Edmunds Review of 2012 Wrangler - Page 3 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 09-03-2011, 08:06 PM   #61
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 35,520
"The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."


__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 08:08 PM   #62
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
"The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."

Explanation.....

n00bs.......

careful.......

Barrie........

__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 08:36 PM   #63
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 35,520
Great review.... Love the new engine, maybe in three years I'll own one
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 05:47 AM   #64
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,411
Interesting read. I wish they Chrysler, Ford and GM could have done something with the I-6 to keep it current. Granted my 300 I-6 Ford engine can't win any races I feel more confident towing with it that I would with a V-6 making almost 2 times the hp. Wranglers were never intended to win races, but low end torque at a reasonable rpm is a nice thing to have. I guess the EPA and cost to keep the I-6 compliant killed them.
Sinister I'd love to see the 4.9L Ford engine with 4 valves per cylinder, that would be awesome!
demarpaint is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 06:17 AM   #65
Statler & Waldorf Show

WF Supporting Member
 
Mykll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Davidian Bunker
Posts: 835
Send a message via AIM to Mykll Send a message via Yahoo to Mykll
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
6th is not designed for passing, accelerating, going up steep inclines, etc. It's made for low rpm cruising at highway speeds. Always has been, on every production vehicle a 6 speed has ever been installed in.
Do you mean any 4+ wheeled production vehicle? My 2007 BMW F800ST does all of that fantastically well in 6th.

Other than that, I got nothing. I am lost in this longwinded seminar with this non-vehicle-technical brain of mine.
__________________
2012 Sport S 2D, Silver, Hardtop, Manual, Tow, 3.73, Infinity, Air Bags, Power Convenience
Heated Seats, Side Steps, Hood Lock, Gas Cap Lock, Fuel Door
Ordered 6/27/11, D1 6/29/11, Built 7/22/11, Delivered 8/19/11.
Hummer Kills: 6
Mykll is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 09:32 AM   #66
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 839
yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
techflork is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 10:54 AM   #67
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 35,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflork
yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
The 3.8 been around for like 20 years I do believe.
The inline 6 was also a very reliable engine but as mentioned above just like the 3.8, are old engines. The 3.6 is now standardized in a lot of Chrysler vehicles.
I've driven V-8's that got better gas mileage so I don't know how that works. Probably more expensive to make and too
big for a wrangler?
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 10:59 AM   #68
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mykll View Post
Do you mean any 4+ wheeled production vehicle? My 2007 BMW F800ST does all of that fantastically well in 6th.

Other than that, I got nothing. I am lost in this longwinded seminar with this non-vehicle-technical brain of mine.
I'm sure it does, lol. Kinda different scenario, though.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 11:09 AM   #69
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflork View Post
yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
Inlines have less stress on the rotating assembly, so you do typically see them have long lives.
Better is subjective. They're longer and tougher to package for one, typically don't make the high-end horsepower a V engine does (but do make plenty of torque). Harmonics (vibrations) are also a little more noticeable with inlines, because there's really no counterbalance like in a V engine. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rules. The BMW inline 6 would make plenty of horsepower, because it could rev. They were smaller in displacement, so they made a little less torque, but having driven a few of those cars, you really don't even notice.
You see modern V8 engines getting the mileage they are due to good breathing, precise tuning, and the right combination of transmission and gear, I don't care what others may say. Every engine has a sweet spot where it's at its most efficient. Keeping the engine in that range is what gives you good mileage. Every engine has a powerband, and using the right transmission and gear keeps you in that range more often. When you shift a manual transmission under heavy acceleration the idea is to keep the engine in a certain rpm range so it doesn't drop way off in power between shifts. There's things like short shifting, rev matching and other techniques people use to try to get the most efficiency and/or power out of their engine, but we won't get into that here.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-04-2011, 11:57 AM   #70
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 839
thanks guys that was very helpful
techflork is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 03:45 PM   #71
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
I got some more data, so might as well address some of this other stuff too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
310ft/lbs? Truly staggering for an engine rated at 275ft/lbs in 1991......

