[suzq044]

Would love to see something like a smaller Recon with removable doors and top, especially with Toyota developing a true body on frame compact Land Cruiser.

Baby recon - aka Renegade II [Moved Images here]

 

[Dave Z]

PS> Found a CR. Shadow small for a compact car, undistinguished performer, compromised rear seat comfort. No specs.
Civic: big surprise they loved it. No comments on interior space or power.
No point even looking at Corolla.
Their reviews covered around 1990 to 1997, crossing generations, and were pretty short, so not especially useful unless you were one of those people who simply delegated your decisions to them.

 

[N.leo]

No, they have plenty of choice. The hostility is all on social media. EV sales keep slowly rising in sales. The reason Stellantis can't sell them is partly their own messaging, and partly this "dual powertrain" insistence that yields lesser cars. Recon as pure EV can be engineered better than Recon as EV and gasoline and maybe hybrid and maybe we should make sure we can shove in a 392?

It's the same mistake they made with Shadow vs Civic+Corolla. Shadow was set up to have a V6, lots of wasted hood space. Civic and Corolla were set up for 1.8 liter engines. Want more power, figure out how to get it from 1.8 liters. They fit into a smaller space, so the cars were lighter, so they performed better.

They also keep using the wrong brands.

Had they done a rebody of the LX cars for Dodge, or strictly gas versions, maybe hybrid on the STLA platform they'd be fine.

Use Chrysler, which lacks a defined identity to go the full electric route.

Same with Jeep. Why Wagoneer S and Cherokee and Recon?

 

[Dave Z]

Cherokee's not electric (and there's no reason to make it electric) but yes.

 

[suzq044]

They also keep using the wrong brands...

They use the wrong brand. Period. Just one. They only want the one with the most global footprint. Jeep. They also need to realize how VASTLY different the US views Jeep than anywhere else.

 

[Dave Z]

... which would mean admitting they could make a mistake, which Filosa can do, but not the others.

 

[David S]

They were not cramped and slow in comparison with the standard Shadow which was most of them. Can't recall any review putting Shadow above either one. Can't recall complaints of them being cramped, either. Usually you have a bunch of specs. In this case the appropriate spec would be front + rear legroom (given that even then, seats moved).

The base Civic was slow, the midline Civic was a match for the heavy Shadow, the Civic EX was well over the Shadow in acceleration, as I recall from the day.

Consumers Guide on the 1988-89 Civic - this is before the 1990s 1.8s, hp was pretty low (70-105). 1.5 or 1.6 engine. By the time I was looking, they were up to 80/100/125 or so. However, weight was just 2,000 lb (4-door). Consumers Guide reports, “Interiors are roomy...
performance is brisk with manual shift, since the engine revs up nicely, but sluggish with automatic.”

Corolla, 1988-89: 90 or 115 hp. Carburetors!! Ouch. Oops, 100 hp fuel injection for 1989. “If you like high-revving engines, you’ll love Corolla’s, which is also smooth and responsive. The precise 5-speed makes driving even more fun. ... ” No real comments on interior space other than “rear leg room so-so (worse in the coupe).” Weight: 2,406 lb.

Shadow: pretty complimentary compared with Consumer Reports' hit pieces. “Both 2.2-liter engines are noisy, but the turbo delivers 146 horsepower for snappy performance.” “Back seat is tight for grown-ups” - base engine 93-97 hp, 2.5 liter 95-100 hp, then turbo 146 or 150. Weight, 2558 lb for the four-door. So a little more horsepower, (a lot more torque), and a lot more weight.

I don't see the needed interior dimensions here so it's subjective. They were all called subcompacts.

Yes, the turbo four was great. But they designed the engine bay to hold too large an engine, so the Sundance ended up 150-500 lb heavier than its competitors.

'87 Shadow and Corolla sedan were compacts, Civic and Corolla hatch were subcompacts. Legroom was much worse in all the Japanese cars.

	'87 Shadow	'87 Corolla sedan	'87 Civic sedan	87 Corolla FX	'87 Civic hatch
Front legroom	41.5 in / 1054 mm	40.0	40.3 in / 1024 mm		43.3 in / 1100 mm
Rear legroom	34.2 in / 869 mm	31.0	32.8 in / 833 mm		18.9 in / 480 mm
Total legroom	75.7	71	73.1		62.2
Passenger Volume	89	87	84	86	70
Cargo Volume	13	13	12	14	15

I couldn't find legroom figures on the FX, but they weren't going to be as good as Shadow.

