. Ridiculous. And typical of all sorts of details throughout the Titan/Armada platform.

Reply to
Steve

You've got to compare the same model years, as safety equipment might differ. And it's best to use the same source for both figures.

Reply to
Lloyd

And the Armada is based on Nissan's full-size Titan truck platform.

Reply to
Lloyd

No I don't, not when that has NOTHING to do with the point I was making- which is simply that the Pathfinder has grown much larger than its original mini-SUV incarnation (so has the 4-Runner for that matter, and the Durango has grown from a mid-size to full-size.) You've lost the forest in the trees- which you planted, by the way.

Reply to
Steve

And the 2nd gen Durango isn't built on a truck platform at all. Oh damn, I wasn't supposed to remind you of that, was I? Y'know, because the Durango is old, primitive, truckish, and stuff like that. In your world.

And I'm waiting for you to tell me exactly how the current Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade platform is so profoundly different from C/K trucks. Has it got coil rear springs? Unibody construction? Independent rear suspension? Different engines? If you actually know anything, then you can tell me WHAT makes it different, not just parrot the GM press release that says its a different platform.

Reply to
Steve

Hate to tell ya but it's not just because of worn parts. It happens on brand new stock trucks. It's a bad design and exactly why Chrysler has changed it considerably for late model 2008's and beyond.

The CJ's main problem was narrow width causing it to roll too easily. It's a bunch of BS applied to the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper as well. All perfectly fine 4x4's. Trouble is people drive them like sedans and expect the same handling.

All I know is that I owned several of the AMC inline 6's and they were rock solid and took a beating.

Guess it depends on what you use them for. The older ones, especially the old original Cherokees built on the Wagoneer chassis were far superior.

Reply to
miles

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.