2013+ models - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Future Models & Prototype Discussion > 2013+ models

Dan's Old as Dirt Birthday Sale!GEARSHADE Pocket Tops in stock and available at ROCKRIDGE Yukon Ultimate 35 axle kit for c/clip axles with Yukon Zip

Reply
Unread 04-25-2012, 11:14 AM   #16
Thrumcap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 40
While BOF large SUV's are on the way out, there is still a need for SUVs with some off road chops, towing capacity and real cargo volume. Jeep has everything but the latter. Jeep's largest vehicle, the WK2, has the same cargo capacity as the new CR-V and less than the RAV4 despite being in a larger class. Hopefully the Grand Wagoneer will put the "U" back in SUV. By the way, when the hell will we be seeing the Grand Wagoneer???

Thrumcap is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-25-2012, 08:00 PM   #17
Rob K
Registered User
1995 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,167
I also dislike the latest round of vehicles. I don't want to drive a high tech computer on wheels. We all know how reliable that stuff is and how much of a pita it is to fix. A lot can be said for simplicity. A '95 XJ standard edition is my only vehicle and as high tech as I want to get. It has just enough electronics to keep it running well. I don't look forward to getting something new. Retro styling is on the increase so that's a plus.

By the way I studied electronics and have done repair for a couple decades. If the manufacturers would lend me an ear I would say please keep the electronics to a minimum in the vehicle I depend on.
Rob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-25-2012, 11:43 PM   #18
Poncherello
Moderator
2010 KK Liberty 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Paterson, New Jersey
Posts: 976
That's cool, for Chrysler and Jeeps sake hope it turns out a winner
__________________
When you get knee-deep in a situation, floor it.
Poncherello is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-26-2012, 02:12 PM   #19
Marauder_Pilot
Moderator
 
Marauder_Pilot's Avatar
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob K View Post
We all know how reliable that stuff is and how much of a pita it is to fix.
Yeah, vehicles that are more reliable now than at any previous point in history is a real bad knock against electronics.
__________________
"Buying a Jeep for on-road handling is like downloading porn to savor the cinematography."
-TTAC

| ARB/Old Man Emu | Northridge 4x4 Canada | Warn | Modern Classic Enterprises | American Expeditionary Vehicles | GenRight | Poison Spyder | OR-FAB | Metalcloak | East CoastGear Supply | JKS | M.O.R.E. |

2000 Jeep Wrangler TJ Sport-OME HD Lift, ProComp bumper, 32" BFG TA K/Os
1994 GMC Sierra 1500 2WD-Stock
2010 Kawasaki KLR650-Stock
Marauder_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-26-2012, 04:51 PM   #20
mon1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spottedfrog
Yup Jeep is supposed to stand for History, Heritage and strength.
They are sort of like the Harley Davidson of 4 wheels, (but more reliable).

every one else is going car based, if jeep went truck based again they'd corner the market on people who buy because the actually want a UTILITY vehicle instead of a mini van with SUV style.

I think they need to narrow down the offerings, beef up the strength/ capability, and go back to a very classic look.

I also think they need to shrink the Wrangler back down to TJ/YJ/CJ size. Keep the 4 door but re-badge it as the rescue. I'd also like to see some thing in the spirit of the C101 Commando.
I totaly agree with what u saying but i disagree with one thing , the JK is perfect size i think the should keep it same size and they shouldnt go bigger at all maybe only make it simpler regarding electronic of car and make the engine more durable like the old 4.0L
mon1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-26-2012, 08:57 PM   #21
Rob K
Registered User
1995 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,167
Maroudar.
Electronics are a pita to repair compared to simple mechanical systems. Electronics in general are not as reliable as simple mechanical parts. There's a lot more opportunity for error in the manufacturing. I have no idea how you would convince me otherwise based on my 20 years of experience in electronic repair and about 17 years doing my own automotive repairs.

That said, electronics are not all bad. I actually prefer a little over none in my vehicles. Also mechanical systems can be made poorly. We've seen that over and over again through the years. If the electronics in the new vehicles are as reliable as you say they are I'd be real surprised. If they remain reliable even after many thousands of miles I'd be even more surprised. It's been my experience that the more complicated things are the more things break.
Rob K is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-27-2012, 09:08 PM   #22
cherox
Registered User
2012 KK Liberty 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 201
You guys have to remember one thing about the styling cues and other cute-ute attributes being brought into the Jeep brand..