There were way more turbo Shadows and Sundances than Civic Si's and Corolla FX-16s. I had a turbo Shadow ES and Sundance.

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare the MPG of cars and trucks side-by-side. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of new and used cars and trucks

fueleconomy.gov

Session timeout

1987 Toyota Corolla Specs, Review, Pricing & Photos

1987 Toyota Corolla Review and find specs, pricing, photos, compare trims, and explore local inventory by verified Toyota dealers at carweek.com

www.carweek.com

 

[movaldes]

No, that was a fun rumor but no. They were 100% separate vehicles.

Hmmm, are you sure about that?
And even if they were completely "separate" vehicles, there is no denying that the design and tech started with the Airflow.
It was gifted to Jeep.

They had a competition to "name the new Jeep", why?
Maybe because they couldn't call it the Jeep Airflow and they really had no idea what to call a new, EV Jeep. I'm speculating of course.
And they ended up butchering that, as well. It looks nothing like the W/GW. So why use that name? Just too many head scratching moments with this company.

 

[serpens]

Hmmm, are you sure about that?
And even if they were completely "separate" vehicles, there is no denying that the design and tech started with the Airflow.
It was gifted to Jeep.

They had a competition to "name the new Jeep", why?
Maybe because they couldn't call it the Jeep Airflow and they really had no idea what to call a new, EV Jeep. I'm speculating of course.
And they ended up butchering that, as well. It looks nothing like the W/GW. So why use that name? Just too many head scratching moments with this company.

The Airflow was shown at CES in 2022, the Wagoneer S was shown just months later. Even when Ralph Gilles was on Instagram talking about the Airflow styling direction changing, you can’t ignore that happened far after that the Wagoneer S concept was first seen. The Wagoneer S styling has looked almost exactly the same since it was shown as a concept. While I hate the Wagoneer S name, “Jeep Airflow” makes even less sense.

Also, of course they would share components. They’re both on STLA Large and the whole purpose of the platform was being able to use common components for different cars. The tech was “gifted” to the Dodge Charger too…oh wait that work started even earlier. I will lastly add that there has been no word, even now, about the Wagoneer S getting the 800v architecture like the Airflow. I’m sure it will eventually, but it’s telling that it’s not been discussed openly.

 

[movaldes]

The Airflow was shown at CES in 2022, the Wagoneer S was shown just months later. Even when Ralph Gilles was on Instagram talking about the Airflow styling direction changing, you can’t ignore that happened far after that the Wagoneer S concept was first seen. The Wagoneer S styling has looked almost exactly the same since it was shown as a concept. While I hate the Wagoneer S name, “Jeep Airflow” makes even less sense.

Also, of course they would share components. They’re both on STLA Large and the whole purpose of the platform was being able to use common components for different cars. The tech was “gifted” to the Dodge Charger too…oh wait that work started even earlier. I will lastly add that there has been no word, even now, about the Wagoneer S getting the 800v architecture like the Airflow. I’m sure it will eventually, but it’s telling that it’s not been discussed openly.

I honestly don't remember the S concept, so I'll defer.
Are any of their vehicles getting the 800v? I haven't heard much talk about that either.

 

[serpens]

I honestly don't remember the S concept, so I'll defer.
Are any of their vehicles getting the 800v? I haven't heard much talk about that either.

Right now, just the Charger Banshee, Giulia, and the Stelvio. But that could all change tomorrow. I hope Filosa has a steadier hand.

 

[Zagnut27]

I saw my first Wagoneer S this morning in the parking lot at Walmart. It was smaller than I expected…though some of that has to do with naming it Wagoneer (which are ginormous). Since it’s a twin of the new Cherokee, size-wise I guess is just about right. Still say it’s a stupid name (Wagoneer S, not Cherokee).

I liked the styling in pics, though in person I was rather underwhelmed. Perhaps it was just the dull gray color. My wife thought it was ugly, though she didn’t like it in pics either.

I like the styling of the new Cherokee, much better than KL, though that front end looks about as useful for off-roading as a snow plow. Maybe the Trailhawk version will be more practical….when it arrives in “three years”. lol.

