Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

price?

9340 Views 76 Replies 37 Participants Last post by  TurtleMacLeod
anyone have a idea how big a dent this thing is going to make in the pocket?will i still be able to eat human food or is it meow mix for dinner?
21 - 40 of 77 Posts
Rommel said:
Oh My God it has seatbelts! SEATBELTS!! What mandated safety equipment is next, airbags????

-Romm
I hope that was meant as a joke, because a crushed frame in not even close to having to wear seat belts. As far as I know(correct me if I'm wrong) it's free to put on your seat belt, it costs A LOT to repair/replace a frame. Jeeps have always been tough vehicles, now they are becoming the totalee, instead on the totaler.
JeepJohnson said:
I hope that was meant as a joke, because a crushed frame in not even close to having to wear seat belts. As far as I know(correct me if I'm wrong) it's free to put on your seat belt, it costs A LOT to repair/replace a frame. Jeeps have always been tough vehicles, now they are becoming the totalee, instead on the totaler.
Crumple zones are mandated by the government. They add safety value and DCX could not have gotten away without having them.

Do I like the fact that my TJ can total another car and still drive away? Yes. Am I going to ***** about something that DCX has no control over? No.

My point was that not everybody likes seat belts or airbags, but they are in every car anyway, because that's the law. Not liking the visual design is one thing; lamenting on DCX's compliance with Federal law is pointless.

-Romm
I'll never buy the 2WD version but let's be honest, we (Jeepforum members and others like us) represent a small fraction of the Jeep market. On my daily commute I pass any number of jeeps that will never see a gravel road much less a hill climb or mud whole.

I like the nostalgia of what the Jeep name is associated with as much as the next person on this board, but my guess is that a low priced 2WD version will do very well on the market, which will probably be good for all Jeep consumers - those who modify and wheel, and those who buy it for their spoiled 16 year old daughters to drive to the mall.
Has anyone heard anymore about when the pricing will be announced? I stopped by my local dealer tonight and asked. They said that the plant was still making 06's and hadn't been retooled. They thought pricing would be available after the retooling and guessed sometime in July. I had hoped sooner!!
just found out the 4cyl 4x4 will be $14,780 starting

Good news thank you DC
JeepJohnson said:
Stiffer frame, yes. Stronger, no. It has areas that are designed to crush in an impact, I wouldn't call that stronger.
For any given material, and they hardly radically changed grade of steel, stiffer is stronger. Crash zones are not designed to be weaker - they are designed to fold in a predictable fashion - so that you do not end up with an engine up your butt in a crash.
4.0v8eater said:
just found out the 4cyl 4x4 will be $14,780 starting
Good news thank you DC
I didn't think there was going to be a 4 cylinder variant of the JK. I haven't read anything about it.
keithert said:
I didn't think there was going to be a 4 cylinder variant of the JK. I haven't read anything about it.
JK will be standard with a V-6 (3.8L)
Karamba said:
For any given material, and they hardly radically changed grade of steel, stiffer is stronger. Crash zones are not designed to be weaker - they are designed to fold in a predictable fashion - so that you do not end up with an engine up your butt in a crash.
If they are designed to fold then yes, they are areas that are intentionally made weaker that the surrounding areas. I know there's nothing DC can do about it, it's just another case of big brother trying to fix something that isn't broken. Personally, I really like the fact that if I'm in an accident I most likely have the stronger vehicle.:thumbsup:
JeepJohnson said:
If they are designed to fold then yes, they are areas that are intentionally made weaker that the surrounding areas. I know there's nothing DC can do about it, it's just another case of big brother trying to fix something that isn't broken. Personally, I really like the fact that if I'm in an accident I most likely have the stronger vehicle.:thumbsup:
The crumple zones are designed to take the impact of a crash, so the driver can walk away from the accident.
JeepJohnson said:
If they are designed to fold then yes, they are areas that are intentionally made weaker that the surrounding areas. I know there's nothing DC can do about it, it's just another case of big brother trying to fix something that isn't broken. Personally, I really like the fact that if I'm in an accident I most likely have the stronger vehicle.:thumbsup:
You just don't understand basic physics, which doesn't surprise me given your numerous ignorant comments throughout the thread.

Crumple zones are there to save your hide. They are designed to absorb the impact of the crash so you don't have to. They do NOT have to make the vehicle "weaker" except in a crash when you need it. Don't think you need crumple zones? Go jump off your 2nd story roof face first - that is roughly the impact you'll sustain hitting a metal dash vehicle in a 35 MPH crash. You would probably do the world a favor.

You want the "stonger" vehicle? I hit someone head on in my 71 CJ. The CJ was still drivable, the volvo I hit was not. My chest did get the opportunity to literally break the steering wheel though. The dude with the "weaker" vehicle walked away while I got a cracked sternum.

