What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

That describes an Apple II computer.

No it didn't.

Wrong again. I suggest you look at the torque curve.

And you don't NEED 200 GHz and 256 M of memory.

Yeah, and a 4-bbl carb is the epitome of fuel distribution.

0-60 times don't lie.

Then you've been not reading for 10 years.

You see, Lloyd, there were two different products with similar names. There was one called 'Cherokee', which had been in production since 1984 with minor changes and was replaced by the Liberty, and one called 'Grand Cherokee' which was introduced in the early 1990s. The 'Grand Cherokee' was heavier and larger than the 'Cherokee'. In the 'Cherokee' -- that would be the smaller, lighter one, follow me? -- the 4.0L engine was more than simply adequate in terms of straight-line acceleration performance. It was short of absolutely superb, but really quite good, especially for an SUV.

In the 'Grand Cherokee' -- that would be the larger, heavier vehicle, okay? -- the 4.0L was uh, underwhelming in its straight-line acceleration performance. That was because -- now get this, Lloyd, I know you have little practical knowledge of automobiles, but try to follow me here -- the 'Grand Cherokee' was, uh, 'heavier'.

As I understand it, though, the 4.0L was more than adequate in the Grand Cherokee in terms of off-road performance.

Continuing to cater to those few is what distinguishes the Jeep brand from the Ford or GM brands.

None of which perform as well as a Jeep vehicle does in off-road capability, which is what distinguishes the marque, similar to Land Rover.

Hey, look, anyone who expects DCX to sell as many vehicles as Ford or GM needs a serious reality check. On their very best day, if all the stars are in alignment, DCX will still be relatively small compared to GM, Ford or Toyota. That's okay. As long as they remain profitable, it doesn't matter. When they become like the other guys in some ill-begotten attempt to increase revenue, they will cease to be the distinctive, nuanced manufacturer of motor vehicles that they once were and will start cranking out Cavalier and Taurus look-alikes. This is something the world does not need: another bland, generic automotive manufacturing company.

What the world needs from the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands is exactly this: distinctive products (that means 'different', Lloyd) that deliver excellent value and low cost of ownership combined with solid engineering. Nothing more or less.

DCX evidently needs a clearer perception of the target customer, who comes into their dealerships in order to NOT buy stuff from Ford, GM or Toyota because they don't serve his needs.

--Geoff

A little sidenote:

You mean DaimlerChrysler 300C of course, or maybe a Daimler-Benz 300C, but you don't mean a Daimler, which is/was a Jaguar...

See following for affordable versions:

See here for the real thing:

Bet you learned something...!?...

:-) DAS

--

Its incredibly reliable and takes tremendous abuse in stride.

Who cares? Its got its maximum torque available at 1200 RPM, and doesn't lose it until redline. Real engines don't need to get above 5000 RPM. Ever.

Its SMOOTH as silk.

Never driven one, have you?

I don't need to, the offroading magazines have done so. It was *always* on top of the ratings, rarely exceeded by anything other than an H1, and on rare occasions it would be tied with a Land Cruiser.

Maybe, I've never owned an Apple II. But it DOESN'T describe an aluminum-block/aluminum head 3-liter V6 like poseur SUVs have, and that's what is relevant to this discussion.

I am. What are you looking at? A Rorsarch blot?

I don't take my computer offroading.

Its had sequential multi-port injection ever since Chrysler bought AMC. But being an inline, its much smoother than a v6. Period. Physics doesn't lie.

The reason Ford & GM sell more cars is because thier cars don't last much longer than it takes to pay them off. Both my Mopar daily drivers are over

30 years old and going strong. They will last another 20. My wife's Chev is ready for the junkyard at 15 years old. I wouldn't buy a new car of any brand because they are all a bunch of jumk.

*snork*

yeah, Lloyd, take a physics class!

nate

(hey, that was kinda fun. Now I see why Lloyd does it all the time! Too bad he's usually wrong...)

It's as good a base engine as, say, an Iron Duke or 2.8 V6 in a S-10 Blazer. If you want a JGC to go fast, you ought to order the 360. Do I have to say... duh?

Probably. And if you wanted a vehicle for that purpose, up until very recently, there were still real off-road vehicles with 4-cylinder engines available for that very reason.

We weren't talking about what "makes sales" - i.e. making yet another mass market blandmobile. We were talking about an engine that is excellent for its purpose, i.e. producing lots of smooth, progressive torque down low. Do try to keep up, please.

That says more about the idiots that buy a SUV for all the wrong reasons. I admire Jeep for sticking it out as long as they could and making real SUVs. If the mfgrs. all listened to you, Lloyd, we'd all be driving CR-Vs in a few years. (shudder)

And notice how popular the Range Rover is compared to less capable vehicles. Same goes for the G-Wagen. Other than the "bling" set, no real market penetration. That doesn't mean that either vehicle is bad at what it does - on the contrary, it just means they have a small market niche. And god bless niche market cars, they make life interesting.

