Joined
·
314 Posts
If they are able to cut 1,000 lbs off the Wrangler Unlimited with a Diesel engine, I'll buy it!
Evolution of Wrangler/Stitch rumors
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
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
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
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:
As to hood latches, look at the ones used on airplanes. They are recessed. There is no reason not to use them on the new Wrangler lite. I'm not so sure about fold down windshields though. I personally don't like the blind spot they cause at the bottom on the passenger side. But when you are driving something dusty like the Rubicon trail the dust sure makes it hard to see, so I understand why folks like them. But just don't mess with our beloved solid axles!!
Joined
·
14,401 Posts
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.
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.
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,620 Posts
Yup.
One of our contributors told me they'd met a reporter from a mainstream media outlet we all know, who said they use Allpar daily as a key source. I checked on Google and found a single actual attribution to allpar.
Pretty shameful. Autoblog is mainly a clip service, too, which means they really have no excuse -- or, rather, that writer has none, autoblog has generally been good about reporting sources, better than most major media outlets (Windsor Star even used one of our renderings, both print and online, without any attribution).
One of our contributors told me they'd met a reporter from a mainstream media outlet we all know, who said they use Allpar daily as a key source. I checked on Google and found a single actual attribution to allpar.
Pretty shameful. Autoblog is mainly a clip service, too, which means they really have no excuse -- or, rather, that writer has none, autoblog has generally been good about reporting sources, better than most major media outlets (Windsor Star even used one of our renderings, both print and online, without any attribution).
Joined
·
14,401 Posts
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:
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.
Joined
·
146 Posts
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:
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 and bells , 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:
Jeep should add a special roof-rack for this JK. For a 2 door JKU . I think it would cost to much and be too long for normal jeepers, it also could help kill off the 2 door JK , it has 1 in 3 sells with the JKU ? NOTE:The 2 door JK doesn't have the room for 1 or 2 adult passengers in its rear seat, in other words it hasn't the capacity needed and with the mini wrangler, wrangler truck and current JK. Its market share should become less and less if Jeep doesn't lengthen it to accommodate 4 adults.
Joined
·
221 Posts
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:
Joined
·
12,401 Posts
Don't be so convinced that anything with removable doors will be allowed.IMPERIAL4EVER said:
As Bob said, the Wrangler is given multiple exemptions from vehicle regulations. Designing a whole new vehicle that requires similar exemptions will probably never be allowed.
Didn't you notice that all the Jeep concepts had at least half-doors? Removable doors are a big no-no anymore.
Now, please report to your nanny for a diaper change and pablum feeding.
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,620 Posts
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.
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.
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:
Here is a random snippet from http://www.seatcheck.org/news_fact_sheets_statistics.html
- While 96 percent of parents and caregivers believe their child safety seats are installed correctly1, research shows that seven out of 10 children are improperly restrained.
As it pertains to regulations: I am not sure if it matters - I guess that's the issue. They can't be truly enforced. Many, many parents make a choice to be pase about infant safety. It is ultimately their choice, one I disagree with, but the point is, they can regulate measures to install seats, and secure infants all they want. The people most likely to comply, would likely comply with recomendations regardless of actual regulations. It's sort of all or nothing. If it's important enough to you, you'll educate yourself, not just to be in compliance, but out of general concern for your child. They are much more delecate, much smaller. Advances in car seats is not something I deam unecessary or unimportant. It's not like the changes actually burden my life anyways.
Oh, and on an on topic note - I would say this about regulations. If I were considering a Jeep Wrangler type vehicle, I would already be considering the ramifications of it's unique assets. It is clearly a different vehicle than my 4 door 300m. I would not attempt to use it the way I do my 300m. The issue here is, regulators as a whole have no faith that people will educate themselves on the vehicle, so they remove the choice entirely. They are not wrong in that sense. Many people will be careless and stupid with regards to the impact of removable doors, and will choose not to think or educate themselves. But then the rest of us get screwed. It kinda sucks.
Maybe we ought to allow general testing of common sense and capacaty to be educated and give people special licenses. "I am not a duntz, I will educate myself and not be overtly reckless" It'd be a pass to not be held up by the same regulations.
ok / done
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
