: Say it ain't so gm!!??



"G$"
10-11-08, 02:12 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_chrysler_merger_talks

PLEASE GM, Don't DO IT! :helpless::helpless::getaway:

77CDV
10-11-08, 02:31 AM
I dearly hope this is not true. Chrysler is the kiss of death to any company that gets near it. Just ask MB.

Playdrv4me
10-11-08, 03:47 AM
Really, it's a way for GM to dump the remaining finance interest it has in GMAC. Something that isn't a terrible idea given the financial markets right now. The deal would work out with GM trading its remaining 49% stake to Cerberus (who already owns the other 51%) and Cerberus handing Chrysler over to GM. Who knows, maybe GM can actually turn Chrysler around.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-11-08, 04:18 AM
Man, that's weird! Who'da thunk....the #1 and #3 (in terms of production) American car companies merge.....wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though....didn't Cerberus acquire Chrysler just to flip them in a couple of years for profit?

Playdrv4me
10-11-08, 04:49 AM
Man, that's weird! Who'da thunk....the #1 and #3 (in terms of production) American car companies merge.....wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though....didn't Cerberus acquire Chrysler just to flip them in a couple of years for profit?

That is the general thinking, yes... "Strip and Flip" is what that's called in the industry. However in this case it sort of ends up a mutually beneficial agreement for both parties.

urbanski
10-11-08, 04:50 AM
better than bk

Jesda
10-11-08, 05:44 AM
http://www.twolvesblog.com/images/stories/collegewolf/sad%20face.jpg

Spyder
10-11-08, 07:00 AM
No more Viper v. Corvette arguments...

c5 rv
10-11-08, 09:06 AM
Oh, I'm sure they have plenty of cash for that.

What GM needs is a new GMAC to provide auto financing, but without the albatross mortgages and SUV leases.

Brett
10-11-08, 09:46 AM
I really dont see the point to this....doesnt GM have too many competing brands as it is? What would this bring to the table?

CIWS
10-11-08, 09:47 AM
Airlines do it all the time when facing serious financial hardship. Viper is already on the sales block even before the proposed merger talks. I would much rather see them merge than fail.

Brett
10-11-08, 09:55 AM
airlines dont have the same type of overlapping product though....if GM cant sell Silverados for a profit and Chrysler cant sell Rams for a profit, why do they think they could sell both for a profit?

c5 rv
10-11-08, 09:58 AM
Apparently, it would be a swap, GM would get Chrysler's automotive operations and Cerberus would get the rest of GMAC. I suspect, there would also be some guaranteed vehicle and operations financing for the combined GM-Chrysler. Or, maybe the combined GM-Chrysler would immediately restructure under bankruptcy protection with the following resulting brands, with far fewer dealers:

- Cadillac
- Chevrolet (mainstream)
- Dodge (sporty, including Pontiac)
- Jeep (including GMC)
- Chrysler/Buick (near luxury)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081011/AUTO01/810110382

http://www.freep.com/article/20081011/BUSINESS01/810110393

http://www.freep.com/article/20081010/COL06/81010099/0/BUSINESS01

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-11-08, 12:04 PM
http://www.twolvesblog.com/images/stories/collegewolf/sad%20face.jpg



http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r250/Reload2Unload/myyuck.jpg


:crying: :crying::crying2::crying2:

Jesda
10-11-08, 12:20 PM
^^nice! Someone needs to put those stickers on the Compass.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-11-08, 12:54 PM
They couldn't, it would be copywrite infringement. Toyota has trademarked that and is making that their new logo.

mighty_quad4
10-11-08, 01:00 PM
I dearly hope this is not true. Chrysler is the kiss of death to any company that gets near it. Just ask MB.

you have no idea how wrong you are. try the other way around. Diamler was sucking money from Ma Mopar. MB wasnt exactly a big mean bully throughout all this, its certain that they didnt do much of anything to actually help Ma Mopar.


Daimler also stiffled Ma Mopar's vehicle line up so as not to interfere with thier own. the SRT guys routinely said they were being denied thier ability to design good cars because they were told that thier cars could not be as good as the MB cars. there are more examples but theres not much of a point in listing them now.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-11-08, 01:11 PM
Well of course M-B is gonna wanna keep Chrysler's stuff a bar or two below their own.....they're two totally different markets, two totally different demographics and buyers. But what Daimler-Benz did do that was great was the LX platform...they gave Chrysler the designs for the previous E Class under pinnings so it would handle better and be more roadable than any full sized Chrysler in a very long time, and that's one of the reasons those cars are in such high demand nowadays...

