Consultant: GM merger would eliminate most Chrysler vehicles

Actually you're only partly correct. The Armada is faster off the line.
The Hemi Durango will flat out run away from it at highway speeds.
Loaded or unloaded the Durango will easily out accelerate it from 50-80+
mph. Up hills the hemi will easily out tow the Armada. The ONLY time
the Armada is faster is off the line and thats not where or when I need
the performance.

I also do not like the rear suspension of the Armada for towing. Great
for unloaded highway travel though.

 

My 2004 Durango Hemi predates the newer multi-displacement Hemi. Yet it
will hit 20+mpg on the highway if I keep it 60-65mph.

Dunno about current line up. But my 2004 Durango has AWD as well as
part time low and hi 4wd. Most of the Dodge and Jeep products are AWD
where I'd prefer part time.

 

There is no Excursion anymore. The Expedition comes in regular and
long size.

Expedition length = 206.5" Armada length = 207.7"

Expedition EL (replaced Excursion) length = 221.3"

So far you've told me the Xterra is the same size as the Yukon/Tahoe,
then the Pathfinder is, and now you've told me the Armada is the size
of the Yukon XL/Suburban. Let's see, that's 3 strikes.

It is not. Pathfinder 192" long. First gen Durango 193.5" long.
Strike 4

Commander is just 188.5" long. Grand Cherokee is 186.7" long. Strike
5

 

Hey, you claimed it was the old platform. And the new GM pickup/SUV
platform is very different.

 

Well, I kinda disagree. What they've failed to do is offer a
stripped-down version that I'd be WILLING to take offroad, but the basic
platform is still about the same.

The Chrysler/AMC merger really was a MERGER, with Chrysler taking and
RETAINING the best engineering of AMC. If you look under the front end
of a 1992-present Dodge Ram 4x4 truck, what do you see? You see a
scaled-up version of the front suspension of a Jeep Cherokee, because
its among the best. AMC also had a lasting mark on the Jeep/Truck
Engineering engine divison. The Magnum version of the Chrysler v8s owed
a good bit to an infusion of AMC engineers. The valve train was lifted
wholesale from the AMC v8, in fact. Not that that was necessarily an
improvement- the previous Chrysler-designed shaft-mounted rocker arms
were actually more stable, but the AMC pedestal mount style was cheaper
to produce, 98% as good, and easier to service in the field too. And it
went the other way, too- Chrysler worked wonders on the already-good AMC
4.0, and turned it into an engine that will go down in history next to
the slant-6 and 318 as all-time greats. They got rid of the problematic
Renix fuel injection, beefed up the bottom end with a bearing-cap girdle
and block structure improvements, vastly improved the head, exhaust
manifold, and intake manifold, and never caved in to the push to give it
a huge horsepower rating at the expense of its more important flat
torque curve and off-idle torque.

But why blame Chrysler? Blame a) safety regulations that wouldn't let
you sell a CJ-5 today at any price, and b) a market that has shifted so
far to poseur-style SUVS that there's a market for stupid things like
Hummers and FJ Cruisers. Those things would have been laughed off the
showroom floors in 1980, but not today :-(

Truth is, Jeep would have ceased to exist in 1985 were it not for
Chrysler. Because of Chrysler's handling of Jeep, the real decline in
offroad capability didn't start until about 4-5 years ago, and in fact
it really got better and better until then. Who out there would argue
that the coil-spring Wrangler wasn't a significant OFF ROAD improvement
over the previous version because of the improved travel and
articulation? No one.

Its certainly good, but I'd take my '99 4.0 Cherokee over it ANY day.

 

Ooooh 1.5 inches of plastic-covered bumper. Technical win for Lloyd.

Now go check the WEIGHTS, which is what really matters, dumbass.

Or better yet, park them side by side and note for yourself that the
Pathfinder is bigger. Oh, that's right- you never actually go outside
and see or touch vehicles yourself. I forgot.

 

Steve, why are you forgetting the Rule of Lloyd?

