AN: Durango tail released
Dodge has released the tail-lights of the new Durango on its Facebook feed. It appears that the company is using a new technology or design to create the illusion of a single light source in the “racetrack” tail-lights. Many expect Dodge to release the 2014 Durango at a scheduled press conference next Thursday. The tail-lights are remarkably similar to the rendering done by Susan Rand a month ago:
View the original, full post
101 - 119 of 119 Posts
Joined
·
4,929 Posts
Looks like autoblog found a 'leak'..
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/27/2014-dodge-durango-leaks-ahead-of-ny-rollout/
I must say; AWESOME built-in-seat Video system. Way better than the in-headrest, aftermarket-looking ones.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/27/2014-dodge-durango-leaks-ahead-of-ny-rollout/
I must say; AWESOME built-in-seat Video system. Way better than the in-headrest, aftermarket-looking ones.
I could easily see this as our next family vehicle. It would be a nice upgrade from our 05 Outback. My wife still likes the Flex. I like the idea of a Flex Ecoboost, but with the new 8 speed, the Durango may see similar fuel economy even with the V8.
My only minor complaint with the Durango has bothered me since it came out. It looks awesome from all angles (especially the rear now), except the side profile. To me, the top half of the rear end above the tail lights seems to bubble out. I think part of it is because the front 3 pillars are a lot narrower than the amount of sheet metal on the side of the rear end. It's not enough to keep me from buying it, but it does seem to accentuate the length of the vehicle. In comparison, Ford seemed to do a very good job of making the Explorer look smaller than it actually is. Again, this is a minor complaint. On a positive note, the profile doesn't look like other SUV/CUV profiles.
My only minor complaint with the Durango has bothered me since it came out. It looks awesome from all angles (especially the rear now), except the side profile. To me, the top half of the rear end above the tail lights seems to bubble out. I think part of it is because the front 3 pillars are a lot narrower than the amount of sheet metal on the side of the rear end. It's not enough to keep me from buying it, but it does seem to accentuate the length of the vehicle. In comparison, Ford seemed to do a very good job of making the Explorer look smaller than it actually is. Again, this is a minor complaint. On a positive note, the profile doesn't look like other SUV/CUV profiles.
So, Cherokee - Meh
Durango - A+!!!!
While not overhauled, they got every tweak right. An already attractive vehicle, and they made just the right changes.
The interior, once again, already not bad looks even better. The MPG numbers coming out will make it even better. Throw a good marketing campaign behind it, there is no reason this thing can't jump way up in sales (provided they can make enough)
I don't know what the gear ratios are, but I had wondered if they'd be any different to put a bigger emphasis on fuel economy. I noticed the driving range is "better than 600", with a fuel tank of 24 gallons, that's a minimum of 25 MPG, which would be on par with the GC - nothing surprising. But if they geared it even more friendly to fuel economy, I could see it being 26, since they did say "better than". Someone probably already knows here.
Durango - A+!!!!
While not overhauled, they got every tweak right. An already attractive vehicle, and they made just the right changes.
The interior, once again, already not bad looks even better. The MPG numbers coming out will make it even better. Throw a good marketing campaign behind it, there is no reason this thing can't jump way up in sales (provided they can make enough)
I don't know what the gear ratios are, but I had wondered if they'd be any different to put a bigger emphasis on fuel economy. I noticed the driving range is "better than 600", with a fuel tank of 24 gallons, that's a minimum of 25 MPG, which would be on par with the GC - nothing surprising. But if they geared it even more friendly to fuel economy, I could see it being 26, since they did say "better than". Someone probably already knows here.
Even though I love the new look I must admit that this morning I am a little disappointed. For two years I have been waiting for the Grand Wagoneer or Durango with an upgrade to the 8 speed transmission hoping that it would take the driving experience to a new level and improve gas mileage (I was eyeballing the Citadel with a Hemi). When I saw the ecodiesel as an option for Grand Cherokee and Ram I really got my hopes up that after a test drive I would forget my love for the Big V8 and essentially get the best of both worlds with the ecodiesel (Especially after the reviews I saw on the ecodiesel). It seems to be confirmed now that there is no ecodiesel for the Durango, (I can not think of one good reason why) and that although the V6 is getting a big boost in MPG the Hemi is only going up 5% (I guess that is 1 MPG). Again, I love the way the Durango looks, but I was really thinking they could have a game changer to make me run to the dealership and finaly updgrade from my 220K mile 300M 
.