Wrangler needs it. Grand Cherokee needs it. Jeep needs it..

Each brand that sells vehicles in the United States needs to meet CAFE and EPA regulations that are giving manufacturers nightmares. I don't have the information in front of me at the moment, but each brand must achieve a certain standard MPG, otherwise the brand will be fined, etc.

So take the Jeep brand. Known for its reliable off-road vehicles. If they didn't mix in some of the smaller, less capable vehicles to offset the overall low mpgs of the big selling Jeeps (Wrangler and GC,) there would be a huge problem.

My philosophy has always been, and continues to be, that as long as they don't decrease Wrangler's master off-road capability, or Grand Cherokee's 'Jack of All Trades' status, I'm fine with it.
cherox is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-28-2012, 10:22 PM   #23
Afmcronnie
Registered User
2013 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Independence, Mo
Posts: 43
This same debate (mechanical/electronic) (New/Old) has been going on for decades. I was running musclecars when electronic ignition becanme the standard. What? No points? Hummmph... that will never work. A Compact Disk? Can't be as reliable as a cassette. Fuel injection? The nozzels will clog up once a month....The list goes on and on. It's called PROGRESS. Steam replaced wind. Electricity replaced coal oil. Cable replaced over the air. The JK replaced the TJ. This is America, you can own whatever you want. Myself, I prefer my JK, Pentastar and electronics.
Afmcronnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-28-2012, 10:53 PM   #24
FAUEE
Registered User
2011 WK 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hickory, NC
Posts: 140
As someone who just bought a Grand Cherokee, I think they're going down the right path. didn't buy m Jeep to rock crawl, I bought it as a luxurious truck that can handle anything mother nature throws at me, and maybe do some light offroading for skiing and camping. Basically, I bought it because it's like a budget Range Rover.

I think that's the right way to go, and I think Jeep has a lot of potential in that sort of segment. If I could get something slightly larger than the Compass, with the same features from my GC Overland, with a normal transmission and turbo4 or v6, and it could do 25(v6) or 30(t4) mpg highway, I'd have one for the wifey as well.

I've got a lot of hope for Jeep future products, the WK2 was a huge improvement over the WK, and I think that them improving their other products s a great thing too,

And as others have mentioned, the more profit Jeep makes selling stuff like what I want, the more money they have to throw at potentially loss creating products that the real enthusiasts want.
FAUEE is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-29-2012, 02:06 AM   #25
Poncherello
Moderator
2010 KK Liberty 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Paterson, New Jersey
Posts: 976
I agree with what Cherox said about the changing in styling cues and the epa regulations. - Ironically, the funny thing about it, is that vehicles seem to have more plastic then metal.

Moreover, with Jeep now not being in financial difficulty as it was, they can spend some more $$ on developing thier products like adding 8-9 speed transmissions and hopefully a refined turbo diesel.

However, not just Jeep but when an automanufacturer comes out with a new model and add their list of innovations and techincal like fuel injections vs carburated, they also do things like add electronic brake traction control vs. limited slip. They seem go great in one area then nickel and dime some place else. I miss my ashtray and smoker windows lol.

When comparing motors you now have vvt, dohc, direct injection, high compression with an aluminum composite block. Sounds like something in an Indy car. They cylinder walls are thinner, the pistons and rods are lighweight and are at theri limit and the exhaust manifold is directly welded to the head. 290hp is nice but 260 ftlbs of torque? I would rather have those numbers reversed, less compression, a cast iron block, and headers I could remove.
__________________
When you get knee-deep in a situation, floor it.
Poncherello is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-30-2012, 09:28 AM   #26
XJ2Timer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Temple, TX
Posts: 732
The problem with EPA and CAFE is that there are other parts of the government which continue to make it difficult to meet those regulations by mandating ever stricter safety standards. Vehicles can save gas by being lighter, but they have to be heavier to meet impact and crash standards.