Blackout
10-11-08, 01:14 PM
I think this is a bad decision. Out of the domestic brands Chrysler is in the worst shape. Chrysler really doesn't have much that GM could use. GM's 4 cylinders are better, their 6 cylinder are better, and so are their 8 cylinders. Besides the SRT line up and maybe the pickups what exactly do they have that any of you would buy? We were just having this discussion in another forum I am on and that was the consensus we came up with. As unlikely as this is to happen I would think a GM/Ford merger would be the best for both companies.

CIWS
10-11-08, 01:23 PM
airlines dont have the same type of overlapping product though....if GM cant sell Silverados for a profit and Chrysler cant sell Rams for a profit, why do they think they could sell both for a profit?

Most airlines, Southwest being the exception, operate in the red. Yes the product is different, but business is business and either you operate it with a product and or service that sells and provides a profit you can survive on or you go out of business.

Both manufacturers recognize their product line must change or they will die. I think GM has a better grip on this perspective and a more promising line of vehicles than Chrysler for the future. But Just because they "merge" doesn't mean that what we know as Chrysler won't essentially vanish in the merge.

Sandy
10-11-08, 05:20 PM
Guys, lets focus on the big(ger) picture. If G.M. & Chrysler merge, America will have but just 2 Domestic Car Corporations, to go up against the rest of the world ! How many does Japan. Germany, Sweden, Korea, and others have?
Ours would gobbled up in a year or two or three and that would be the end of American Automobile Manufacturing.

Interesting products:
Fleetwood LeBaron
Lucerne Cordoba
Imperial Park Avenue
Monte Magnum

Regardless, just not good for America.

mighty_quad4
10-11-08, 05:58 PM
I think this is a bad decision. Out of the domestic brands Chrysler is in the worst shape. Chrysler really doesn't have much that GM could use. GM's 4 cylinders are better, their 6 cylinder are better, and so are their 8 cylinders. Besides the SRT line up and maybe the pickups what exactly do they have that any of you would buy? We were just having this discussion in another forum I am on and that was the consensus we came up with. As unlikely as this is to happen I would think a GM/Ford merger would be the best for both companies.

uh, Chrysler has equal or better 4 and 6 cylinder engines compared to GM. Mopar may even have a slight advantage when comparing the larger V6 engines. Mopar engines make more power and torque while getting similar or better fuel mileage. Chryslers current line up of engines equals the Ecotec line in power, torque, and fuel economy. even the new turbo 4 isnt anymore powerful than the "old" mopar 2.4 turbo.

GM took a step backwards with the Ecotec. the only thing i does better than the engines it replaced [ Quad4/TwinCam ] is make less emissions and thats only because it had to.

each side had problem with thier engines, so to try and compare reliability is a bit more complicated but neither company's engines are bad as a whole.

Blackout
10-11-08, 06:21 PM
uh, Chrysler has equal or better 4 and 6 cylinder engines compared to GM.Since when? The 6 cylinders they use across the board are underpowered. The DI V6 thats in the CTS is better then anything they have

Mopar may even have a slight advantage when comparing the larger V6 engines. Mopar engines make more power and torque while getting similar or better fuel mileage.Really? The Pontiac G6 with the V6 makes 248 hp and 256 tq qhile the 3.5 V6 from the Charger is rated at 250/250. Don't even get me started on the 2.7 V6.

Chryslers current line up of engines equals the Ecotec line in power, torque, and fuel economy. even the new turbo 4 isnt anymore powerful than the "old" mopar 2.4 turbo.The difference is that the ECOTEC's are far more reliable then that of the Mopar turbo 4 cylinders. The current one in the SRT Caliber is damn near maxxed out. They have been out for awhile now and they still really haven't gotten as much out of them reliably as the old SRT Neon.