I guess I can hope for the Grand Wagoneer but I am afraid they will add a few thousand $$$ to from where the Durango Citadel pricepoint would be.
.I guess I can hope for the Grand Wagoneer but I am afraid they will add a few thousand $$$ to from where the Durango Citadel pricepoint would be.
Joined
·
19 Posts
Based on 14GC pricing, the diesel engine adds ~$2000 to the price. From a purely economic point of view, how much do you think you can save on fuel purchase with a diesel engine comparing to a Hemi? I didnt do the math myself but given that diesel is more expensive than gas right now it'd probably gonna take a while before you can even out that 2000 extra paid up front, let along saving more.nash said:Even though I love the new look I must admit that this morning I am a little disappointed. For two years I have been waiting for the Grand Wagoneer or Durango with an upgrade to the 8 speed transmission hoping that it would take the driving experience to a new level and improve gas mileage (I was eyeballing the Citadel with a Hemi). When I saw the ecodiesel as an option for Grand Cherokee and Ram I really got my hopes up that after a test drive I would forget my love for the Big V8 and essentially get the best of both worlds with the ecodiesel (Especially after the reviews I saw on the ecodiesel). It seems to be confirmed now that there is no ecodiesel for the Durango, (I can not think of one good reason why) and that although the V6 is getting a big boost in MPG the Hemi is only going up 5% (I guess that is 1 MPG). Again, I love the way the Durango looks, but I was really thinking they could have a game changer to make me run to the dealership and finaly updgrade from my 220K mile 300M
I guess I can hope for the Grand Wagoneer but I am afraid they will add a few thousand $$$ to from where the Durango Citadel pricepoint would be.
The GC seemed to have a 50% improvement on MPG vs the Hemi after considering the higher Diesel price I think I would get a payback within 2 or 3 years, which is ok with me because I drive my cars into the ground (I also have a T&C over 100K). The truth be told my disappointed has more to do with choice, because I never got a chance to test drive the diesel (although I will try asap when the diesel GC hit the showroom). If the Hemi is like greased lighting with that Eight speed (the drive was really nice before but I did think the shifting was a weakness), I will probably forget about missed opportunity.solarstripes said:
Now what really would be cool would be to replace the Hemi with a 8 cyl 4.0L ecodiesel putting out about 320HP and 500 torque
but I am a dreamer.
Joined
·
466 Posts
Problem Parameters:solarstripes said:
Current Gas Avg - $3.645
Current Diesel Avg - $4.014
(From fuelgaugereport.aaa.com today, National average)
EPA MPG for 2014 Grand Cherokee 4x4 with Hemi - 16 MPG combined
EPA MPG for 2014 Grand Cherokee 4x4 Diesel - 24.4 MPG combined (took MPG #s and added this up myself)
Diesel Engine adds about $2000 to the cost.
Solution:
On fuel costs alone with national average prices, the diesel would pay off (against the hemi) at just under 32,000 miles. Average driving (15,000 miles), this is just over two years.
Joined
·
2,527 Posts
1) engine availabilitynash said:
2) cost of additional testing/certification
3) dilution of initial marketing (use the GC to prove demand for the Durango diesel)
lol.freshforged said:
Heck, and a 4th, which ties into 2, which is that up to this point the Durango hasn't been a big seller.
If they can resolve 1, and 3 proves to be worth it. And Durango sales shoot up decently, Then 3 and 4 resolving would resolve 2.
Moving forward, I will be very surprised if Durango sales fail to pick up. I know people keep saying it's expensive. But it's actually on the lower end of right in line with the competition. It's really not expensive for a large 3 row Crossover or SUV. As long as pricing stays near it's current level, and they market it enough, and they make enough sales should spike up.
freshforged said:
Fair enough, when I said I can't think of a good reason why they didn't put the ecodiesel in the Durango, I was wrong. I am sure there are millions of reasons why, just like there are always millions of reasons why companies or individuals don't act aggressively in their respective markets/efforts. Also I really like the Durango and I don't really know that the ecodiesel would actually bring anything more to the Durango than the Pentestar (until I test drive all the new versions).bumonbox said:
But as you said the Durango hasn't been a big seller (relative to expectations), and it was already much better looking and offered more "value" than the competition. I would argue it only fell short on the transmission (fixed), MPG (helped) & reputation of reliability (ongoing). So I am overall happy with the direction, but the ecodiesel would have seemed to eliminate just one more excuse (MPG) a consumer may have in order to not buy a Durango.
101 - 119 of 119 Posts
