New Jeep Grand Chicory

[Daniel J. Stern]

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.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:

> > 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!"

> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.

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

> 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.

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".

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:

> > 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!"

> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.

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

> 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.

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".

[miles]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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!"
>

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

[miles]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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!"
>

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

[Ron McNeil]

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

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>> > 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!"
>
>> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>

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

[Ron McNeil]

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

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>> > 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!"
>
>> The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>

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

[Budd Cochran]

Hmmpf!!!

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

--
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
> > > 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!"
>
> > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
> > 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.
>
> 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".

[Budd Cochran]

Hmmpf!!!

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

--
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
> > > 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!"
>
> > The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
> > 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.
>
> 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".

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:

> > > 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.

> > 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".

> 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.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:

> > > 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.

> > 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".

> 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.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ron McNeil wrote:

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

> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
> signals....

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.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ron McNeil wrote:

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

> One thing I would love to change on my Dak is my non-amber turn
> signals....

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.

[Matt Whiting]

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: 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.

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


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: 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.

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


Matt

[DudLee Brennfoerder]

GM now selling the I5

--
DudLee & Debbie
Brennfoerder
Edgar, NE 68935

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: 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.
>
> Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
> right vs. Chrysler this time.
>
>
> Matt
>

[DudLee Brennfoerder]

GM now selling the I5

--
DudLee & Debbie
Brennfoerder
Edgar, NE 68935

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff wrote:
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: 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.
>
> Yes, funny how GM went from a V-6 back to an I6. Looks like GM got it
> right vs. Chrysler this time.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Budd Cochran]

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

-
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > 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".
>
> > 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.

[Budd Cochran]

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

-
Budd

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > 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".
>
> > 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.

[BDK]

In article h.edu>,
says...
>
> 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.
>

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

BDK

[BDK]

In article h.edu>,
says...
>
> 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.
>

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

BDK

[Lon]

Geoff proclaimed:

>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: 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.

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.

[Lon]

Geoff proclaimed:

>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
>> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
>>Subject: 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.

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.

[Lon]

Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>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!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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 think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.

[Lon]

Daniel J. Stern proclaimed:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>>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!"
>
>
>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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 think they are still trying to dry their shorts from testing the
factory streetrod version of the Hemi Grand.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, DudLee Brennfoerder wrote:

> GM now selling the I5

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

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, DudLee Brennfoerder wrote:

> GM now selling the I5

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

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

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

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

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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".

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. :-)

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>>The wrap-around taillights suck, I agree.
>
>
> And they're all red. No amber turn blinker. Suddenly it's 1991...

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

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

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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".

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. :-)

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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

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

>
> 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?

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

> 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?

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

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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

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

>
> 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?

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

> 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?

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

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

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

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...

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:

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

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...

[John Welch]

Lon > wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
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.

[John Welch]

Lon > wrote in message news:<F11bd.460761$8_6.71967@attbi_s04>...
> Geoff proclaimed:
>
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:56:58 -0400
> >>From: Daniel J. Stern >
> >>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, alt.autos.dodge.trucks,
> >> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
> >>Subject: New Jeep Grand Chicory
> >>
> >>
> >>Yeah, it's got a Hemi in it. Fine and dandy. Problem is, it's UGGGGGLEE!
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.

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
>
>
> 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 so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)

[Steve]

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>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?
>>
>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem solved.
>
>
> 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 so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake?
Either one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot
point, especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
simultaneously visible 99% of the time.

OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for
another, and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't
particularly dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing
to a near-stop (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter
is that BOTH systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50
years, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically
different number of collisions based on the color of the rear turn
signals, except for the "duelling reds" design you mentioned before.
(That's your open invitation to prove me wrong.) :-)

[Richard]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem
>>>solved.
>>
>>
>> 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 so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake? Either
> one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot point,
> especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
> simultaneously visible 99% of the time.
>
> OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
> vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
> Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
> to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for another,
> and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't particularly
> dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing to a near-stop
> (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
> systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50 years, and I
> think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically different number of
> collisions based on the color of the rear turn signals, except for the
> "duelling reds" design you mentioned before. (That's your open invitation
> to prove me wrong.) :-)

International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates that
amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If the USA
followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having to guess
if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle, it would
unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn or if both
are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked. Instead, the
USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.

Has anyone done a study to show that our assumptions about amber being safer
is valid?

Richard.

[Richard]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>My '69 has 3 lamps per side, actually. Built-in redundancy. Problem
>>>solved.
>>
>>
>> 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 so how should one respond differently to a blinker or a brake? Either
> one means "this car is slowing down" so its pretty much a moot point,
> especially since both rear lamps (and the CHMSL) are going to be
> simultaneously visible 99% of the time.
>
> OTOH, seeing amber in limited visibility conditions implies "approaching
> vehicle" which is flat-out false in the case of amber rear turn signals.
> Meaning you have to rely on simultaneously seeing headlamps or taillamps
> to resolve THAT ambiguity. You're just trading one ambiguity for another,
> and I'd argue that the "signal or brake" ambiguity isn't particularly
> dangerous since you should assume that the car is slowing to a near-stop
> (at least) under either condition. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
> systems work perfectly well, both have done so for over 50 years, and I
> think you'd be hard-pressed to find a statistically different number of
> collisions based on the color of the rear turn signals, except for the
> "duelling reds" design you mentioned before. (That's your open invitation
> to prove me wrong.) :-)

International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates that
amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If the USA
followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having to guess
if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle, it would
unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn or if both
are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked. Instead, the
USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.

Has anyone done a study to show that our assumptions about amber being safer
is valid?

Richard.

[Dori A Schmetterling]

Front fogs are white, rear fogs are red (in an offset position) and amber is
for turning -- Europe.

There used to be yellow fog lights but very different to amber.

France used to have yellow headlights.

All standardised.

The only thing that isn't is whether headlights should be on during
daylight.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
...
[.....]
>
> International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates
> that amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If
> the USA followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having
> to guess if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle,
> it would unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn
> or if both are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked.
> Instead, the USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.
..........

[Dori A Schmetterling]

Front fogs are white, rear fogs are red (in an offset position) and amber is
for turning -- Europe.

There used to be yellow fog lights but very different to amber.

France used to have yellow headlights.

All standardised.

The only thing that isn't is whether headlights should be on during
daylight.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
...
[.....]
>
> International agreements, (yes the USA signed and ratified it) mandates
> that amber just be used for flashing lights, front and rear and side. If
> the USA followed that treaty requirement there would be no issue of having
> to guess if a yellow light in the fog was the front or rear of a vehicle,
> it would unambiguously tell you that a vehicle is either flashing a turn
> or if both are flashing, that the vehicle is either very slow or parked.
> Instead, the USA lets the car makers do whatever they want.
..........

[Ted Azito]

Red for STOP, amber for TURN, white for REVERSE....no, that's too complicated.

[Ted Azito]

Red for STOP, amber for TURN, white for REVERSE....no, that's too complicated.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:

> Red for STOP, amber for TURN, white for REVERSE....no, that's too
> complicated.

Well, the rest of the world has it all figured out, but yeah, it does seem
too complicated for America.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Ted Azito wrote:

> Red for STOP, amber for TURN, white for REVERSE....no, that's too
> complicated.

Well, the rest of the world has it all figured out, but yeah, it does seem
too complicated for America.