Joined
·
1,594 Posts
I never said or implied that read my post againreally that's all jeep should make is wrangler, a pickup truck, and something liberty size.
I never said or implied that read my post againreally that's all jeep should make is wrangler, a pickup truck, and something liberty size.
my comment was speaking for me not for you, don't know why you took it that way.I never said or implied that read my post again
according to me. these are forums, it's all opinions and scuttlebutt, that's assumed. no one on these forums represent the company.According to who ? Either quote a source or just say it is your opinion.
It has been covered several times in many threads and Bob Sheaves may have written an Allpar Article about it, but I'll try to recap;Norm,
Just curious and I hope I haven't missed it some where, but do you have a list features, capabilities amenities, etc. that a Jeep MUST have for you to consider it a "real" Jeep.
if you were in charge, how many models would jeep make and what would they be (size?, truck, suv, etc. )?It's something that defies the status quo and it's something that the newer, souless Jeeps cannot replicate.
It's something that Manley and Marchionne have missed.
Yet, the original WWII Jeep, the MP, is not considered a "real Jeep" by Jeepers correct? It couldn't traverse the Rubicon.It has been covered several times in many threads and Bob Sheaves may have written an Allpar Article about it, but I'll try to recap;
There are several definitions, first, the original design parameters initiated by the United States Military in WWII. That defined exactly what constituted a Jeep, right up until the time that Kaiser tried to take Jeep "mainstream".
King for a Day?if you were in charge, how many models would jeep make and what would they be (size?, truck, suv, etc. )?
You need to stick to subjects you KNOW about. How do you think that roads in Moab and the Rubicon got there?Yet, the original WWII Jeep, the MP, is not considered a "real Jeep" by Jeepers correct? It couldn't traverse the Rubicon.
+1The Wrangler is a hardcore offroader, and it's plant is at full capacity. Then again, the GC is a little more road friendly, still badass offroad, luxurious and also bringing it's plant to capacity. I think Sergio wants to put Land Rover right in his crosshairs, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
My apologies I misread the meaning of your post. That's what I get for trying to sneak and use my phone at work :lol:my comment was speaking for me not for you, don't know why you took it that way.
Sadly I agree. I can't say I will never again own a new Jeep but I don't think I will ever lust after any new Jeep the way I did my XJ Cherokee's.One thing is clear, Fiat thinks that consumers care more about the nameplate on the hood, than brand identity and actual capability and Jeep has become nothing more than a marketing slogan.
I want to add to Norm's reply.Norm,
Just curious and I hope I haven't missed it some where, but do you have a list features, capabilities amenities, etc. that a Jeep MUST have for you to consider it a "real" Jeep.
Build quality and cheap components brought in by Daimler is what hurt Jeep sales, NOT, being too capable.+1
I think that the 1940s—1980s idea of what Jeep was is definitely dead or dying … not a bad thing IMO … now I better get the Heck out of here, haha.
why do you need a Patriot and a Liberty?King for a Day?
Wrangler: Given an adequate production facility, JK, JKU, a hardtop variant, like Dakar and a Nukizer type pickup and/or a 'Gladiator' type.
Grand Cherokee, no change,it is what it is.
Patriot remains as well, ditch the CVT for the 8 or 9 speed trans.
Liberty, this is the missed oportunity. KJ: It tried to be Dakar/Euro SUV and it failed. It came darn close. Let Bob have a crack at that messed up front suspension, take about 500 lbs out of it and give it more XJ like dimensions, KEEP the 242 transfer case, clean up the interior, and improve quality and it's a 150,000+ unit per year vehicle.
Here is what they did wrong with KJ. Front suspension was a complete failure. Front diff was too light duty. Cargo volumn was unusable, to tall, not long enough. The seats didn't fold flat (that's really stupid on a Jeep) The irritating Euro window switches on the consol. 10 years later I still can't find the dam things, window controls belong on the DOORS, I don't give a rats @#$% where the Europeans place them, if the control is for a door function, it belongs on the door,...there I feel better...
Wheelwells were too small and overall the Daimler habit of cheap components with cheap results killed all of Chrysler, just not Jeep.
Jeep Pickup? Desired, but not likely unless it comes on the Wrangler platform and FYI for those who tout how modern the Fiat CUSW flex system will be, in 1965 JEEP ran Wrangler (CJ5), Wagoneer, Gladiator and others down the same line.
that's ok. no big deal.My apologies I misread the meaning of your post. That's what I get for trying to sneak and use my phone at work :lol:
I think there is still a need for Jeep to be what it was for buyers like Norm, and that's still possible if Jeep stops making vehicles that really should be wearing the Chrysler or Dodge badge. I'm not totally convinced Patriot or Grand Cherokee or Compass can't sell as Chryslers or Dodges. awd/4wd could be offered in a Dodge or Chrysler, no law against that.+1
I think that the 1940s—1980s idea of what Jeep was is definitely dead or dying … not a bad thing IMO … now I better get the Heck out of here, haha.