I just think that Jeep needs to take off roading a bit more seriously with its other vehicles, and even the Wrangler in some ways (the JK is a great improvement, though).
Is there any other manufacturer that takes it MORE seriously than JEEP?
The H3 is a turd, I've wheeled with a few, while the rear suspension and 4.0 to 1 low work quite well, the front has very limited articulation, and the rockers are very vulnerable. IMHO the H3 is a penis extension for emasculated husbands of soccer moms that wont let them buy the full bling H2. (The H2 is another story, dont even get me started on it)
I'd put the house on Your, or any XJ with a rear locker over the H3 or the FJ. A guy I wheel with has a new Rubicon, and I have to say, even with the 3.8, Its a monster on the trails. He has no problems an the tightest trails at the Cliffs, Rockport, or the Badlands. The extra width is really negligible on the trail, you will NOT have to worry about that, especially coming from an XJ. You, I'm sure already know how to make up for any weakness a platform posseses when on the trail Ie.. The breakover on the XJ. The KJ is a different animal, and you will have to pick different lines, but you will still get the same results.
__________________
2005 SRT-4 ACR 2.4
1997 Grand Cherokee 4.0
1998 Wrangler Sport 4.0
1999 Ram 2500 SB 4x4 V-10
1971 VW Super Beetle 2287
1952 Willys 'Melon wagon 132
1953 Plymouth Wagon 218/T5
1950 Chrysler New Yorker 440/518
um.. no - their copyrighted images, are their copyrighted images, doesn't matter where i find them :P -- but i dont think these are preddy images anyways. Instead of chopping, i did a quick sketch; i'm having trouble with the angles of the hood & fender, so i did "kind of" 2 versions on the left truck. lol
actually you could say you did a parody of the nitro truck and its art, dodge couldnt do a dam thing because art is protected. i recall an artist in california who made barbies that looked like whores and sold them as such. Matel took him to court and the artist won because of what i mentioned before so no worries.
actually there is a point there - the "original" whatever it may be - has to be changed at least 80 percent, if i remember the law correctly. If it's not - then.. it was never intended to be produced, nor to get any financial gain originally. [But if that truck gets produced, I would LIKE to get SOMETHING out of it (Who wouldn't?).. like one of the trucks or a $ amount of some sort - nothing huge tho]
actually there is a point there - the "original" whatever it may be - has to be changed at least 80 percent, if i remember the law correctly. If it's not - then.. it was never intended to be produced, nor to get any financial gain originally. [But if that truck gets produced, I would LIKE to get SOMETHING out of it (Who wouldn't?).. like one of the trucks or a $ amount of some sort - nothing huge tho]
They'll just steal your idea and not give you any credit whatsoever. A few months back (maybe a year or more now) DCX plagerized an article I typed for SRTForums on the end-of-life on the previous gen SRT-4 in one of their OEM magazines, and didn't give me any credit for it at all. At the time I thought it was pretty cool that they would publish it, but credit is due where credit is due. If you're gonna quote something that someone else has said or done, giving due credit would be the polite thing to do. I'd be pissed if I were you Suz. I think a phone call suggesting a position within the design department is not too much of a stretch.
Then there's GranTurismo with his awesome SRT sedan chop based on the Evo concept... so what if that chop generated buzz and got a lot of executives all red-faced... it's still a creative chop based on elements already out there in the wild, and if companies like Chrysler don't like us enthusiasts speculating on how great their products could be, while ramming junk like the Caliber down our throats, well... if they don't know where they can go, maybe we can chop a map for them.
__________________
"This car is 100% sh*ts and giggles." ...and is missed on an hourly basis.
"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you." Jeremy Clarkson
EDIT- which is kind of odd, since that sticker was added sometime after its Easter Jeep Safari debut. That shows ORT is certainly developing.
__________________
Quote: Originally Posted by edgeandink
The reason they can put down decent 1/4mile times is mostly in part to the solid rear axel and its ability to hook and go. But we all know that doesnt mean crap from a dig.
Chrysler planning engine stop-start systems [Do you remember this? lol)
MOTOR AUTHORITY - Chrysler has promised to follow the lead of carmakers like BMW by offering fuel-saving engine stop-start technologies on some of its cars in the near future. The system, which shuts down the engine while the car is stationary in traffic, then starts it again once the driver releases the clutch or brake pedal, can improve fuel economy by up to 5%.
Chrysler product development chief Frank Klegon told Automotive News that the new “micro hybrids will be introduced pretty soon” but wasn’t willing to reveal when exactly. Klegon also revealed that the system would only cost several hundred dollars per vehicle.
One of the first carmakers to offer the technology was BMW, which sources its version from auto parts supplier Bosch, and only a few a weeks ago ZF announced that it had developed a new version designed for automatic vehicles (the BMW set-up is only available on manual cars). Klegon did not reveal who would supply Chrysler’s new units.
As for the longer term, Klegon said “there is a whole trail of things coming.” He also explained that the hybrid partnership between Chrysler, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz and BMW was now looking “into the next generation of design and development for hybrids” with a focus on saving cost and weight.
MOTOR AUTHORITY - Chrysler has promised to follow the lead of carmakers like BMW by offering fuel-saving engine stop-start technologies on some of its cars in the near future. The system, which shuts down the engine while the car is stationary in traffic, then starts it again once the driver releases the clutch or brake pedal, can improve fuel economy by up to 5%.
Chrysler product development chief Frank Klegon told Automotive News that the new “micro hybrids will be introduced pretty soon” but wasn’t willing to reveal when exactly. Klegon also revealed that the system would only cost several hundred dollars per vehicle.
One of the first carmakers to offer the technology was BMW, which sources its version from auto parts supplier Bosch, and only a few a weeks ago ZF announced that it had developed a new version designed for automatic vehicles (the BMW set-up is only available on manual cars). Klegon did not reveal who would supply Chrysler’s new units.
As for the longer term, Klegon said “there is a whole trail of things coming.” He also explained that the hybrid partnership between Chrysler, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz and BMW was now looking “into the next generation of design and development for hybrids” with a focus on saving cost and weight.
Many car companies already offer this technology, with cars like the Mini not having that feature available in the US due to concern that "US customers don't trust their cars to turn off and on again by themselves".
Last edited by toasteroven : 11-19-2007 at 10:24 AM.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