GM took a step backwards with the Ecotec. the only thing i does better than the engines it replaced [ Quad4/TwinCam ] is make less emissions and thats only because it had to. Well with the current laws here in the US that isn't the manufactuers fault. In Austraila Ford has a turbo charged 6 cylinder in the Ford Falcon that will out run an LS3 powered Holden. When emissions becomes a part in the development of an engine there will most always be a power down grade.


each side had problem with thier engines, so to try and compare reliability is a bit more complicated but neither company's engines are bad as a whole.Both companies have their bright spots but on Chryslers side the Hemi's IMO are the only engines that are worth while wen compared to what GM currently has out now.

Brett
10-11-08, 08:33 PM
But Just because they "merge" doesn't mean that what we know as Chrysler won't essentially vanish in the merge.

Exactly, so whats the point of the merger? I just dont see what product they would be interested in keeping. They cant be dying to build Sebrings or 300's.

joee5
10-11-08, 08:50 PM
Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose. Dont remember who said that but I think it fits here. God Bless,Joe

mighty_quad4
10-11-08, 11:33 PM
Since when? The 6 cylinders they use across the board are underpowered. The DI V6 thats in the CTS is better then anything they have
Really? The Pontiac G6 with the V6 makes 248 hp and 256 tq qhile the 3.5 V6 from the Charger is rated at 250/250. Don't even get me started on the 2.7 V6.
The difference is that the ECOTEC's are far more reliable then that of the Mopar turbo 4 cylinders. The current one in the SRT Caliber is damn near maxxed out. They have been out for awhile now and they still really haven't gotten as much out of them reliably as the old SRT Neon.

Well with the current laws here in the US that isn't the manufactuers fault. In Austraila Ford has a turbo charged 6 cylinder in the Ford Falcon that will out run an LS3 powered Holden. When emissions becomes a part in the development of an engine there will most always be a power down grade.

Both companies have their bright spots but on Chryslers side the Hemi's IMO are the only engines that are worth while wen compared to what GM currently has out now.

the new LLT V6 is the only engine GM has that surpasses Chrysler by any real margin. the rest of the engines are either identical or so close that it doesnt matter. im not going to quibble about 5hp or 6tq. that are way for engines than the 3.5 for both sides.

to my knowledge there is no 248hp V6 for use in the G6. they used the LX9 3.5 or the LZ4, neither or which make 248hp. to my knowledge, the most powerful engine was 240hp, but was rerated to 227hp and it was a 3.9, not a 3.5.

the Chysler 2.7's only real problem is the water pump design which totally sucks. the sludge problem that its famous for was due to a PCV problem that was remedied and affected far fewer engines than people thought. GM didnt make a smaller V6 with 200hp until 2005. Chysler did it in 98.

in regards to your reliability of the Ecotec vs the 2.4...lol? while the Ecotec is a reliable engine, most anyone will agree, the 2.4 Mopar engine is by no means unreliable.

and the 2.4l engine being "maxed out"...again lol? you do realize that the engine is good for around 500hp with stock internals right? the Ecotec can only dream of that. the rods tend to fly out of the Ecotec at around 300hp at most. even the newer world 2.4 is a friggin workhorse. theres plenty of guys running around with 400whp caliber srt4s. the ecm works against them far more than the engien does. the engine is capable of MUCH more. the n/a version is mfgd the same way as the turbo engines. theres hardly any difference between them. checking the caliber forums, i dont see many ppl complaining about their CSRT4 at all for engine related things.

what you said about emissions and power isnt gonna cut it. there are other mfgs who have smaller engines making more power with better fuel economy while still passing emissions. US car companies in general do not make good 4 cylinder engines. they may be reliable and that is a good thing, but reliability alone doesnt make an engine. the Quad4 in its best form made 190hp in 1991 while still returning 35mpg with a 5 speed and ran clean enough to pass emissions tests of the era without a cat on the car. GM STILL TO THIS DAY has not made a n/a 4 cyl engine thats even close to doing that again. [ and before someone tried to bring up them popping headgaskets, that was an OEM supplier issue as the felpro replacement gaskets sealed the engines just fine. how do i know, ive owned a Quad4 car in some form since 1998. ] hell, they need an engine thats .2L larger to make close to the same power of the old HO Quad4 and its still 10hp shy and barely matches it in fuel economy. my Olds Calais got 30/35. its the best damn car ive owned even over my STS. it certainly didnt look as good, but it was faster in the qtr mile, had a bulletproof drivetrain and got nearly double the fuel milage. thats apples to oranges comparo there so its not quite fair but my point is that US mfgs have been stagnant with thier engine development for a LONG TIME.

i have to both agree and disagree with you about the Hemi engine line. i agree with you that they are the best engine line Chysler has by far i disagree because the engine design is about the worst you can use from a fuel economy standpoint. "fail" is a word that comes to mind as they had one hell of a time getting them to pass emissions at all. does that mean theyre bad? hell no. theyre just not good for fuel economy compared to more modern pentroof designs.