If you're looking for a vehicle to go off roading, I think the Jeep name still carries a little more cachet than Ford, who hasn't produced anything to write home about since the original Bronco.

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? Those are all acoutrements for the "wannabe" crowd. The Jeep brand should not be watered down by catering to the wannabes. The GC is dangerously close to a suburban mall-runner as it is, and who cares if the six gets over 200HP when there's a perfectly good V-8 engine option?

Probably because they had a reputation for stodginess that they tried to shake but failed. If AMC's had ever become "cool" we'd probably still be driving them today. You know how all the ricers drool over Toyota Supras because you can get godlike horsepower out of them by just cranking up the boost? Well you can do the same thing with an old AMC V-8. But AMC never did it for whatever reason. Their engines were damned strong and would last forever with only routine maintenance. Marketing opportunity missed... Studebaker did just that with the Avanti and R-series cars (Stude engines are just as strong as AMCs, just smaller) and while it was too late to save the company, they created a legend. (and truth be told the Avanti in stock form wasn't *that* fast... but people still remember.) Wonder what would have happened had Studebaker done it earlier, or AMC had followed their lead... But my point was that AMC BUILT GOOD CARS. In my (admittedly not business oriented, and decidedly car-guy) view, it is better to go down in flames doing something well than to make money putting out a mediocre product. Can you really be proud of yet another mass market snoozebox? Does it give you a feeling of satisfaction to go home at the end of the day and count beans?

Amen. All three already make great grocery getter SUVs. Trying to break into that market will be a LOT harder than simply not alienating the traditional Jeep buyer. And DCX needs to make a choice - the two are highly mutually exclusive.

nate

Au contraire, it's an excellent JGC engine, if economy or off-road use is the prime consideration. Personally, I wouldn't get one in a JGC, but I'd happily take a 4.0L in a Cherokee. This for the same reason I got the 3.2L instead of the 2.7 in the Intrepid, or the 3.5L instead of the 3.3L in the old Intrepid, or the 3.0L instead of the 2.5Ls in the Duster and Caravan. Horsepower and torque matter to me more than economy does. But I'm a little unusual, I think. Not everyone you meet at a stoplight will take your revving your engine and edging up on the line as an invitation to race. Do it to me, and you'll either get the run for your money you were asking for, or you'll find yourself in the weeds. I've shown my taillights to more than one Honduh driver...in my 7 passenger Caravan. :-)

The wise manufacturer usually does provide more than one engine choice in its vehicles so as to answer to the needs of more potential customers. If winning the stoplight races or looking good in the shopping mall parking lot are more important, one purchases the Limited with the 4.7L HO, or (in better days, really) the 5.9L Limited. It doesn't make the 4.0L a bad engine, just not the best one for every anticipated use.

Up until the current 911 models, Porche made quite a name for itself with rear, air-cooled engines. Sold 'em for quite a premium, too, to some of the wealthiest customers in the world. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, they're among the most profitable automakers in the world, and were so well before the introduction of the wasser-boxer motor. Those older

911s would still be competitive today against most new sports cars sold as new.

So what was your point again?

I'd bet you good money you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an IRS vehicle and one with a live axle if you were blindfolded and riding in the back seat. 99% of the time it simply doesn't matter. But according to you, we should put more expensive components into already expensive vehicles, because the guys writing the car magazines think it's cool, huh?

By the way, who says the JGC can't cruise a freeway, or haul kids to school or groceries? You ever BEEN in a Jeep, Lloyd?

Tell your sad tale to Chevrolet about the Corvette! Gee, Lloyd, here's yet another example of where you're wrong. The 'vette will easily cruise all day long at 140MPH, in Z06 trim can go nearly 170, will pull nearly 1.0G in a turn, and in a pinch can be used as a competitive racer in stock form. Trouble is, the VAST majority of them are sold in the United States of America, where the highest speed limit I'm aware of is 75MPH. Kind of silly of them to design and build a vehicle capable of going what, ~90MPH over the limit or more? You really telling me that more than 5% of Corvette owners drive their cars at 140MPH all the time? That they're all road rally racers? Here's a car that doesn't have a back seat, or a trunk to speak of. It has virtually no utility, it's purely a status machine. Many if not most of the owners are forced to have another car to carry on with their kid- and grocery-hauling duties. So not only does it perform at a level that 95% of it's owners won't or can't (or would be scared shitless to) use, but it's ALSO seriously inadequate for tasks that most of its owners probably need a vehicle for. But it sells like gangbusters, and at a profit, too. Go figure.

Again, what was your point here?

Okay, let's see here: The boys over at Jeep produce three models: Liberty, Wrangler, and Grand Cherokee. There's a couple of trim levels per each.

