 | |
New Jeep Grand Chicory
Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: New Jeep Grand Chicory -
10-12-2004
, 10:27 PM
|
Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE! Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango. Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!" Ptewph. |
The Dakota too, sadly.
BDK
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400 From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1 Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks, rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE! Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango. Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!" Ptewph. The ones I've seen on the road have made me think that perhaps they're trying to recapture some of the XJ Cherokee's fans. To me it looks boxier, and the lines are cleaner and straighter, more reminiscent of the XJ than the WJ. This is so especially when viewed from behind. The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. OTOH, I like the round headlamps and how they integrate the shape into the leading edge of the hood. Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather than discarded. |
designers got drunk and tried to draw a ZJ you'd pretty much get the
new Grand.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote: Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango. Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!" The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991... Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather than discarded. Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod inline 6 it replaces". |
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
GM now selling the I5 |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote: Looks like one of the rejected designs for the new/current Dodge Durango. Taillights are the stupid kind and look like the design that almost went on the Chevrolet Equinox until someone at Chevrolet said "Clear taillights! No! Dude! We TOTALLY have to do clear taillights!" The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991... It's a Jeep, so the intent is for it to suddenly be 1943... Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather than discarded. Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod inline 6 it replaces". Car and Driver and the other such magazines will never even test six |
with the "hemi" and not the 4.7.
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree. And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991... |
(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?) :-)
Quote:
| Boo! on the V6 replacing the I6; SUV engines ought to have low-end grunt. That I6 was an institution, and it deserved to be updated rather than discarded. Agreed. I'm sure Car and Driver will cream their jeans about the "silky-smooth V6" being better than the "agricultural-sounding pushrod inline 6 it replaces". |
built, right behind the slant-six. And it has a lot of features that are
frankly better than the slanty. But I still like the old L-heads best,
and not even Car and Driver could claim that any v6 is smoother than an
old Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto L-head. More powerful, yeah. Smoother,
never in a million years. :-)
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn signals". |
Quote:
|
Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? |
Quote:
|
Or do you want the "Brake lamp and turn signal are two separate lamps, but they're right next to each other, and both red, so the drivers behind you have to figure out just what-all your vehicle's assortment of bright/dim/on/off/steady/flashing red lights is trying to convey...once they get close enough to see that there are in fact _two_ "duelling" reds right next to each other" badness? |
hatefully stupid.
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved. |
"If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved.
"Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a
surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping
on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of
the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake
light.Half the problem solved. And if you're being indecisive or stopping
on a slick road (pumping the brakes or simply getting on and off them) it
looks just like a turn signal. And if you're signalling for a turn or
lanechange AND getting on and off the brakes...
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
Geoff proclaimed: Daniel J. Stern wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400 From: Daniel J. Stern <dastern (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1 Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks, rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE! Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust? |
ride in it just when we got as far from home as we were planning to go
that day something would break - starter would fall off, carb would
come un-bolted or the float would drop, point gap mysteriously jump
from 20 to 100 thousanths...
But it was pretty easy to patch back up, and in the mud or snow it was
king. Plus, she would haul 13 people, all their tubes, *AND* a keg of
beer down to Wildcat Creek. That was a Jeep to be proud of.
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote: Pick your badness! Do you want the "brake, tail and turn signal functions all lumped into one lamp, which can give only one signal at a time, and if it fails, you lose all functions on that side" badness? My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved. Halfassedly. "If it fails, you lose all functions on that side" problem solved. "Can give only one signal at a time" problem UNsolved. If all a surrounding driver can see is one side or the other, and you are stepping on the brakes AND signalling for a turn or lanechange in the direction of the only rear lamp he can see, all he sees is your blinker, NOT your brake light.Half the problem solved. |
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.
OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.