Anything produced by the Big 3 is BAD
Anything produced by any foreign firm (including Yugo & Tata ) is GOOD

You see, a few years ago Lloyd tried committing suicide
in his rice-burner by the old time method of parking it in
the garage with the door closed and the car running. Unfortunately
nobody told him that today's cars emissions are so clean
that you can't do that anymore. So instead he just suffered
partial brain damage and spends his days trolling Usenet. ;-)

As long as you keep that in mind you will be fine.

Ted

 

OK. 2008 Durango base model, 4988 lb (Dodge web site); Pathfinder
4446 lb (Nissan web site).

Let's see, in this universe, 4988 > 4446.

OK, let's go back to the first gen Durango. 2003 model weighs 4513 lb
(Consumer Guide site); 2003 Pathfinder weighs 4131 lb.

Again, in this universe, 4513 > 4131.

So... measuring the vehicles shows the Durango is 1.5" longer, but if
I touch them, I'll find the Durango is shorter? Do you mean touching
a vehicle repeals the laws of physics somehow? Wow. Maybe we can
write a sci-fi story about this. We touch a Durango long enough, all
the measuring sticks contract and we're back to the universe the size
of the Big Bang!

 

How are they different?

 

And in lieu of the above, anything Lloyd says is right, everything
anyone else says is wrong. Yeah, I'll go say my hail mary's now....

 

Don't forget that I was comparing the current (bloat) Nissan, to the
first-gen Durango, not to the current (bloated) Durango.

So the real numbers to compare are 4446 and 4513. But 4513 isn't the
number that shows up on my folks' 2000 2wd Durango, its more like 4100.
So the Nissan (if I can believe your number) is indeed heavier.

 

Can you say 'death-wobble'? If you don't know what that refers to
google Dodge death-wobble.

Because of the narrow width. Has nothing to do with the Chrysler
changes relating to lightweight cheap construction. Take a look at the
AMC trannies used in the old CJ's. They could take a beating and were
hard to put a rock through! Todays are light duty not made for off road
abuse. I also loved the old inline 6 that Chrysler did away with in
favor of the far less dependable V6.

Possibly. The market for tough rugged off road capable vehicles has
dropped some. But that market remains strong with high growth in
aftermarket off road parts. Todays Jeeps are nothing more than on
pavement smooth riding cars with a different body on them and a Jeep label.

I'd say far longer than that. 1980's still had some off road capable
Jeeps stock. 1990's saw far fewer and for at least the past 10 years
the only real off road vehicle made by anyone is the Wrangler and
Rubicon and those aren't nearly as capable as earlier versions stock.

Most serious off roaders still install an aftermarket suspension that
wont break or bend but thats true of the earlier years too. I hear the
new Dodge Ram has coil springs but not sure if thats just on the 1500 or
not.

The older Cherokees were great. Too big for some of the areas I 4x4 in.
Nothing but a small CJ or Wrangler can navigate the tight narrow
spots. My 4x4 Durango is too big as well but sure does good in deep snow.

 

It is? I figured the Armada is more about the size of the 2nd Gen
Durango. The Excursion I thought was based on a full sized truck platform.

 

Can you say, "so easy to fix its ridiculous?" Seriously, I've never
seen such a mountain out of a molehill. The problem I've found with
about half the Jeep community online is that they are technically inept,
and just like to go out and break things. Kinda like the modern
performance car crowd. The other half doesn't even use the stupid term
"death wobble." IF your trackbar gets worn enough to "death wobble," you
REALLY should fix your whole front end.

No, that has NOTHING to do with it. IT has to do with safety regulations
and requirements.

You're showing a credibility gap. Did you know that AMC *NEVER* made a
transmission? They purchased their transmissions from Chrysler
(Torqueflites- used in their cars and the FSJ trucks from 1980-up), GM
(Hydramatics used in the FSJs in the 70s) , Borg-Warner (automatics and
manuals in the 60s and 70s, and Asin-Warner (automatic in the XJ
Cherokee and later Wranglers, manual in the XJ and Wranglers).

Actually, they switched from the AX-15 in the XJ to a stronger NVG
manual shared with the Dakota. Automatics, well, yeah. ALL autmatics
today are wimpy compared to a Torqueflite or even a Hydramatic from the
70s and 80s. But again, its CAFE and emissions that are driving that,
not engineering decisions.