Ford has: the Escape, the Explorer, the Explorer Sport-Trac, the Expedition and the Excursion, each of which that come in two or three trim levels and with multiple engine choices (excluding Sport-Trac). Not to mention the 4x4 versions of the Ranger and F-Series pickups, which includes the SuperCrew model, an SUV in its own right. And remember, we're not including either Mercury or Lincoln, both of which sell trucks now.

Seems to me Ford's got a bunch more models to compete with, Lloyd. Not exactly a fair comparison.

B.S. Check Porche's worldwide production numbers. And besides that, any sale -- at a profit -- is a 'strong sale'. You're trying to say that Jeep needs to be a full-line manufacturer in order to be profitable. 'Tain't so. Other manufacturers do just fine with production numbers lower than Jeep's.

engineering.

AMC, god love 'em--the company fed my Uncle's family for decades--couldn't find it within themselves to design an attractive car besides -- possibly -- the Javelin and AMX. Not to say there weren't some damn nice AMCs, we had a

1980 Eagle that was just a great vehicle. Did fine with light-duty towing, excellent soft-road vehicle, and a rockin' snow machine. Excellent freeway cruiser, too. No rocket sled, but the 258-6 did a fine job. But the car looked like something you could order out of the Sears catalog. Pity.

You can't say that about any of Jeep's or Chrysler or Dodge's current lineup. They've done fine with the styling. It's just a damn shame that DCX is taking the value out of the equation--the bang for the buck that set Chrysler apart--just when the domestic market is such that you have to leave a stack of cash on the front seat to sell a car.

--Geoff

Uh, I'd match the reliability and durability of pretty much any Japanese engine to any of Chrysler's. Check CR.

If the maximum torque is reached at 1200 rpm, why isn't that listed as the torque peak?

95% of owners don't take their SUVs there either.

Sequential? Are you sure?

And an IL-6 isn't necessarily superior to a V6. If it were, why would Ferrari, Mercedes, Alfa, Maserati, among others, use V6s? (And except for Mercedes, those never had IL-6s).

Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

Do I have to? Do you know how long it's been since the 360 was offered in the GC? Do you know it was offered for just 1 year?

We're talking about Jeep being successful and not losing money.

I see. So a company should refuse to give its customers what they want. Did you learn that in Marketing 101?

Because they're over $60k?

Yes, but you can't run a major corporation on them.

The buying public. You know, the people that pay the salaries of the Jeep employees, who pay the stock dividends for the DC stockholders.

Again you seem to be saying a company should not give its customers what they want. Perhaps you should look up "Edsel."

Which costs $1000 and gets worse fuel mileage.

If Jeep is cool, why aren't people buying them?

Perhaps because most don't consider that the make or break factor in buying a car.

They rusted like crazy and had poor quality control though.

Yeah, ask Studebaker employees and stockholders.

It pays the bills.

It isn't that economical, and only 5% of Jeep owners go off-road.

What would you take in a Dodge Omni? Both are equally in production this year.

Should VW bring back the Beetle? The Beetle seems to have the same arguments going for it as the 4.0 IL-6.

Handling and ride could tell.

That's why BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Audi, Porsche, etc., all still use live axles?

It drives like a truck, it rides like a truck, it sounds like a truck.

But Chevy doesn't design the Vette to perform well at 140 and not well at 70. You're arguing Jeep should design their vehicles to perform well off road and forget on road.

OK, compare Explorer with Grand Cherokee. Comparable models.

Jeep ain't Porsche.

Few sales, especially with huge rebates, are not strong.

In a very niche market. Who else, besides niche makers like BMW and Porsche?

Now that's silly and dumb.

You just said it peaked at 1200. Backing down?

The 3.7 V6 develops more peak torque and its curve shows just as much at low rpm.

Look at its torque curve.

No, from real world data.

A flat-out lie. Look at the data.

If you think that's statistical data, you're as dumb as a fence post.

Nice one Dori!

Daimler is a brand that is not owned by the company of the same name.

Kind of like Rolls-Royce. The brand is now licensed by BMW. The Rolls-Royce Motors plc that was bought by Volkswagen owned the Bentley brand but only licensed the R-R brand from the owners. A renaming exercise of companies and facilities subsequently took place after VW learnt of the subtlety, leaving Roll-Royce Motor Cars plc as a subsidiary of BMW, and the R-R facilities now owned by VW ! (I think! phew)

-- Rickety

Yeah, there are I4s that offroad well (Jeep 2.5 for example). But the bottom line is that there has hardly ever been a production engine of any type that offroads better than the 4.0. It has over half of its max torque available at idle, and 90% of max all the way from around 1200 RPM to redline. And that max is a *big* number for the size and weight of the engine, too. All making it perfect for offroading, and coincidentally making it great for stoplight-to-stoplight driving around town. Its replacement, the 3.7L V6, has more horsepower but feels weaker under almost all conditions (the exception being freeway passing) because of its peakier torque curve.