Personally I have never felt unsafe in my XJ. I'm willing to accept the older safety standards (and its lower weight) mated to a cleaner burning and more efficient modern drive train.
__________________
1st one- 1989 Cherokee Laredo. 12 great years
2nd one- 2001 Cherokee Limited. Got it before they were gone.
XJ2Timer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-01-2012, 12:03 AM   #27
Marauder_Pilot
Moderator
 
Marauder_Pilot's Avatar
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
Posts: 1,800
Weight isn't even close to the biggest barrier to fuel efficiency in modern cars-its aerodynamics. It's why the Kia Optima gets 40+ MPG and weighs 3200+ pounds, yet a similar-sized sedan from the '70s, or even 10 years ago, would be lucky to get half that, despite weighing about the same.

It's the reason all compact cars look the same, and all small vehicles are quickly becoming very similar.
__________________
"Buying a Jeep for on-road handling is like downloading porn to savor the cinematography."
-TTAC

| ARB/Old Man Emu | Northridge 4x4 Canada | Warn | Modern Classic Enterprises | American Expeditionary Vehicles | GenRight | Poison Spyder | OR-FAB | Metalcloak | East CoastGear Supply | JKS | M.O.R.E. |

2000 Jeep Wrangler TJ Sport-OME HD Lift, ProComp bumper, 32" BFG TA K/Os
1994 GMC Sierra 1500 2WD-Stock
2010 Kawasaki KLR650-Stock
Marauder_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-01-2012, 06:21 AM   #28
CajunPatriot
Registered User
2011 KK Liberty 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marauder_Pilot View Post
Weight isn't even close to the biggest barrier to fuel efficiency in modern cars-its aerodynamics. It's why the Kia Optima gets 40+ MPG and weighs 3200+ pounds, yet a similar-sized sedan from the '70s, or even 10 years ago, would be lucky to get half that, despite weighing about the same.

It's the reason all compact cars look the same, and all small vehicles are quickly becoming very similar.

I agree . The Jeep as we know it will evolve to more of a Euro/Asian style than the box we all love. I think the GCL and the Compass is the style the Jeep will go so expect more of those lines than the Wrangler/Liberty/Patriot boxlike style. Sometimes change is good. Jeep does need to start getting better mpg on their vehicles though and we all know past Jeeps had aerodynamics of a square.
CajunPatriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-01-2012, 06:53 AM   #29
WA_KK
Registered User
2008 KK Liberty 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dupont, WA
Posts: 157
I think a lot of the redesigns have to do with 2 things, the fact that Jeep is a company who exists to make money, and the culture of off roading. Jeep needs to sell say 100,000 vehicles a year to make money. A certain percentage of those will go to diehard off roaders, but the majority won't. They will go to your city slickers and your soccer moms who want 4x4. Most off road enthusiasts drive their vehicles into the ground. Just look at all the TJ, YJ, and XJs still out there. I recently saw a stat that the average American gets a new car every 3 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the figure us more than double that for off roaders. Jeep exists to make money, and as such they need to have some offerings that cater to the aforementioned soccer moms. I'm happy with my liberty, but it's not the most refined vehicle and if you never left the pavement there's not much of a reason to get one over an explorer or rav4. Yes, the new vehicles won't be as capable as an XJ was from the factory, but they'll be better on road and that's where the money is unfortunately.
WA_KK is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-01-2012, 07:53 AM   #30
TheHuntsman
Registered User
2012 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frankfort, NY
Posts: 294
There's money in making a car that can't be fixed by the owner. My 71 Superbeetle got 47mpg, and I could do all the repairs on it myself. When I bought it the car had 200k miles on it. In the 2 years I owned it stationed in the southwest I put 66k on it. I replaced a 9 dollar after market seal myself as the only repair it needed, and Volkswagen never saw a penny from me for ANYTHING. We've traded that for an aerodynamic "progress" machine that gets worse mileage and most repairs require that the average owner to pay a garage 65 dollars an hour. Yeah, the sweet smell of "progress".

Don't get me wrong. I love my 2012 JK, and it's definitely a lot more refined then my old CJ7. However, I don't think it's a "better" Jeep by any stretch of the imagination. It's simply a Jeep designed to target a market that feels they "need" creature comforts, and is okay with the fact that they have been gradually coerced into buy a product that the vast majority of them has neither the resources, time, or knowledge to maintain by an entire industry that has ingrained itself into modern society to the point that it would seem unthinkable to do away with the automobile at all.

I guess you could call that progress...
TheHuntsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.