Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!

If Ford had bought Jeep you would have seen a CJ body on an early-Bronco frame, along with 9" axle. Not a bad combo. I think Jeep would have done better under Ford than AMC or even DCX.

You are a bigger troll.

The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was heavier than the 318. No one gave a shit about weight then! They were just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a tangent.

The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular price" cars.

While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-ass idea. Six don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or a turbocharger.

But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.

From: L.W >>

Maybe if you had a little experience in the progressive linkage of a tri-power, and had read the post I was replying to, you wouldn't sounds so..... STUPID! I'll quote it again just for you:

"You are a bigger troll.

The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was heavier than the 318. No one gave a shit about weight then! They were just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a tangent.

The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular price" cars.

While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-ass idea. Six don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or a turbocharger.

But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been absolutely first rate as an engineering firm."

God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

GaryMas>

Bill,

The troll for got one thing, if Ford had purchased the Jeep company they all would require the optional heated tail gate. The heated tail gate would be required to keep your hands warm as you are pushing them off the road in the winter.

The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are hell none of the SUVs are. Sure you can drive the so called off road SUVs through a field or a dirt road but they can't take the heat so to speak.

We were out on the trails several weeks ago when an Explorer broke one of its lower rear supports on the rear axle. If you look at not just Ford but all the major SUVs which tout off road capability the rear and front ends have much stuff hanging down below the axles which are just asking to be broke. It is just fact, can't help if Jeep has their stuff together for being at the top of the food chain for it's off road capability it always has.

HarryS

God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O> mailto: snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

Point is...to judge an automaker based on what was developed 60+ years ago is rather asinine. He was bitching about Henry Ford's Model T drivetrains, for pete's sake.

Irrelevant, since most of the new Jeeps aren't off-road capable to the extent the Wrangler or XJ is. At least Ford had the common sense to keep solid front axles on its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, unlike GM.

For Fahks suck....keep the bitch slappin to the "Home decor" news groups!

everything

OK, then what fool thought the NV1500 5sp manuel transmission in my Wrangler 4 banger (Chevy S-10 trans) was the way to go. It's nothing but junk! And the dealer says it's the nature of it, they all shift like that??? Sure will be glad when I can trade it off for something better, but unless I win the Lotto I'll have to make a few more payments. Tom T

i fully agree! ford has always built for the "working man". tough, rugged, and affordable vehicles.

i find that rather irrelevant. fact is, ford has more history in the original jeep than anybody else because ford is still ford, and willis doesnt even exist anymore. ford is the only existing company with a stake in the original jeep. i feel sure ford would have maintained jeeps heritage even moreso than dcx.

not to mention a real front engagement system with real hubs and not the vacuum actuated crap that dcx stuck in my dodge (gm uses it too). in fact the only long arm IFS system i know of (or at least one with enough potential to be truly effective off road) is the twin i-beam by ford

Yep, the Bronco was a good tough off roader, to bad Ford was short sided in dropping the line. There has been some comercials out here on the right coast insinuating the explorer is an off road vehicle. A couple of locals have taken them out hunting and found that 4WD=Stuck further in the woods and one of the guys high centered his on a log. I told him just keep to the hard pavement it is safer for the vehicle and the occupants, I got the finger for that one.

HarryS

True, but the automatic vacuum actuated hubs on a SuperDuty are problem prone as well. Next truck will have a lever on the floor instead of a switch on the dash.

Incidentally, even though the twin I-beam front suspension is no longer found on Ford 4x4's (known as TTB for Twin Traction Beam), 2005 re-introduced coil-sprung front axles on 4x4 Superduties, a'la the original Bronco.

Sweet. I have found my next truck.