QOTD: Wishing for Something Grander?
Big Jeep day yesterday, wasn’t it? Hoo boy. The off-road brand tempted buyers not just with a plug-in hybrid Wrangler, but also a taste of what’s to come in the full-size segment.
The Grand Wagoneer Concept, which closely mirrors a production vehicle we can expect next summer, generated an instant reaction from TTAC chatroom denizens — not all of it favorable. Far from it, in fact. Looking at this hulking, three-row SUV with ultra-premium aspirations, what would you do to turn a B into an A+?
Generally, the reaction here was that the Grand Wagoneer Concept was more “meh” than expected, with rear-end real estate that seemed to borrow too heavily from the largest Ford Motor Company SUVs. Something seemed just a little off.
Of course, we weren’t the only ones to air such opinions; the Twittersphere served up a bevy of similar observations, though the online reaction was generally more positive than this writer would have guessed. It’s a big, body-on-frame Jeep, after all, so at its core the Grand Wagoneer Concept is difficult to dislike — unless you’re the kind of person who spends your day bitching and moaning about Ford committing ecocide by not fielding a hybrid Bronco right out of the gate.
Maybe our quibbles about design decisions warrant no ear time from Jeep. Maybe it’s just the segment and the badge that count; styling be damned. Fault can be found in Ford and General Motors’ biggest products, too, yet they remain healthy and resilient in the sales department.
But let’s turn this issue — and vehicle — loose on you, dear readers. Looking over the Grand Wagoneer Concept, what changes would you make before putting this thing into production?
[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]
Tstag on Sep 05, 2020
The Grand Wagoneer looks too much like a Mini Van or Estate car. That’s a shame because the interior pretty good. But that may not be enough. In the next 12 months there will be a new Range Rover and Range Rover Sport to compete with and if Land Rover were really really smart, they’d make an Estate version with 7 seats just to drop Jeep in it....
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
- Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
- ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
- ToolGuy Presented for discussion: https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
- Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?