Official End of the JK, Friday April 27th, 2018

[Sir Sam]

Originally Posted by BanditXJ

Man... if only. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Realistically, how much would you be willing to pay for a "new" XJ?

[xj_man_646]

Originally Posted by Sir Sam

Realistically, how much would you be willing to pay for a "new" XJ?

I'd probably be interested if MSRP was in the 30-40k range, honestly. 2001 MSRP was in the mid-20's, so I don't think that is too far off assuming it would be equally as loaded with 'features' as the rest of today's vehicles.

[6DoF]

4dr wrangler = XJ with drop top

[xj_man_646]

Originally Posted by 6DoF

4dr wrangler = XJ with drop top

Except that it isn't.

Body on frame? Yawn.

[bbaCJ8]

Originally Posted by 6DoF

4dr wrangler = XJ with drop top

Agreed. It's got everything the XJ ever did, is roomier, quieter, faster, better MPG, and better features. The same people begging for the XJ back would never buy one, just like most of those people asking for a Jeep truck won't buy one either. They'll just complain that it's too long for offroad or too short for a practical truck.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by 6DoF

4dr wrangler = XJ with drop top

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

Except that it isn't.

Body on frame? Yawn.

Originally Posted by bbaCJ8

Agreed. It's got everything the XJ ever did, is roomier, quieter, faster, better MPG, and better features. The same people begging for the XJ back would never buy one, just like most of those people asking for a Jeep truck won't buy one either. They'll just complain that it's too long for offroad or too short for a practical truck.

Only thing the JK/JL unlimited is missing over an XJ is a straight six engine.

[xj_man_646]

Originally Posted by Dennis

Only thing the JK/JL unlimited is missing over an XJ is a straight six engine.

You're forgetting the most important part of the XJ.

The unibody! It simply would not have existed as a body-on-frame vehicle IMO.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

You're forgetting the most important part of the XJ.

The unibody! It simply would not have existed as a body-on-frame vehicle IMO.

I am discounting the uni-body from my list of missed items. It was built as a unibody for cost/weight savings. I don't see it as a real positive or negative, just don't miss it. The Wrangler Unlimited has filled its place in the line up nicely. Price-point is really the only place that it fails as a replacement for the XJ, but with the sales numbers the last five years or so, that does not seem like even it is much of an issue.

And the XJ's direct competition at or near its introduction, the S-10 Blazer and Ford Bronco, (could throw in the 4Runner and eventually Pathfinder) were all body on frame. I didn't see too many consumers thinking, "oh, I just want the unibody one".

[nblehm]

I think why Xj's are popular are because they are simple as you can get, easy to work on and reliable (at least that's why I own one) No new car now days is going to be simple. Just not going to happen.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by nblehm

I think why Xj's are popular are because they are simple as you can get, easy to work on and reliable (at least that's why I own one) No new car now days is going to be simple. Just not going to happen.

Goes for a first gen S-10 as well. OBD-II has eliminated simplicity, but I have to say my JK is more reliable than the XJ was at this point. (Knock on wood) But I have a heavy foot, so body on frame might be an advantage for me.

[nblehm]

Originally Posted by Dennis

Goes for a first gen S-10 as well. OBD-II has eliminated simplicity, but I have to say my JK is more reliable than the XJ was at this point. (Knock on wood) But I have a heavy foot, so body on frame might be an advantage for me.

Eh I'd argue that. Gm engine management sucked in the 90s the 4wd was garbage with the vacuum actuators. The interiors fell apart. (I grew up a GM is the best kid) the Cherokee engine management imo is simple, the 4wd is a lever (for getting the cad garb). I drive a lot of jks at work. I prefer my Cherokee (and 10 years ago I used to hate on them so hard)

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by nblehm

Eh I'd argue that. Gm engine management sucked in the 90s the 4wd was garbage with the vacuum actuators. The interiors fell apart. (I grew up a GM is the best kid) the Cherokee engine management imo is simple, the 4wd is a lever (for getting the cad garb). I drive a lot of jks at work. I prefer my Cherokee (and 10 years ago I used to hate on them so hard)

Yeah, but our first 4.0 cooling system bit the big one. 1980s technology had tons to wish for, but it led to what great engines we have today.

[xj_man_646]

Originally Posted by dennis

but tightening emissions and fuel economy requirements led to what great engines we have today.

fify

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

fify

Same thing, just rephrased.

[xj_man_646]

I believe we would still be running with carburetors if the emissions and fuel economy regulations had not tightened. They have been the main driver to the major technological advancements in gasoline and diesel engines in the last 40 years.

[Sir Sam]

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

I believe we would still be running with carburetors if the emissions and fuel economy regulations had not tightened. They have been the main driver to the major technological advancements in gasoline and diesel engines in the last 40 years.

Agreed.

Same thing for how much safer new vehicles are.

Bitch and moan about the fed gov and EPA putting their hands on Auto regs, but fact of the matter is that cars have gotten better overall because of.

Look at a 1990 Camry vs a 2010 camry. Night and day differences in terms of fuel economy, safety, etc etc.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

I believe we would still be running with carburetors if the emissions and fuel economy regulations had not tightened. They have been the main driver to the major technological advancements in gasoline and diesel engines in the last 40 years.

At some point there would have been a point that they needed to move on technologically to get more power than last years' model in order to make sales. Seems that carbs were close to their limit. The regulations just steered everyone in the right directions speeding up the change. And folks say the government isn't good for anything.

[nblehm]

Originally Posted by Dennis

And folks say the government isn't good for anything.

It isnt.


You folks are out of your minds with the carb talk. Drivability alone would be pushing technology. Nobody is going to want to talk on their iPhone and have to pull a choke cable to get their new car to start. (Over the top example) Are they pushing to meet all these standards yes, they would still be making new advancements without them, maybe just a different direction or slower pace.

1990 Camry vs 2018 Camry, I bet the price points are pretty big too.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by nblehm

It isnt.


You folks are out of your minds with the carb talk. Drivability alone would be pushing technology. Nobody is going to want to talk on their iPhone and have to pull a choke cable to get their new car to start. (Over the top example) Are they pushing to meet all these standards yes, they would still be making new advancements without them, maybe just a different direction or slower pace.

1990 Camry vs 2018 Camry, I bet the price points are pretty big too.

You wouldn't have much to see on the iPhone if the government's DARPA-NET hadn't come first.

No one doubts that technology would still be making cars better. But, the clean air push undoubtedly made these changes faster, and in the long run cheaper for the private sector to make thanks to the government funded R&D. America would suck without our private industry, would also suck without our strong democratic government. It is a pretty good partnership overall. Worst system of government and economy, except for all the others.

[Sir Sam]

Originally Posted by xj_man_646

I'd probably be interested if MSRP was in the 30-40k range, honestly. 2001 MSRP was in the mid-20's, so I don't think that is too far off assuming it would be equally as loaded with 'features' as the rest of today's vehicles.

Wait, you want an XJ with all of todays features? Thats a JK.

Todays "features" include side impact airbags, side impact crash zones, etc.

You either want an XJ as it was built 17 years ago or you don't.

Plus, haven many of you could even say you would pay $25k for a new XJ exactly as a fully loaded limited 2001 was optioned?

You'd look at it and go, this is all I get for $25k? The JK has more power, better fuel economy, better safety, more interior room, is quieter, etc etc for marginally more money.

BS people would buy that.