What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

Yeah, there are I4s that offroad well (Jeep 2.5 for example). But the
bottom line is that there has hardly ever been a production engine of
any type that offroads better than the 4.0. It has over half of its max
torque available at idle, and 90% of max all the way from around 1200
RPM to redline. And that max is a *big* number for the size and weight
of the engine, too. All making it perfect for offroading, and
coincidentally making it great for stoplight-to-stoplight driving around
town. Its replacement, the 3.7L V6, has more horsepower but feels weaker
under almost all conditions (the exception being freeway passing)
because of its peakier torque curve.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Easy to say from your armchair. In the real world, Chrysler wins hands
down. I've never gotten a Japanese engine past 150k miles, and I've
never FAILED to get a Chrysler engine past 200k on any that I've owned,
from 318s to 3.5L v6s.

I'll be pedantic if you want. "It reaches 90% of max at 1200 RPM".

Yes...I'm sure.

In terms of smoothness, yes it is necessarily superior. Physics again.

Packaging. Note that GM has re-introduced an I6, and that BMW has never
abandoned it.

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

I am, are you looking at rorsarch blots again?

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

I never used the word "statistical," I used the phrase "real world."
I've owned both, I've opened up both, overhauled both, compared the
construction of both. I'd never trust my life to a Japanese
dispose-an-engine. Until you've been up to your OWN elbows inside an
engine, what's your basis for argument?

 

CR only goes out about 7 years or 94k miles. Where do you get data
for 150k miles?

 

Uh, I'd match the reliability and durability of pretty much any Japanese

Bzzt. Mitsubishi 2.6L I-4. Mitsubishi 3.0L V6. Demonstrably less durable,
more expensive to maintain than the 'competing' Chrysler domestic
engine...in the same body! (Just to name two.)

--Geoff

 

Space and weight. Also, they could shop two cylinders off a V-8 and
not have to do a atotal re-design.

 

You'd match the Mitsubishi 2.6 "Ariston" against any Chrysler engine?
You'd match the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 against any Chrysler engine? You'd
match the Toyota "all these oil related failures are the owners'
fault" V6s against any Chrysler engine? Follow your own advice and
check CR.

Learn some science.

Sequential. Check CR.

Wrong again. Learn some physics.

 

Liar. It does not.

Wrong. It does.

Learn some science.

Wrong again.

The 4.0 IL6 never came with a 4-bbl carb. It had sequential port fuel
injection for at least the last decade. Check CR.

Learn to drive.

 

Au contraire, it's an excellent JGC engine, if economy or off-road use is

Weren't you just bitching a few posts up the thread about how the V8 option
costs a grand more? Broaden your definition of 'economy' beyond MPG,
perfesser.

A blindfolded Lloyd Parker COULDN'T tell the difference.

Hmm. Just like a Freightliner, eh? You've obviously never been in a JGC.
You have *no* idea what you're talking about.

I don't see JGCs flipping over on freeway curves or dropping groceries out
of their tailgates on the way home from Kroger. Do I see flipped-over
Explorers? Yep. Happens all the time.

The fact of the matter is that a JGC performs onroad as well as most SUVs
without sacrificing offroad capability.

Conversely, Porche ain't Jeep. The Cayenne is overpriced, overweight, and
ugly.

Porsche?

BMW sells over a million cars a year not including the Mini and other
associated brands. That's a niche manufacturer? Check your facts,
perfesser.

--Geoff

 

Fine, you got me. But there's still a V-8 engine option for those who
want more power.

*You* were talking about Jeep being successful and not losing money.
Apparently by selling the crap out of their products by whatever means
necessary. It's possible to be a relatively low-volume manufacturer
and still make money, especially when you're a division of a much
larger company. The rest of us were talking about your unfounded
criticism of an engine that is excellent for its intended purpose.
You haven't managed to come up with a valid criticism of the 4.0/4.2,
by the way - all of your arguments have been either irrelevant or flat
out incorrect.

Apparently you've never heard of brand identity. The Jeep brand
stands for vehicles that are squarely targeted at the person to whom
"off roading" doesn't mean the parking lot at the cider mill. Dilute
that image and you lose your brand identity - and then you've got
nothing to distinguish you from all the other players in the same
field, like GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. etc. etc. Sure, you give up sales
to maintain that image - but the people who *are* your target market
will pay a premium for your product because they just can't get it
anywhere else (except for other niche players like Land Rover.) You
talk just like every other misguided business major that's pretty much
ruined the American automotive industry - dilute your product and sell
out for a quick buck, at the expense of long term viability.

