 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2005The soon to be released Jeep Commander.
The soon to be released Jeep Commander... http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ Looks like a range rover knock off... > The soon to be released Jeep Commander... > > http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ > > Looks like a range rover knock off... I'd rather have a real Commander :) http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/55coupe.html It may not do as well off road, but it's sure prettier. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >The soon to be released Jeep Commander... > >http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ > >Looks like a range rover knock off... What a disappointment! I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I have now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage. This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs, measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 (401) and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its own road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck. It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru WRX wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and get some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will likely continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and up. Dave Head >>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Dave Head It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 fuel mileage will be about the same. >>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8 >fuel mileage will be about the same. Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the horizon - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on electricity generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long enough for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point our energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. If we start building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much better off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a more fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. Dave Head > Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the > horizon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dave Head It's on the horizon: http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html > It's on the horizon: > > http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html Uh oh - Bush and his crimina... uh.. buddies won't go for that. >>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > our > energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and plutonium. > If we start > building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much > better > off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a > more > fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road. I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?" >>>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and >plutonium. Right - not inconsistent with what I wrote. >> If we start >> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?" I've been hearing/using that for quite some time. Dunno... maybe its not world-wide. Dave Head I love my '98 Grand Cherokee and will drive it til it won't drive no more, but I still sorta like what they could do with the commander. > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:51:36 -0500, "Mark Stahl" > <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Right - not inconsistent with what I wrote. Not to drag this bit of trivia out, but while it's "not inconsistent", what you wrote was not particularly relevent. You may as well have pointed out that our peanut butter stores will last long enough for physicists to figure out nuclear fusion; neither uranium nor peanuts are necessary for the process. Well, sometimes uranium is used in a small fission reaction used to set off a large fusion reaction in a bomb but presumably that's not what you had in mind. >>> If we start >>> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've been hearing/using that for quite some time. Dunno... maybe its not > world-wide. Where do you live, just out of curiosity? >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:51:36 -0500, "Mark Stahl" >><stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > set off a large fusion reaction in a bomb but presumably that's not what you > had in mind. If I was reading into his post correctly, I thought he was suggesting that uranium fission was his idea of a good stopgap until fusion is fully developed, therefore the amount of available uranium available was indeed relevant. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:51:36 -0500, "Mark Stahl" >> <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >set off a large fusion reaction in a bomb but presumably that's not what you >had in mind. What I had in mind was using Uranium in nuclear fission electrical generation power plants for the next X years while that supply of fuel remains abundant enough, and then going to nuclear fusion when the physicists figure it out. That may happen in 5 years or 50 years. I think they'll do it, one way or the other. Hell, cold fusion might even happen. But that's what I was thinking. The trick is to use the electricity generated by a fixed power station to power our transportation needs. >>>> If we start >>>> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Where do you live, just out of curiosity? Virginia now, Indiana before that. Looks like the Jeeo Cherokee. Doesn't look too bad but however, why did they have to go with #$%^# OEM headlamps ! Why didn't they stay with the standard 200 mm headlamps that were on the Cherokees ? So much for attempting to put in Hella E-spec headlamps. Plus, they are much more expensive to replace. I am sure that marketing had a say on that and the engineers would have preferred to stay with 200 mm headlamp units. Even pickup trucks don't use standard headlamps anymore ! > The soon to be released Jeep Commander... > > http://jeepin.com/news/commander/ > > Looks like a range rover knock off... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.