Todays are light duty not made for off road

I agree with you that the 4.0 inline was a bit better suited to
rock-crawling, but there is nothing at all "less dependable" about the
3.8L v6. Now the 3.7L v6 in the Liberty is a different matter- its a
"bastard" v6 (90-degree block, its a 4.7L v8 with two cylinders lopped
off) and is overhead-cam to boot- not good for offroading. But the 3.8-
thats a very simple, iron block, pushrod v6 whose roots go back to the
Chrysler 3.3L introduced around 1990.


Going back to the 4.0, it also had some pretty fundamental problems when
Chrysler inherited it from AMC which, to their credit, Chrysler fixed.
The block was too flexible, and the crank was unstable in the earlier
versions. They'd often put a rod out the side of the block if pushed
hard. Not so in the later ones- stiffer block casting, crankshaft
girdle, and a whole host of little tweaks all contributed to fixing that
problem. All things considered, it would probably have been stronger
overall if it had been a 4-bearing crank design like the slant-6. Fewer
bearings, but a shorter, stronger crankshaft seems to be better for
midsize torque engines, let the BMW sixes that rev to 9 grand keep the 7
bearing setup. They don't put out the same kind of torque. that would
also have allowed it to be short enough to fit under more modern hood
profiles and be used in a wider range of vehicles. But that's all
dreamland anyway... Given that the 4.0 was probably never going to keep
up with emissions requirements without a very extensive rework of the
cylinder head and control system, combined with the fact that it was a
7-bearing six and therefore too long to fit under most hoods, it really
didn't stand much of a chance. I hated to see it go (and you'd have to
pry mine out of my cold dead hands) but again, its reality in the
over-regulated world of automobiles these day.

The LAST Cherokees were actually the best. I'd never even look at a
pre-1990, and the only ones I'd seriously consider buying now are the
97-01 models.

 

I was exaggerating a wee bit to bait Lloyd... In reality the Armada is
about the same size or maybe a little bigger than a 2nd gen Durango, a
little smaller than an Explorer. And as Lloyd actually proved for me,
the 2nd Gen Pathfinder is essentially the same size (within 100 lb
depending on options) of the first-gen Durango. SUVs have just been
growing and growing over the past decade.

The Armada is also a POS with a horrible reputation, just like the Titan
its based on. I have to laugh every time I see a Titan on the road and
look at the tiny little differential carrier that looks like it came out
of a 1975 Datsun pickup... but they put this huge finned cover on it to
try to cool it enough to make it live under a full-size truck.
Ridiculous. And typical of all sorts of details throughout the
Titan/Armada platform.

 

You've got to compare the same model years, as safety equipment might
differ. And it's best to use the same source for both figures.

 

And the Armada is based on Nissan's full-size Titan truck platform.

 

No I don't, not when that has NOTHING to do with the point I was making-
which is simply that the Pathfinder has grown much larger than its
original mini-SUV incarnation (so has the 4-Runner for that matter, and
the Durango has grown from a mid-size to full-size.) You've lost the
forest in the trees- which you planted, by the way.

 

And the 2nd gen Durango isn't built on a truck platform at all. Oh damn,
I wasn't supposed to remind you of that, was I? Y'know, because the
Durango is old, primitive, truckish, and stuff like that. In your world.

And I'm waiting for you to tell me exactly how the current
Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade platform is so profoundly different from C/K
trucks. Has it got coil rear springs? Unibody construction? Independent
rear suspension? Different engines? If you actually know anything, then
you can tell me WHAT makes it different, not just parrot the GM press
release that says its a different platform.

 

Hate to tell ya but it's not just because of worn parts. It happens on
brand new stock trucks. It's a bad design and exactly why Chrysler has
changed it considerably for late model 2008's and beyond.

The CJ's main problem was narrow width causing it to roll too easily.
It's a bunch of BS applied to the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper as
well. All perfectly fine 4x4's. Trouble is people drive them like
sedans and expect the same handling.

All I know is that I owned several of the AMC inline 6's and they were
rock solid and took a beating.

Guess it depends on what you use them for. The older ones, especially
the old original Cherokees built on the Wagoneer chassis were far superior.