It was never rated at 275 ft-lbs, the highest rating it ever got was 265 ft-lbs. Mine did just over 270 ft-lbs at the wheels. You do the math.

That old I6 of your is a great engine, but it's lazy, inefficient and not terrible smog friendly. It is what it is. It just wouldn't work today as a factory installed engine. But, let's say Ford kept this engine around. Added a 4 valve head, lighter rotating assembly, better fuel injection and made it rev as well as make great torque, and whatever modern sensors and equipment to meet today's standards. Would you be upset about this?
I would be a little upset if they made all those changes because they would be unnecessary. A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
So, granted that your test numbers are legit (But I still want to see an impartial test, this is the internet, nothing personal)

Great. So now I'm a liar because the numbers aren't what you wanted to see.

and now that we've performed this utterly pointless test,

It isn't pointless, it works perfectly well to show that torque does better on the street than power does all else being equal, or as close to equal as we can make it.

do it again in 4th (the highest non OD gear in your trans) in your truck, and 4th in your 2012 (the highest non OD gear). Hell, even try it in 5th.

Ask and ye shall receive. In 4th gear the run from 45-65 averaged just over 11 seconds. I also did it in 3rd just for kicks. If I go 45-65 it's about 8 seconds including a shift to 4th gear at just under 60 mph. If I change it to 40-60 it's 6 seconds going all the way in 3rd.

FYI, 5th is the highest non-OD gear in the JK. My wife will be out of town next week, so I'll be able to get some seat time in the Jeep and see what it does. My guess right now is that in 5th it still loses and in 4th it still loses, but not by as much. Not really much point in trying the lower gears unless we want to try 0-30, but the JK will lose that one impressively.

For giggles, here's what the 3.8 could do 45-65,when downshifted properly: 2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon - Long Term Verdict - Motor Trend
So, the 3.6 ought to be a good bit quicker.

So now we're going to compare the acceleration of a Jeep in 2nd gear to the acceleration of a truck in 3rd gear? Not much of a comparison as far as I can see.

6th is not designed for passing, accelerating, going up steep inclines, etc. It's made for low rpm cruising at highway speeds. Always has been, on every production vehicle a 6 speed has ever been installed in. The problem isn't the engine or the trans, it's your unrealistic expectations. Google "Trying to pass in 6th gear" and read some of the results. Tell us what you find.

When did I ever say that 6th was meant for passing? If 6th isn't meant for it in the JK, then 5th isn't meant for it in my truck. The only thing I have ever claimed is that if the current engines had any usable torque it wouldn't need 4.88 or 5.13 gears to get out of their own way and they wouldn't have to run through the gears every time they needed to change speeds.

This stuff isn't personal. There are 2 opinions here. If I'm wrong, you are as well.
I've not taken anything personal and I already said we simply had two different philosphies. My philosophy is to build an engine that has torque and can do the job with mild gearing. Your philosophy is to built power and bandaid the lack of low end torque with gears. As you said in one of your earlier posts, power is for going fast. I don't need to go much over 75 or 80 and neither do most other Jeep drivers, so how much power is really needed? I'm perfectly happy with a 3500 rpm engine that make twice as much torque as it does power. I have a 285 hp Jeep with 260 ft-lbs of torque. I would happily exchange 100 hp for 100 ft-lbs in that Jeep.

It would be nice if we could take a ride in my truck. It would probably change your mind about torque vs. power.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 04:46 PM   #72
rotaredoM

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
panthermark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago-land
Posts: 9,749
Images: 13
^^Both of you are correct.
Gearing is VERY important. The old gearing/tranny combo was a joke. The new combo is MUCH better.
As for the Wrangler, I would also give up 100HP for a 100 lb-ft of torque....I doubt I would ever take a Wrangler above 80 mph anway. And at 4000 pounds (and a vehicle meant to crawl), torque is mucho important. But, the vehicle would still need to be geared properly from 1mph to 80mph.

