grimbo
Explorer
But they wouldn't get the go ahead for that. They are design exercises for the marketing department so they need to be showy and marketable, a stripped back, bare bones Jeep isn't a marketable image
Jeep reveals Moab Easter Jeep Safari concepts
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
But they wouldn't get the go ahead for that. They are design exercises for the marketing department so they need to be showy and marketable, a stripped back, bare bones Jeep isn't a marketable image
Exactly. These concepts are just to see what is possible from an engineering standpoint and what might be attractive from a marketing standpoint. In the extreme execution of a concept vehicle, these two things can sometimes be mutually exclusive in terms of cost and day-to-day practicality. Case in point: the Stitch concept. Yeah, a 3000 lb. Wrangler sounds cool (and looks cool), but how many people would actually pay a ton to buy a new Jeep with lots of sexy carbon fiber and chromoly, but with no doors, no heater/AC, no radio, and is partially skinned in high-tech FABRIC (and you thought your softop flapped on the highway)? The engineers it seems are eager to prove they can build a light Jeep without resorting to unibody and IFS/IRS. So 3,000 lbs. is about the limit, but where do weight savings, cost, practicality, and capability intersect? Interesting exercise...
Silvanus
Observer
For all the Marketing, Jeepers are still chucking the alloy wheels, carpeting, stock suspension etc. look not to sound like an sour graper, as for weight they should've kept the TJ!
I believe they're lulling us in to think sportiness is better than utility, about IFS, how many have went from that set up to SAS, plenty! Here in Vermont I know of six chaps that have done this to their Tacomas, shelling out 3 to 4 K to add to their off road prowess! When they should've went looking for an older Hi-Lux, or Jeep/Landy rig for about the same price as the SAS conversion! It's all useless drivel. I like many of you would like to have Jeep recognize that there's plenty of us who need and like utility!
I believe they're lulling us in to think sportiness is better than utility, about IFS, how many have went from that set up to SAS, plenty! Here in Vermont I know of six chaps that have done this to their Tacomas, shelling out 3 to 4 K to add to their off road prowess! When they should've went looking for an older Hi-Lux, or Jeep/Landy rig for about the same price as the SAS conversion! It's all useless drivel. I like many of you would like to have Jeep recognize that there's plenty of us who need and like utility!
Last edited:
Silvanus
Observer
Grimbo, first off, Great icon! I know what they're spinning, A bare bones CJ like Jeep is what got them on the map and spawned many ohters! I don't like where this Euro mentality is taking Jeep.
Grimbo what's the current wave with Jeep's there in Australia?
Cheers,
Carlo
Silvanus
Observer
Grimbo, first off, Great icon! I know what they're spinning, A bare bones CJ like Jeep is what got them on the map and spawned many others! I don't like where this Euro mentality is taking Jeep.
Grimbo, I know you own an Patrol, but what's the current wave with Jeep's there in Australia?
Cheers,
Carlo
So you're saying that you think portal axles are bling? And what the heck is a tootise toy?
A vehicle doesn't need to be a motorized oxcart to be utilitarian. The Rubicon is wonderfully capable right out of the box. And Jeep has always offered luxury options and fully loaded models.
The Jeep you describe would be more expensive than the Wrangler is now, and many of the ideas you propose would make it heavier and costlier than necessary. An HD trans is unnecessary, as are the heavy solid steel wheels and bedlinered tub. Sorry, I'll pass - it sounds old-fashioned and pointless. You want it, build it, but Jeep is selling as many as Toledo can build as fast as it can crank them out - the people seem to be buying them just fine already.
Last edited:
What a bizarre rant. The Wrangler has never been more capable than it is right now - it's still got solid front axles and all the hardware. It's the most capable stock Wrangler Jeep has ever produced, and adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, it's the same price as it's always been. I'm not sure how alloy wheels and carpeting really affect how capable and useful the thing is.
Silvanus
Observer
Rant you bet, What's bizarre about it, cause I mention Toyota owners swapping out their IFS for an solid axle. What I find bizarre is a 4runner owner sticking up for Jeep.
As for your attacking criticism, it's unwarranted! Just because I mentioned a Tacoma, the simple fact is that IFS Owners ARE ditching the front end components of a certain Japanese auto company for better maintenance & off road traction! I suggest we pool are energy and lobby to get some Series 70's shipped over to the States, that'll show Jeep! Tootsie Toy was an Matchbox like thingy with huge wheels like today's car and trucks, the kind of toy today's auto designer play with back in the late 70's & 80's & 90's!
I own a Jeep and a Subaru, not a 4Runner.
Attack Jeep for making the Wrangler less capable when they actually do it. While it's unfortunate that Toyota has chosen to make their trucks less capable, not sure what it has to do with the Jeep Safari concepts.