 

[12soldier]

View attachment 112518

From this shot in the teaser video, the bumpers are pretty vertical looking on these models. What trim level they are, we won't know until they actually debut.
[/QUOTE]
My guess for Sub models are, Trailhawk (yet to be seen), Backcountry, Limited, Classic or Sport and probably some special editions (California, Texas, and something beach oriented). From the looks of it a Trailhawk edition would probably be 29, 30 or 31" tires and 1 to 1.5" inch lift supplied by Daystar or similar and some rubber flare extenders like the put on the Wranglers to extended the flares about an inch further. It's actual capabilities will likely be suited towards those with other toys it can carry along on its roof rack and camping. Eventually they'll probably offer some larger powertrain that will require a bump in the hood to accommodate and have all sorts of stickers on it and a light up grill.

I bet it would look crazy nice in a baby blue color with gloss white grill and accents, sort of like they did for the Wrangler Chief and add some pinstripes to it as well (...maybe next Easter).

 

[12soldier]

I saw my first Wagoneer S this morning in the parking lot at Walmart. It was smaller than I expected…though some of that has to do with naming it Wagoneer (which are ginormous). Since it’s a twin of the new Cherokee, size-wise I guess is just about right. Still say it’s a stupid name (Wagoneer S, not Cherokee).

I liked the styling in pics, though in person I was rather underwhelmed. Perhaps it was just the dull gray color. My wife thought it was ugly, though she didn’t like it in pics either.

I like the styling of the new Cherokee, much better than KL, though that front end looks about as useful for off-roading as a snow plow. Maybe the Trailhawk version will be more practical….when it arrives in “three years”. lol.

You're right they could've just called it the Cherokee with emphasis on the E for electric. Wagoneer didn't need a smaller vehicle, it kind of dilutes its appeal in a way. It really should've been the Hornet for Dodge and not a Jeep at all. The current Hornet should've been a Neon or just something else. Plus, why did they even do the name challenge for the WagS if they weren't going to change it anyway? I bet they had thousands of names submitted. .....Way to listen to the customers Jeep, sigh....

 

[rvk5150]

Right now, just the Charger Banshee, Giulia, and the Stelvio. But that could all change tomorrow. I hope Filosa has a steadier hand.

800V has been delayed multiple times....basically on life support/cancelled.

 

[Dave Z]

Wagoneer S was probably chosen for higher pricing.

 

[JKU12]

They have little choice, given the current hostility towards EVs. Maybe, one day they will have a proper hybrid as well.

Hostility?

2018: 206,365 EV sales.
2019: 225,741 EV sales.
2020: 233,330 EV sales.
2021: 389,410 EV sales.
2023: 1.4 million EV sales.
2024: 1.7 million EV sales.

 

[David S]

Hostility?

2018: 206,365 EV sales.
2019: 225,741 EV sales.
2020: 233,330 EV sales.
2021: 389,410 EV sales.
2023: 1.4 million EV sales.
2024: 1.7 million EV sales.

Yes sales are growing, at a lower rate than projected in the past couple of years.

1. Sales are growing in part because of a $7500 tax incentive, now available for certain models and certain people for sales and every model and everyone on leases, which the seller may or may not pass in full to the consumer in the lease. It is extremely likely this tax incentive will go away very soon. Sales will be less than if it were in place when that happens, no one knows the exact impact.

2. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward the lower middle and working classes being taxed to subsidize the cars of the upper middle class and rich as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward BEV mandates, whether through unrealistic fuel economy standards that can only be met with BEVs, pronouncements by governors or other means as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward govenment funding of infrastructure to speed up BEV adoption as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't.

3. A small number of people are hostile to BEVs, this isn't impacting BEV sales much with the current tax incentives in place.

 

[N.leo]

Wagoneer S was probably chosen for higher pricing.

My guess is they saw Range Rover and the Range Rover Velar.

 

[Adventurer55]

Yes sales are growing, at a lower rate than projected in the past couple of years.

1. Sales are growing in part because of a $7500 tax incentive, now available for certain models and certain people for sales and every model and everyone on leases, which the seller may or may not pass in full to the consumer in the lease. It is extremely likely this tax incentive will go away very soon. Sales will be less than if it were in place when that happens, no one knows the exact impact.

2. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward the lower middle and working classes being taxed to subsidize the cars of the upper middle class and rich as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward BEV mandates, whether through unrealistic fuel economy standards that can only be met with BEVs, pronouncements by governors or other means as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't. A lot of people misconstrue hostility toward govenment funding of infrastructure to speed up BEV adoption as hostility toward BEVs, it isn't.

3. A small number of people are hostile to BEVs, this isn't impacting BEV sales much with the current tax incentives in place.

I wonder how much longer the tax incentives will stay in place.