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.

--Geoff

 

And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

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".

 

I have never cared for those clear lights. Looks awefull.

 

In alt.autos.dodge.trucks , Daniel J. Stern wrote :

No 2002,
One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn signals....

 

Hmmpf!!!

I challenge them to get it to run smoother than a well tuned slant six.

 

How it runs isn't the issue for the bananaheads in the motoring press.
Does it sound like a Honda? If yes, praise. If no, make dumb jokes and
then laugh.

 

The marketeer idiots continue to claim "Americans prefer red turn
signals".

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? 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?

It's so hard to choose...I just can't pick which kind of badness I prefer.
I'd say "Just put on a separate amber blinker like the whole rest of the
world has required since 1963", but that wouldn't work because "Americans
prefer red turn signals".

Must be why Chevrolet and GMC didn't sell any of their trucks and
Suburbans between '00 and '03 -- they had amber rear blinkers.

 

Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
right vs. Chrysler this time.


Matt

 

GM now selling the I5

 

Ah darn. I forgot about the Honda pacemakers they use which resonate at a
Honda's idle frequency.

-
Budd

 

It's not great, but looks wise, it blows the Durango away, looks wise.
The Dakota too, sadly.

BDK

 

Geoff proclaimed:

It looks more like a ZJ to me than a WJ.... if a bunch of Mitsupussy
designers got drunk and tried to draw a ZJ you'd pretty much get the
new Grand.

 

Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:

I think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.

 

Yeah, shame about what they're wrapping around it.

 

It's a Jeep, so the intent is for it to suddenly be 1943...

Car and Driver and the other such magazines will never even test six
cylinder versions of the GC. In fact, most of them will test it only
with the "hemi" and not the 4.7.

 

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

Suddenly its an American-looking car again....

(You KNEW I'd pipe up in support of red taillamps, didn't you?)

Agreed on that one. The 4.0 is the second best OHV inline six ever
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.

 

And I, speaking for myself, agree with the maketeer idiots in this case.

My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.

Now THAT system (and the one currently in use the most) is absolutely
hatefully stupid.

 

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. 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...

 

Uglee? You ever owned a yankie-land FC-170 that was eat up with rust?
That thing looked like home-made sin. Plus, everytime my wife would
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.