Silvanus
Observer
Really, not an 03 4runner
grimbo
Explorer
Pretty much the same as the US although we get diesel wranglers to add into the mix
I totally agree with the first part; the newest Wrangler is the most capable out of the box open-top Jeep yet. However, as to the second supposition, the new base-level, 2-door Wrangler is more expensive than a stripper CJ was back in the day, even adjusted for inflation. Let's go back to 1982. Why 1982? No reason other than that happens to be the year my Scrambler rolled off the line. In that year, Jeep was promoting CJ7s and Scramblers for $6,765. That same year, the base price for the Corvette was $18,290. Why a Corvette for comparison? Well, it is also a vehicle that has been in continuous production since 1982 (more or less. There was no 1983 model year for the Vette, much like there was no Wrangler for 1996). It is also a specialty vehicle, filling a very different niche and appealing to a relatively small percentage of the total car-buying public. It, like the Wrangler, is a bit more than basic transportation. And finally, the base price of the Corvette tracks pretty consistently with the Median Household Income for any given year, oddly enough. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. The stripper '86 CJ was about 37% of the cost of the Vette. To be fair, the CJ did not include carpeting (much less floor mats), radio, top or doors, for that price. Still, a fairly well optioned Scrambler was only hitting about $7,900 or 43% of the Vette. Now, a 2013 JK base 2-door runs about 47% of the $49,600 base Corvette. And the JK Unlimited STARTS at $35,190, a whopping 70% of the Vette. Now, keep in mind there really is no such thing as a "base" Corvette or Wrangler for that matter. The reason is that the dealers make the most markup on the options. Heated seats, NAV systems, and sub woofers are high-profit items for the dealer, and many of these options can only be had as part of a package. The new Wrangler costs more than a 1986 CJ for the simple fact that NAV systems and heated seats did not exist then. And Jeep will never sell a stripper JK as long as they are selling every single one they can crank out. When was the last time you saw incentives on a Wrangler or Vette? People need transportation and tend to shop by price for the necessities of life; no one "needs" a Vette or a +$50K JKU.
Silvanus
Observer
Thanks Mbogo,
My whole point is that there's no entry level JK, an EL 2dr JK say 17-19K & 4dr 20-22K. Like the SE YJ that could be had with no PS, sans carpet, rear seat, A/C with a 4.0L for 12K back in 93. I know I test drove one, Hunter Gr. another 2.5 in mods that puppy would be set up righteously for 14.5K! I think that Jeep is forgetting who kept the Brand around for so long ( The Iacocca & recent bailouts ), Granted I'm only on my second CJ class Jeep, a'90 YJ I owned for 14 yrs. as my DD & trail mule, and my current 06 TJ-L that I'm trying to keep at least that long! Tough to do here in brine country! H/D trans does not mean heavy, it's a trans with a granny low ( IE 6.1 up to 7ish 1st gear ) any trans that had an G-Low in it was referred to as H/D. Not a trans backing a HEMI!
Now my friends how's this, Entry Level JK with just a PS, a pair D44s stuffed w/4.10/4.56 ( This gearing would make up for the Standard T/C ), Auto or Man trans, 32" skinnys, sans rear seat, carpet, A/C, and sound pods, ETC.
Sorry for my ranting, but their heritage marketing ploy exasperates me to no end! Without the common people purchasing CJ class Jeeps, there wouldn't be any Heritage!
Now for a glass of VINO!!!
My whole point is that there's no entry level JK, an EL 2dr JK say 17-19K & 4dr 20-22K. Like the SE YJ that could be had with no PS, sans carpet, rear seat, A/C with a 4.0L for 12K back in 93. I know I test drove one, Hunter Gr. another 2.5 in mods that puppy would be set up righteously for 14.5K! I think that Jeep is forgetting who kept the Brand around for so long ( The Iacocca & recent bailouts ), Granted I'm only on my second CJ class Jeep, a'90 YJ I owned for 14 yrs. as my DD & trail mule, and my current 06 TJ-L that I'm trying to keep at least that long! Tough to do here in brine country! H/D trans does not mean heavy, it's a trans with a granny low ( IE 6.1 up to 7ish 1st gear ) any trans that had an G-Low in it was referred to as H/D. Not a trans backing a HEMI!
Now my friends how's this, Entry Level JK with just a PS, a pair D44s stuffed w/4.10/4.56 ( This gearing would make up for the Standard T/C ), Auto or Man trans, 32" skinnys, sans rear seat, carpet, A/C, and sound pods, ETC.
Sorry for my ranting, but their heritage marketing ploy exasperates me to no end! Without the common people purchasing CJ class Jeeps, there wouldn't be any Heritage!
Now for a glass of VINO!!!
Last edited:
Silvanus
Observer
A Diesel JK would be interesting, any diesel TJs?