Whoever said that the JK bashers are jealous hit the nail on the head. How the F can you dog on a vehicle that hasn't been released/driven/tested/off roaded? I've owned 2 TJ's, a YJ, and a 71 CJ with a D44 full floater stock. I can honestly say that with every new generation, the vehicle has become more capable off road and on.
See less See more
dirtbagofva said:
JK will be standard with a V-6 (3.8L)
That's what I thought. That is why I was confused by the previous post.
You're the one who's comparing the JK to a CJ, not me. My dad owns a CJ and I love it, but in no way was I saying that a CJ is safer than a JK. And FYI, TJs have plastic dashes and air bags. I recently witnessed a crash with a TJ and a car. The car pulled out in front of the TJ and the car was just about in a U shape after the accident. The TJ however was driven out of the side of the car by the tow truck driver, the only visible damage was a bent bumper and hood/fenders. The people in the TJ walked away. I am in NO WAY jealous of anyone who owns a JK. I would much rather have a vehicle that is not designed to become smaller in an accident.
So JeepJohnson wants to minimize damage to his vehicle, with less concern for injury to its occupants. The rest of you guys are more worried about occupant safety and survival. Fair enough. Let's move on.

How about discussing the price for the upcoming JKs?
What part of "the people in the TJ walked away" is being misunderstood? Yes I want to minimise damage to my Jeep, and yes I care about the safety of its occupants. If I was going to be in an accident I would much rather be in a vehicle that will hold up. I work for an insurance agency and I just don't see any benefit to a collapsible frame. On the price, since the 2WD Unlimited is supposed to start at less than a TJ Unlimited(this is what it sounds like anyway) then I would imagine the 4WDs would be comparable to the TJ in price.
http://www.visionengineer.com/mech/crumple_zones.shtml

How Do Crumple Zones Work?

Crumple zones are deliberate weak spots that engineers have placed in the structure of a car. While this might appear contrary to passenger safety, there are sound principles behind this approach.

By placing the weak spots in strategic locations, the metal work of a car can be made to collapse in a controlled manner. This creates 2 mechanisms by which the energy from an impact can be managed:

1. in deforming the metal work of the car, energy from the impact gets "used up" or converted into heat. This reduces the amount of energy left to damage the passenger area.

2. since the collapse is controlled, energy from the impact can be directed away from the passenger area. In most designs, force from the impact is channelled to areas such as the floor, bulkhead, sills, roof and bonnet.

Force On The Passenger

To understand how crumple zones affect passengers, consider a car crashing head-on into a stationary concrete wall. Before the crash, the car and its passengers move together at the same speed. If the car has a rigid body, an impact will cause both the car and passengers to come to a stop in a split second.

It is this rapid deceleration that causes injuries and fatalities in a car crash. The force acting on the passengers is given by Newton's 2nd law:


As the stopping time is only a split second, the force on the passengers is very high.

Cars with crumple zones, however, do not have a rigid body. One can think of them as springs being compressed against a wall. Although the front bumper of the car immediately becomes stationary, it takes some time for the metal work to collapse. This allows the middle and rear of the car to continue in motion for a short time.

Since the stopping time is increased, the force acting on the passengers is greatly reduced.
See less See more
Good post. I understand how it's supposed to work, I just don't think works that perfectly in the real world.
JeepJohnson said:
Personally, I really like the fact that if I'm in an accident I most likely have the stronger vehicle.
Statistics and analysis of accidents does not agree with you. Survival rate in modern cars - in all sorts of collisions - is much higher then in old on-frame cars.

It is stronger - stiffness does not come by itself.
JeepJohnson said:
What part of "the people in the TJ walked away" is being misunderstood? Yes I want to minimise damage to my Jeep, and yes I care about the safety of its occupants. If I was going to be in an accident I would much rather be in a vehicle that will hold up.
No, you do not understand what you are talking about. But I am beeing redundant. ;)

But one thing we all agree - if you are in an accident, we want you to be in a car that transfers full impact to its occupant. Thus, Darwin laws are not circumvented. :rtft:
Karamba said:
Statistics and analysis of accidents does not agree with you. Survival rate in modern cars - in all sorts of collisions - is much higher then in old on-frame cars.

It is stronger - stiffness does not come by itself.
In case you didn't no, there are a lot of body-on-frame vehicles still made, one being the Jeep Wrangler. As stated I work for an insurance agency and can tell you that unibody vehicles are much weaker in an accident. A B-O-F is much stronger and safer. Think I'm wrong? Get in a unibody car and slam it into a concrete wall, then if you still can do the same in a B-O-F car and see which you fare better in.
21 - 40 of 77 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top