Destroyer
10-12-08, 12:10 AM
Challenger SS sounds kinda cool!. How about a Hemi Z28 or a Cobalt R/T?. :eek::boom::Palin:

77CDV
10-12-08, 12:55 AM
Challenger SS sounds kinda cool!. How about a Hemi Z28 or a Cobalt R/T?. :eek::boom::Palin:

Off topic, but why are you shooting poor Sarah? Hasn't the poor dear suffered enough?

Jesda
10-12-08, 02:02 AM
http://images.quickblogcast.com/98130-90737/2_99_chrysler.jpg
LOL

Sandy
10-12-08, 02:20 AM
Ever see Sara in jeans & heels, w/out the glasses? Way Hot

Cliff8928
10-12-08, 03:52 AM
to my knowledge there is no 248hp V6 for use in the G6. they used the LX9 3.5 or the LZ4, neither or which make 248hp. to my knowledge, the most powerful engine was 240hp, but was rerated to 227hp and it was a 3.9, not a 3.5.

You're right, there is currently no 248 HP V6, It's 252HP / 251 TQ. (LY7)

CIWS
10-12-08, 10:34 AM
Exactly, so whats the point of the merger? I just dont see what product they would be interested in keeping. They cant be dying to build Sebrings or 300's.

They gain the advantage of established models and labels from Chrysler and rights to their designs and patents from the last 80 years. Plus their plants and assembly lines to retool for the future company or close to sell for capital and save on wages. The main advantage of airlines merging is access to the others routes/airports and gaining staffing that is already trained in the business. But they always trim after the merge to try and keep it efficient.

Destroyer
10-12-08, 02:55 PM
Ever see Sara in jeans & heels, w/out the glasses? Way HotGreat, maybe she can enter a middle-age beauty pageant then?.:tisk:

Destroyer
10-12-08, 02:57 PM
Off topic, but why are you shooting poor Sarah?
I'm not, the little yellow smiley dude is.:cool2:

Blackout
10-12-08, 09:56 PM
to my knowledge there is no 248hp V6 for use in the G6. they used the LX9 3.5 or the LZ4, neither or which make 248hp. to my knowledge, the most powerful engine was 240hp, but was rerated to 227hp and it was a 3.9, not a 3.5.I got 248 hp directly from Pontiac's website

dkozloski
10-12-08, 10:21 PM
The federal government and the monopoly laws will pretty much determine which nameplates go and which ones remain.

gothicaleigh
10-13-08, 01:18 PM
What exactly does GM stand to gain from this (besides the elimination of a long time competitor)?

-An old Mercedes platform from the 300/Charger/Challenger (new Caprice or Impala? kind of useless considering that they already have the platform the G8 rides on though).

-Jeep. Probably the only thing of any real lasting value to be gained (and just in time to replace/absorb Hummer).

...and that's about it that I can see.


There's nothing for the widely respected 1500/Silverado to gain from the cheaply designed and constructed Ram.
Nothing really impressive from the small cars as mentioned above.
Their midsize cars are forgettable and none of which are class leading or honestly even competitive.

It may be argued that there is some value in the nameplates. Personally, I don't see it though. Most new car buyers no longer feel nostalgic about american cars and the old names are likely to inspire more poor mental images than good.

c5 rv
10-13-08, 01:38 PM
What exactly does GM stand to gain from this (besides the elimination of a long time competitor)?

...

-Jeep. Probably the only thing of any real lasting value to be gained (and just in time to replace/absorb Hummer).

...and that's about it that I can see.


Jeep has always been the prize:

- AMC bought Jeep from Kaiser
- Renault bought AMC to get Jeep
- Chrysler bought Renault's North American operations to get Jeep.

gothicaleigh
10-13-08, 01:45 PM
Jeep has always been the prize:

- AMC bought Jeep from Kaiser
- Renault bought AMC to get Jeep
- Chrysler bought Renault's North American operations to get Jeep.