I think the gearing is correct on the new Wrangler, I think Chrysler did a great job mating the new engine with the new tranny, I the new engine is awesome.....but I think a Wrangler could use a different kind of awesome engine.

With that said...it is what it is...and I've heard nothing but good things about the new engine. I would rather have this engine in the Wrangler, and Fiat/Chrysler be successful with this engile accross all lines, than for Fiat/Chrysler to spend a ton of money on a "Jeep only" engine, raise the price of the Wrangler...and end up shooting themselves in the foot because another $4000 has been added on to the price of every Wrangler.
panthermark is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 05:19 PM   #73
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
I've got nothing else to add here. You're not changing my mind, and I'm obviously not changing yours. It is what it is.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 05:31 PM   #74
Jeeper
 
SportsGal501's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 529


With all this talk about power,let me know when yall want to hit the tracks.

My 2009 VW GTI would luv the company.............
__________________
Wrangler "X" 2006 DOB-5/06 24 x package automatic~all tinted windows quasi-military Lt metallic Khaki w/hardtop Mopar Grill Guard Mopar Rock Rails 30" Bridgestone Duelers A/T
www.jeepprofile.com/sportsgal501
"Move along...nothing to see here"

"I was elected to lead not to read."-The Simpsons Movie
SportsGal501 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 07:39 PM   #75
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportsGal501 View Post


With all this talk about power,let me know when yall want to hit the tracks.

My 2009 VW GTI would luv the company.............
Straight line or twisty? I got you covered in a straight line.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-15-2011, 09:15 PM   #76
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
Straight line or twisty? I got you covered in a straight line.
And unless it's significantly modded I've got it covered on both.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:35 AM   #77
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Well, mine doesn't turn very well, but it gets it in a straight line!!



__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:45 AM   #78
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Mine isn't the best at anything, but it's really good at everything.

__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 09:58 AM   #79
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
I've done battle with a few of those in my time.
I always loved the Lightning, from the old 351w models to the newer ones. I would take one of those over a SRT10 Ram any day of the week. Simple pulley swap and you're smacking that Dodge in the mouth.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 04:32 PM   #80
Jeeper
 
JeeperJake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,890
re: "A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel."

Not to reinvent the argument here....
doesn't each of those changes rather suggest other compensatory modifications will also be necessary to achieve 'best overall package' for the unit?

I for one am tremendously impressed and pleased with the upgrade in all components over the last 50 years.

While I'm on the I-5 far more often than such as Bear Creek Pass, the fact I need a wide range of capacities in each component and overall design of the Wrangler.

Given that "100 more ft/lb of torque" , what of my daily driver would be improved? And what suspension/transmission/drive line etc would need mods to handle it. If a drive shaft/U joint needs to handle another 40% torque load, what other engineering needs comes with it, and at what cost?
__________________
get in--buckle up--hang on
"soothing agricultural implement/personal servant/Walter Mitty multidimensional access utility device conveniently travels on pavement when necessary and often keeps me warm/cool/dry/soothed as needed."
JeeperJake is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 07:25 PM   #81
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeeperJake View Post
re: "A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel."

Not to reinvent the argument here....
doesn't each of those changes rather suggest other compensatory modifications will also be necessary to achieve 'best overall package' for the unit?
No. The basic design will stay the same. It will obviously need a little fine tuning, but that's to be expected and isn't a major change.

Quote:
I for one am tremendously impressed and pleased with the upgrade in all components over the last 50 years.

While I'm on the I-5 far more often than such as Bear Creek Pass, the fact I need a wide range of capacities in each component and overall design of the Wrangler.
Some advancements have been OK. Others have been useless over the long term even though they had their time.

A Wrangler specific engine that was designed for it would offer far more capability in all circumstances than taking something off the shelf and building a bunch of compromises just to make it work will offer.