Maybe, maybe not. I see lots of vehicles on the road in the 50-60K
price range every day.

Why not? Fill enough niches, and you have a product line. Or are you
going to argue that the PT Cruiser, Viper, Prowler, etc. etc. etc.
should never have been built?

All of it? Or just the customers that are already driving the
vehicles available from GM, Ford, Toyota, and a host of others?

I believe the Edsel was actually an attempt to give the buying public
what Ford thought it wanted at the time.

There's a shocker. Paging Captain Obvious, more power costs more
money and burns more fuel.

Hello, people *are* buying Jeeps. Just not as many as you would like,
is all.

Well, some of us consider that a very important factor. I know that I
do.

Well, at least DC has made some headway on the rust issue.

Well, I'm a car guy, not a stockholder. Point taken, though. But in
contrast to Studebaker, which was really too small to have anything
resembling a R&D budget (which is really what killed them; if they'd
had the budget to come out with a fresh design when the Lark got old,
they might still be around) DC has lots of resources to come out with
new designs every couple of years, which is exactly what they're
doing. And as for the Studebaker stockholders, they are precisely the
people who killed off the automotive operation. The problem wasn't
that Studebaker built bad cars; the problem was that the automotive
operation didn't make anywhere near the numbers of the other divisions
of the whole Studebaker conglomerate at the time.

But isn't it also possible to make a good product and still stay in
the black? Secondary question - if you do make a good product, are
you not more likely to have repeat customers?

As usual, no response to the most important point in my post.

nate

 

The

Are you suggesting that there was a time in the business world where making
a profit wasn't a requirement?

There are 6 versions of the JGC, there are 66 versions of the Ford Explorer
available for sale today. Eleven to one. That's the difference between a
'major' automaker and a niche player.

God bless Ford, the Explorer really pays the bills. I even managed to
profit from the Firestone debacle when they were flipping over. But the
Explorer and the JGC are not in the same class of vehicle, never were
intended to be. The Explorer is much larger, both overall and inside. It's
tuned to spend its entire life on the highway, which is what the typical
Ford customer wants. The typical Jeep customer *doesn't* want that - at
least not in the same proportion that other SUV customers do. More Jeep
customers go offroad than any other domestic brand. There's a reason for
that.

Jeep was, is, and always *should be* a niche manufacturer. The idea that
Jeep should be a full-line carmaker is misguided. It's not necessary unless
you're Daimler and you're desperate for profit any way you can get it
because you've a.) screwed up Chrysler and b.) screwed up Mercedes beyond
repair.

--Geoff

 

True, true - I just can't resist a good joke.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

You should have used the phrase "anecdotal."

Data, as I said.

 

Prove it. Where's the real data?

 

Except Alfa never had a V8 first.

 

I have. I've driven one. It's truckish.

Check Jeep (or any SUV) roll-over record.

Doesn't handle or ride as well. What's left?

Now if Chrysler (1) had the same overhead as BMW and (2) made the same profit
per vehicle as BMW, that would be a meaningful comparison.

 

Sure, if you have (1) low overhead and (2) high per-vehicle profits. Neither
applies to Jeep.

Sorry if noisy, harsh, and underpowered don't meet your criteria.

Non sequitir.

Would an auto maker rather have few vehicles sold and small profit, or many
vehicles and large profit? Would its stockholders?

Do you think any of them would satisfy a corporation the size of Chrysler when
it comes to profits?

 

Well, I'd suggest AMC is a case in point. They don't tend to last long.

Huh? 66? That's counting what, every possible combination of options and
powertrains? Sorry, you're comparing apples with oranges. Laredo rwd, Laredo
4wd, Laredo SE 6 rwd, Laredo SE 6 4wd, Laredo SE V8 rwd, Laredo SE V8 4wd,
Limited 6 rwd, Limited 6 4wd, Limited V8 rwd, Limited V8 4wd, Limited HO V8
rwd, Limited HO V8 4wd, Overland rwd, Overland 4wd, Freedom 6 rwd, Freedom 6
4wd, Freedom V8 rwd, Freedom V8 4wd, Columbia 6 rwd, Columbia 6 4wd, Columbia
V8 rwd, Columbia V8 4wd. 22

Sure they are.

But still the same "class." Mid-size SUV.

90% do.

Still, it's like 10% go off-road vs 5% for other brands.

Then it's liable to get sold and sold again, like it has many times.

Full-line? No, no convertibles or sedans.

That's what it comes down to with you all, isn't it? Chrysler = all good;
Daimler = all bad. Sorry, that's simplistic and yes, childish.