Mo MOPAR, Mo Problems

"SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie" (sidewaysondirt)
06/05/2015 at 14:08 • Filed to: mopar, who needs brakes?, recalls

Personally, I’m not a fan of brakes. All they do is slow you down. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (22)

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:10

Nice. Article is about the Grand Cherokee and they use a picture of a Cherokee.

Jedidiah > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:10

It doesn’t matter what corporate flag is flying over Jeep, they’ve always been built like crap.

Hell, Chrysler is doing a much better job than AMC did; although that’s not saying much.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:11

Yeah, but they identify them as Cherokees.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:12

Still stupid. That’s like writing an article about the GMC Acadia and then using a picture of the Terrain. What gives?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jedidiah
06/05/2015 at 14:12

AMC had dat sweet, sweet 4 liter though.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:14

I actually had to look them up to see which shitty crossovers those were. Now I have a name for them. Not sure I’ll ever notice one, though.

Jedidiah > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:15

It’s a mixed bag at best. Some last for a long time, others don’t — It’s not really better than the average engine.

Both my parents Rubicons are cold knocking at little more than 100k and they’ve been meticulously maintained.

The only reason Chrysler kept using it is because they didn’t want to retool. Mileage was also a factor compared to the Slant 6. It was replaced by the Pentastar because mpg.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:18

My sister and BIL purchased a Terrain. Fugly and terrible at just about everything. I’ll never understand the obsession we have with bloated lifted minivans without sliding doors (AKA crossovers).

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:18

From a purely utilitarian standpoint, I quite like minivans. I’d never own one as an only car, but I could totally see myself buying one.

Party-vi > Jedidiah
06/05/2015 at 14:19

AMC invented the SUV with the XJ, created the 4.0L and started the Wrangler. All Chrysler did was water down the Jeep brand.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:19

A minivan makes sense. It’s got lots of room, is comfortable, and still economical. An SUV or crossover in place of a minivan is ridiculous.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jedidiah
06/05/2015 at 14:19

Interesting. I just always thought they were hardy as hell because everyone I know who ever had one never had an issue. Some friends have hundreds of thousands of miles on theirs. Surely it’s better than the Pentastar though, right?

Jedidiah > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:25

Quality was not a word used much at AMC.

All AMC did was water down Nash and Hudson

Jedidiah > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:28

The Pentastar is a piece of shit, it’s not really hard to be better than that.

The don’t have many problems—it’s just that they aren’t as long lived as people make them out to be.

It will usually last 100k well maintained or poorly maintained. There are a lot of stories about the “500k Jeep,” but most of them are blown out of proportion due to fond memories and group-think hype.

Party-vi > Jedidiah
06/05/2015 at 14:33

I never said quality was high on their list of priorities, but my XJ lasted until I wrecked it just shy of 300,000 miles, and the 4.0L is a legendary engine because of them.

Jedidiah > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
06/05/2015 at 14:33

That’s why you buy a wagon instead.

It will do everything a minivan will, but better.

Real SUVs aren’t bad either, but they aren’t economical so they got the axe in favor of crossovers.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jedidiah
06/05/2015 at 14:37

I’m usually in favor of the wagon vs the minivan and have owned some, but the extra height of a minivan could be useful if you have to move bulky things oftenish like I do. It also means that you’ll still be able to use your rear-view mirror with a ton of crap in the back, which was often an issue with my wagons. Also, you can generally tow with a minivan, whereas you’re pretty limited with post-b-body wagons. I wouldn’t have been able to tow racecar with my Hyundai or Suzuki wagons.

Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:41

See, I have to disagree with you. When my wife and I were expecting our second kid, we knew we had to get something bigger than the Aveo to be able to transport not only my wife, two kids and myself, but also two bigger dogs. We originally started looking at minivans but decided they were too expensive for us at the time unless we went something like 10 or 12 years old. We ended up looking at the Chevy Traverse and the Ford Flex. The Traverse wasn’t bad but Chevy really fucked up in the sense that it’s a lot smaller on the inside. The Flex? Amazing but also out of our price range unless we bought one with 100K on the odometer. After a little more searching, we ended up buying a 2010 Ford Explorer with third row seating. Plenty of room and even little cubbies around the rear wheel well’s instead of a flat plastic piece reducing space. In my opinion, I think that SUV is better than any of the minivans we could have gotten based on the fact that it’s not only a people mover but it can (and has) survived Alaskan winter and is pretty capable off road in stock configuration. I love it. Not sure I could have made a better decision within my budget.

(just my two cents)

Party-vi > Osiris - I can haz Euro spec?
06/05/2015 at 14:43

Once upon a time the Explorer was a real SUV. Now it’s an overgrown station wagon. I just dislike the trend in SUV styling.

/getoffmylawn

Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 14:51

Another point I would have to half agree with and disagree with. Yes, the original Explorer was (and in some cases still is) awesome. But then, in the mid-90’s, the sucked. Hard. I had a ‘96 Explorer Eddie Bauer (nicknamed the Exploder because I’m so original) that was absolute shit. Everything died on it. I dumped entirely too much money into that thing just to keep it running. Now I realize that I could have just gotten a shit one that was taken care of like shit by the previous owner, but when going around the forums trying to figure out how to do the wrenching that I could do, people were doggin’ the hell out of it. That experience actually made me very hesitant to buy the new (to me) Explorer but it seems that Ford has figured out how to make a good SUV again.

Also, something else I’ve heard about the Explorer, is that the 2011 and newer Explorer’s are built on the same platform as the Fusion? But apparently, the 2010’s are the last ones built on the F150 platform? I’m not sure myself but it would be cool to know that mine is still basically a truck.

/butyourlawnissomuchgreenerthanmine

Party-vi > Osiris - I can haz Euro spec?
06/05/2015 at 15:00

Oh. I meant “real SUV” in that it looked like a body-on-frame SUV and behaved as such, like the old Pathfinders and Grand Cherokees. Now they all look like overweight blobs with big wheels and barely and off road capability left on them.

Osiris - I can haz Euro spec? > Party-vi
06/05/2015 at 15:04

Ahh ok. I misunderstood you. I will agree that it does look a little bloated from the outside but I think it’s still just as capable as the older, more legit, Explorer’s. At least the 2010’s. The newer body style just looks like a lowered Range Rover.