I have a feeling that is where GM's interest also lies.
LS powered Jeeps? :highfive:

LITTLEELVISDAN
10-13-08, 01:48 PM
uh, Chrysler has equal or better 4 and 6 cylinder engines compared to GM. Mopar may even have a slight advantage when comparing the larger V6 engines. Mopar engines make more power and torque while getting similar or better fuel mileage. Chryslers current line up of engines equals the Ecotec line in power, torque, and fuel economy. even the new turbo 4 isnt anymore powerful than the "old" mopar 2.4 turbo.

GM took a step backwards with the Ecotec. the only thing i does better than the engines it replaced [ Quad4/TwinCam ] is make less emissions and thats only because it had to.

each side had problem with thier engines, so to try and compare reliability is a bit more complicated but neither company's engines are bad as a whole.Nope on all counts. Chrysler only has a strong following in the Viper, jeep, and minivan department. Unless you like a solid plastic interior. The Hemi's will never take off in the after market world. They are impossible to mod. you can't FI them in any way. I looked into it and no one makes a Maggie (or competitor) kit. They all say the variable displacement motor makes it impossible. As of late Dodge said the next gen Hemi will have the feature turned off. You can't progress an engine beyond stock and you kill any chance of going much further. Why buy a challenger? its just a 2 door charger or a 2 door magnum., or a 2 door 300. Its the same damn car. Not much novelty in that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a MOPAR hater. I had a 73 Cahllenger and a 71 Charger Super Bee. They were good cars. The new offerings are not any where near that. I had hoped they would be.. I was dissapointed and found my wonderful STS-V. No looking back now.:tisk:

Brett
10-13-08, 02:31 PM
What exactly does GM stand to gain from this (besides the elimination of a long time competitor)?

-An old Mercedes platform from the 300/Charger/Challenger (new Caprice or Impala? kind of useless considering that they already have the platform the G8 rides on though).

-Jeep. Probably the only thing of any real lasting value to be gained (and just in time to replace/absorb Hummer).

...and that's about it that I can see.


There's nothing for the widely respected 1500/Silverado to gain from the cheaply designed and constructed Ram.
Nothing really impressive from the small cars as mentioned above.
Their midsize cars are forgettable and none of which are class leading or honestly even competitive.

It may be argued that there is some value in the nameplates. Personally, I don't see it though. Most new car buyers no longer feel nostalgic about american cars and the old names are likely to inspire more poor mental images than good.

Exactly my point

The Tony Show
10-13-08, 03:07 PM
http://images.quickblogcast.com/98130-90737/2_99_chrysler.jpg
LOL

rofl @ Jesda.

It would be hilarious if Chrysler owners are locked in at the $2.99 price, even though regular can now be had for less than that in many areas. :lol:

c5 rv
10-13-08, 03:21 PM
I have a feeling that is where GM's interest also lies.
LS powered Jeeps? :highfive:

The pre-AMC Jeeps had a lot of parts from the GM parts bin, including engines. My uncle used to work at a Buick dealership in the late 60s where they also sold Jeeps.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-13-08, 08:03 PM
Jeep has always been the prize:

- AMC bought Jeep from Kaiser
- Renault bought AMC to get Jeep
- Chrysler bought Renault's North American operations to get Jeep.

Didn't Ford make Jeeps during WWII? Then Willys, then Kaiser? So that means aside from GM, every major American manufacturer has made Jeep at some point.

77CDV
10-14-08, 01:21 AM
Didn't Ford make Jeeps during WWII? Then Willys, then Kaiser? So that means aside from GM, every major American manufacturer has made Jeep at some point.

The original WWII Jeep was a Willy's design, IIRC. As with most war materiels, the War Production Board bought the design, then contracted out production to several companies, including Ford, to build the final product. Cadillac was, of course, building it's flathead V8s and Hydromatics (sans reverse gear) for tank application.

I still say Chrysler is death on a stick for any company silly enough to go near it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-14-08, 11:52 AM
I still say Chrysler is death on a stick for any company silly enough to go near it.