Quote:
Given that "100 more ft/lb of torque" , what of my daily driver would be improved? And what suspension/transmission/drive line etc would need mods to handle it. If a drive shaft/U joint needs to handle another 40% torque load, what other engineering needs comes with it, and at what cost?
Probably nothing, and even if things do need beefed up Chrysler has parts on the shelf that will do the job.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 07:49 PM   #82
rotaredoM

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
panthermark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago-land
Posts: 9,749
Images: 13
^While I agree that the 3.6 isn't a Jeep engine....it is still a good engine. The question is.....how much would a Wrangler specific engine cost? If R&D bumps the price up another $3000-$4000...how many sales will Chrysler lose? I think Chrysler has done the best they can to keep the price where it is at, increase HP, increase torque, and gain fuel economy.....all while using an engine that can fit in multiple products.
panthermark is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-16-2011, 08:24 PM   #83
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
Well, mine doesn't turn very well, but it gets it in a straight line!!



Nice lets hear about it!
demarpaint is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-17-2011, 08:51 AM   #84
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
Nice lets hear about it!
OK.
It's a 55 Chevy 210, 2 door sedan. I was shooting for a late 60's street machine look. Body is pretty much stock, but the suspension is lowered with drop spindles in the front and de-arched leafs in the rear. Steering is factory. Brakes are Impala power discs in the front, drums in the rear. Interior was reupholstered with 60's era diamond stitch vinyl. Only real interior mods are a tach, 3-pack gauge panel and a Hurst Quarter Stick. I built the engine, did the trans work, most of the mechanical work (save for the rear gears and diff, I don't mess with those). I bought the car with the body and paint as you see them, but mechanically it was a mess. I've fixed most of it.

Engine:
Vortec 4-bolt main 350 block
GM production steel crank and powdered rods
Keith Black 11:1 pistons
Comp XR294HR cam, GM roller lifters, Comp solid pushrods, Scorpion 1.5 full roller rockers, Comp valve springs
Edelbrock Performer RPM heads with a mild port job and relieved valve guides (they run a little tight from the factory)
Edelbrock Performer RPM Air-Gap intake
Holley 670 Street Avenger carb, with a K&N X-Stream air filter setup and Stub Stack. Carb has a few tweaks I'm not giving up.
Hooker Super Comp headers, 2.5 inch flowtubes, 40 series Flowmaster mufflers, dumped.
Castrol 10w-40 Edge oil

Trans:
GM TH350
B&M 2500 stall convertor
B&M Shift kit
Red Line synthetic fluid

Rear:
Production 55 GM housing (Similar to a Ford 9")
57 Center section with Yukon 3.55 gears and Eaton Posi
Red Line synthetic gear oil

It runs pretty well, but I can't launch the car hard on a sticky tire because of the weak rear. I also am limited to a 255 tire at the widest, and am currently running a 235. One of my plans for it is to relocate the rear springs to squeeze a wider tire under it. I've only had it to the track once, and it went 13.0 at 117mph off a really slow 60" because of having to walk it out to keep from just spinning half way down the track. If you know your trap speeds, you know the car is quick. It will walk a C5 Z06 Vette from a roll, I just can't hook up off the line. Doesn't really matter to me, it's a street car.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-18-2011, 03:07 AM   #85
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,411
^^Thanks, I like it!^^
demarpaint is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-18-2011, 09:23 AM   #86
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
^^Thanks, I like it!^^
Thanks.
__________________
Bill
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-18-2011, 07:41 AM   #87
Jeeper
 
ShoreWrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Maryland's Eastern Shore
Posts: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
"The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."

ShoreWrangler is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2012 Auto-Journalist's Review zznalg JK General Discussion Forum 6 08-21-2011 07:17 PM
New member, new 2012 Wrangler Black2012 JK General Discussion Forum 10 08-20-2011 11:47 AM
Ordering a 2012 Wrangler Stallion289TX JK General Discussion Forum 16 08-10-2011 10:36 AM
Fellow Ohio Jeepers Help fick15 Ohio Jeep Forum 11 01-19-2010 10:56 PM



» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC