If they are able to cut 1,000 lbs off the Wrangler Unlimited with a Diesel engine, I'll buy it!
Me too! The current Wrangler is too heavy and too wide in my opinion. Less weight would enable them to use a smaller engine and increase fuel mileage. This would be wonderful. I love my XJ except when I have to gas it up. And it is interesting to note that my 1993 XJ 4WD only weighs about 3100 pounds while a 4 door Wrangler unlimited is 4100 pounds and up, but has less seat down luggage space (by a little amount. Later XJ's show less luggage space) .guyver[this word has been banned due to its use as a pointless flame tool said:y]
If they are able to cut 1,000 lbs off the Wrangler Unlimited with a Diesel engine, I'll buy it!
So the current size isn't too big for the smaller trails? Wasn't there talk of offering a sub-Wrangler, size Wrangler? Just a smaller size Wrangler to go along with the current size?MoparNorm said:As one who wheels a JKU in some pretty extreme terrain, I've never found the 4 door to be too big, too wide, too long.
It's smaller than a Humvee.
The JK isn't that much larger than the CJ7 and t has 100 more horsepower.
The biggest complain from Jeepers was not enough cargo space in the CJ, so the TJ, and LJnweremthe results.
The JKU outsells the JK 3 to 1, so they aren't likely to go backwards in sizing.
They will however try to reduce the weight.
Alright, I don't complain a lot, but when Autoblog blatantly rips off my work and puts their name on it, that irks the hell out of me. Just sayin'.SUNBURNTsnype said:just saw this article on autoblog:
http://m.autoblog.com/2013/05/31/radical-2016-jeep-wrangler-suggested-by-job-listings/?post=1&icid=autoblog_river_article
figured itd be a good jumping off point for discussion on the evolution of wrangler or another "lite" version of wrangler sold as a different model
I will have to take you wheeling around here!MoparNorm said:As one who wheels a JKU in some pretty extreme terrain, I've never found the 4 door to be too big, too wide, too long.
Width is the same as the 2 door, both fit on trails that were originally created by bulldozers. The JKU requires more driver input for line selection, and requires a larger turning radius, but its still the same width.dakrt99 said:So the current size isn't too big for the smaller trails? Wasn't there talk of offering a sub-Wrangler, size Wrangler? Just a smaller size Wrangler to go along with the current size?
Hey Im sorry...I didnt realize they had poached that story from you. that is pretty shameful that they wouldnt even give you the credit or cite your article. If I'd have seen your article I would have cited it instead. I just usually read autoblog more frequently then auto newslvelleq (o)llllll(o) said:Alright, I don't complain a lot, but when Autoblog blatantly rips off my work and puts their name on it, that irks the hell out of me. Just sayin'.
Here was my original, which ran on May 24: Link
IMoparNorm said:Width is the same as the 2 door, both fit on trails that were originally created by bulldozers. The JKU requires more driver input for line selection, and requires a larger turning radius, but its still the same width.
Trail negotiation requires more attention, but except for trees growing into trails, a Wrangler is a lot smaller than a full-sized truck and they are out there running the same trails.
No no no the 2 door doesnt need to get bigger. I see what your saying but I think a better idea would be to just make a 2 door version of the 4 door as well as the standard 2 doortomtex said:I thank the 2 door JK should have 12 inches added to its length and offered and called the utility wrangler. THE 12' will offer more sleeping room to those who need it , as well as more cargo space. remove most of the luxury items , to help keep its price down and it should be a world best seller for jeep, and for those who want a smaller wrangler they should look at the new mini wrangler.
Take a look at what you can fill the extra space with , checkout youtube look for ququq cooking boxes.Jeepnut said:No no no the 2 door doesnt need to get bigger. I see what your saying but I think a better idea would be to just make a 2 door version of the 4 door as well as the standard 2 door
Good point. The executive who made the decision to create a 4 door Wrangler was probably promoted handsomely I'm postive. What a success although I am still a 2 door kind of guy. They will never downsize the Wrangler for sure however there is a slot below the Wrangler for a smaller, more nimble runabout with removable doors and roof.MoparNorm said:As one who wheels a JKU in some pretty extreme terrain, I've never found the 4 door to be too big, too wide, too long.
It's smaller than a Humvee.
The JK isn't that much larger than the CJ7 and t has 100 more horsepower.
The biggest complain from Jeepers was not enough cargo space in the CJ, so the TJ, and LJnweremthe results.
The JKU outsells the JK 3 to 1, so they aren't likely to go backwards in sizing.
They will however try to reduce the weight.
Don't be so convinced that anything with removable doors will be allowed.IMPERIAL4EVER said:Good point. The executive who made the decision to create a 4 door Wrangler was probably promoted handsomely I'm postive. What a success although I am still a 2 door kind of guy. They will never downsize the Wrangler for sure however there is a slot below the Wrangler for a smaller, more nimble runabout with removable doors and roof.
Actually, to this day the statistic is far worse. Pegging 70-80% of carseats being incorrectly installed, depending on where you look.Dr. Z said:Be thankful for those regs. They keep Wrangler unique.
As long as the Wrangler stays true to concept and form and name, the exemptions will continue, IMHO.
I am not knee-jerk with regard to safety rules. I was very, very happy when they finally started putting LATCH into cars, and that would never have happened without the "nannies." (Admittedly they chose an inferior system to the one already used in Europe.) LATCH is a huge life saver for infants, who can hardly make the "safety choices" adults are supposed to. For once, I knew that my kids were absolutely positively in a correctly attached car seat.
Someone did a study on the car seat installs by dealers and firemen and policemen and something like a third of them were wrong. Among civilians, I recall it being more than half.
It would be different if the industry's attitude was less infantile. Nobody objects to the Underwriters’ Laboratories... automakers had numerous years in which to establish a similar mechanism. Instead, we got padded dashboards and optional seat belts, sometimes we even got optional shoulder belts that were darned near impossible to use (ever try to use one of those fixed, separate shoulder belts on a daily basis? I have. The best part is after you finally get it on and adjusted and then realize you hadn't released the emergency brake yet, and had to take it back off again.)
PS> Just to keep perspective, I have stated in these forums, several times, that I believe there should be a ten year moratorium on new and increased safety standards, coupled by at least one research study on the best way to cut road deaths — driver training, maintenance, vehicle inspection, etc. Such studies don’t have to be expensive, though for patronage and internal-systems reasons, they often are.