The above link leads to an interesting article from Automobile Magazine. I, for one, would rather see a classic Bronco or Jeep Comanche than a Prelude (yuck) or Riviera (ew), but overall it looks like a decent list. Which has me thinking, is new always better?
I drove a 1999 Jeep Wrangler yesterday. It had a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder engine with a 5 speed manual transmission. It was stock, including the factory issued balding street tires. I had to pull the rig onto a frame ramp, which is just barely wide enough to fit a car onto while climbing at roughly a 20 degree incline. In the newer Wrangler JK (2007-Present), this feat ends with my hind end puckered and a coworker furiously signaling to me from my blind spots. In this, the older TJ (1997-2006), I could see all four tires either directly or through my mirrors with room to spare, and neither my hind end felt clenched nor did any coworkers look like mid-'80s aerobics instructors with their arms waving and their feet kicking.
This older, smaller, less refined Wrangler was easier to drive. It was more fun. But it wasn't as unrefined or fun as my old Willys, which was too unrefined, but just the right amount of fun.
I wonder if Jeep should consider a new off-road-friendly rig that slims down and lightens up while hitting a lower price tag than the $30,000 JK (sure, you can price one online to $20k-ish, but good luck finding it on a dealer lot). Think A3 to Audi's portlier A4, or Fit to Honda's expanding Civic. Or maybe I'll just have to buy a TJ and give Chrysler none of my money. Which is fine by me.
No comments:
Post a Comment