That's especially sad to think about when you consider some of the *great* products Chrysler used to make.

http://www.plymouthcentral.com/files/PF58Bel01.jpg

http://www.allpar.com/images/chrysler/300c-1957.jpg


http://www.tntclassiccars.com/100_0718.jpg

http://www.smileysmile.net/uncanny/media/users/djm/71hemicudafront.jpg

urbanski
10-14-08, 01:51 PM
lol @ hotlink

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-14-08, 01:56 PM
:bigroll: We're not all internet wizards like you Urb. :p

77CDV
10-14-08, 03:47 PM
That's especially sad to think about when you consider some of the *great* products Chrysler used to make.

http://www.plymouthcentral.com/files/PF58Bel01.jpg

http://www.allpar.com/images/chrysler/300c-1957.jpg


http://www.tntclassiccars.com/100_0718.jpg

http://www.smileysmile.net/uncanny/media/users/djm/71hemicudafront.jpg

Chrysler has historically been an engineering pioneer (WPC being an engineer after all), and it's styling has occasionally been brilliant (Foward Look cars, current 300 series) if at times too far foward for public taste(Airflow). No, what has always kept Chrysler down and on the ropes is it's products' horrid build quality. All the cars pictured above rusted like the very devil, much worse so than their contempory GM or Ford counterparts. And, they never held up well mechanically (with the exception of the superannuated 318), lowering their resale value and leading to a relative paucity of survivors today.

Chrysler was built on the bones of the moribund Maxwell-Chalmers, and has been lurching toward oblivion ever since. Only very well-timed jolts of great good fortune have kept the company with us this long. When Cerebus bought them, I knew the end was finally here. Let Chrysler and Dodge go rest in peace with Plymouth, DeSoto, and Imperial. If GM wants Jeep, fine, but you know the rest of it will be quickly dispatched.

And then there were two......

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-14-08, 04:29 PM
Man, the things I would do for a 1958 Plymouth Fury or Belvedere Sport Coupe..... :lildevil:

urbanski
10-14-08, 04:52 PM
:bigroll: We're not all internet wizards like you Urb. :p

:party:

Jesda
10-14-08, 05:55 PM
:bigroll: We're not all internet wizards like you Urb. :p

His Microsoft certification paper hang like sleeve of wizard.

77CDV
10-14-08, 11:15 PM
Man, the things I would do for a 1958 Plymouth Fury or Belvedere Sport Coupe..... :lildevil:
Aren't you being rather rash, Chad?:p

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-15-08, 12:00 AM
Perhaps, but that car rooooooooooocks!! :cool2:

dkozloski
10-15-08, 01:39 PM
Every Jeep I ever drove steered like it'd been wrecked. It's the only car on the road without self centering steering. You have to unwind the wheel when coming out of a corner like the steering is bound up. The two happiest days of a jeep owners life are the day he buys it and the day he sells it or torches it out in the woods.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-15-08, 02:33 PM
I drove my friend's '01 Cherokee Sport last weekend. The steering was just like Dkoz described. I didn't like it, and I don't have any interest what so ever in Jeep.

Blackout
10-15-08, 02:37 PM
After my dad had a 2006 Jeep Wrangler I would never buy one. Everything is so keep and the suspension was too floaty for my liking and like the last two said, the steering was annoying

gothicaleigh
10-15-08, 05:30 PM
You guys obviously have never driven a Wrangler in it's natural environment then. The only time one should ever touch pavement is in between the garage and the local trail. They're an absolute blast in the woods and running around in hilly trails.

Playdrv4me
10-15-08, 06:42 PM
You guys obviously have never driven a Wrangler in it's natural environment then. The only time one should ever touch pavement is in between the garage and the local trail. They're an absolute blast in the woods and running around in hilly trails.

Yup, and not to mention everyone complains about the old recirculating ball steering in the Grand Cherokee, yet for the piddly dollars you can buy a Grand Cherokee for with ALL the toys, it's really a stupid issue to get so worked up about. Still some of my favorite SUVs ever AND there is just about nothing easier to work on. I mean look at it, the stupid AC Compressor and Alternator (something that's buried in the N* for example) are right there at the top of the motor for the pickin!

http://i6.ebayimg.com/01/i/001/14/47/da0e_3.JPG

A DIY'ers dream come true if there ever was one. I never regretted owning any of mine except for the '99 Limited. If the tranny does fail, finding another one at a salvage yard is a 400.00 excursion.

urbanski
10-15-08, 07:25 PM
caleigh all muddy riding in a jeep :drool: