: Wow...if Fiat ownership brings this about, maybe it was worth it...



hueterm
09-03-10, 12:43 AM
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/09/2011-dodge-durango-revealed-beginning-of-dodge-product-onslaught.html

ga_etc
09-03-10, 12:48 AM
I saw that earlier today. I think it's a great looking truck. Am I the only one that sees a little BMW X5 in the rear styling?

Stingroo
09-03-10, 01:32 AM
Holy freakin' shit.

I really really like that.

Bro-Ham
09-03-10, 02:29 AM
Chrysler Dodge Jeep has 17 new or restyled vehicles coming by this fall, including the 2011 Cherokee Grande'. I think the new 300 will be my new all time favorite if it comes out as the spy photos suggest. Too bad GM is still intending to make Cadillacs with such ugly pug noses. Get ready for a Chrysler renaissance! :)

Playdrv4me
09-03-10, 03:46 AM
There's a little too much chrome up in the front for my liking, but otherwise a very strong contender, and I spy projectors for Xenon headlamps... a feature the Durango sorely needed. However, from the back it is nearly identical to the Grand Cherokee, so I guess they share a platform now.

I can already tell by the look and the stance that an INSANE SRT version will show up within a year's time (perhaps in lieu of, or along with a similar GC version).

Stingroo
09-03-10, 08:16 AM
We like insane SRT products.

Too bad they haven't come out in awhile. They're almost all the same.

If I read into my crystal ball... I see... yes... yes... a 6.1L Hemi... mhmmm... yes... producing approximately.... hmm... mmhmm, right... yep.... 425 horsepower like all the other ones.

They need more engines.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-03-10, 08:29 AM
Well this looks appealing, very appealing. I can't remember the last time I saw a truck made by Mopar that looked this good. I do see hints of X5 in the rear styling, but the new Grand Cherokee also has this same que too. I just hope that this is still a true body-on-frame SUV like it should be, and not a unibody setup like the new Explorer. But, when you've got a 5.7L Hemi under it's hood, with a towing capacity of 7400 lbs, it's gotta be body on frame.

Playdrv4me
09-03-10, 01:46 PM
Well this looks appealing, very appealing. I can't remember the last time I saw a truck made by Mopar that looked this good. I do see hints of X5 in the rear styling, but the new Grand Cherokee also has this same que too. I just hope that this is still a true body-on-frame SUV like it should be, and not a unibody setup like the new Explorer. But, when you've got a 5.7L Hemi under it's hood, with a towing capacity of 7400 lbs, it's gotta be body on frame.

The 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango share the Mercedes-Benz ML and GL Class architecture developed during Daimler's ownership of the company. As such, they are both unibody construction designs.

ben.gators
09-03-10, 04:06 PM
Chrysler Dodge Jeep has 17 new or restyled vehicles coming by this fall, including the 2011 Cherokee Grande'. I think the new 300 will be my new all time favorite if it comes out as the spy photos suggest. Too bad GM is still intending to make Cadillacs with such ugly pug noses. Get ready for a Chrysler renaissance! :)

They may look nice, but sorry Chrysler, there is no way I spend my hard earned money on a Chrysler! (I may exclude Dodge Ram...)

Bro-Ham
09-03-10, 04:38 PM
They may look nice, but sorry Chrysler, there is no way I spend my hard earned money on a Chrysler! (I may exclude Dodge Ram...)

Never say never. You're already cracking on the Dodge Ram. I think you need to have an open mind and let the pentastars flow into your life. :)

Playdrv4me
09-03-10, 04:51 PM
The problem is that once you let one pentastar in your life, all of its friends seem to inevitably tag along. Trust me, I know from experience.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-03-10, 08:08 PM
The problem is that once you let one pentastar in your life, all of its friends seem to inevitably tag along. Trust me, I know from experience.

Yeah, it sounds like Heroin. It only takes one person before the whole group is in above their heads.


The 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango share the Mercedes-Benz ML and GL Class architecture developed during Daimler's ownership of the company. As such, they are both unibody construction designs.

Well that sucks.

Jesda
09-03-10, 08:27 PM
Well, GC has been unibody since '93

drewsdeville
09-03-10, 08:34 PM
Well, GC has been unibody since '93

:yeah:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-03-10, 08:40 PM
I knew that, Jeep thrives on unibody, plus it's a lot better for off-roading. That I'm not arguing. What I am complaining about is a unibody platform for a Durango, a full sized V-8 powered SUV, equipped with 4WD and (previously) used for heavy towing. The first two generations were bought by those who didn't want something as quite as large as a Suburban/Tahoe or Excursion/Expedition, but they still wanted to tow the boat or trailer. You can't do that so well with a Grand Cherokee, Trailblazer or Explorer. Granted, it can be done, but not for very heavy loads.

But.....the new Durango is by far the best looking one ever made, inside and out. I suppose that Chrysler just combined the Durango and Grand Cherokee platforms to save money and meet CAFE regulations. Such is life nowadays.

Playdrv4me
09-03-10, 08:49 PM
I suppose that Chrysler just combined the Durango and Grand Cherokee platforms to save money and meet CAFE regulations. Such is life nowadays.

Honestly, I was surprised they didn't combine those platforms a lot sooner. I'm frankly still surprised that Chrysler has NO entry in the full size pickup based SUV arena. Mexico has been buying Ram Chargers for the past 25 years, but Chrysler doesn't bring it here (or even a 4 door variant).

drewsdeville
09-03-10, 08:51 PM
I always thought the Durango was a midsized SUV and that, just like the thought process with the Honda Ridgline, many mistook it for a under-capable fullsized.

People overestimate their towing needs anyway. A Trailblazer can handle most reasonable towing just fine. And I don't mean "good enough"...it really does do a pretty decent job. My neighbor tows a 18.5ft Sea Ray at 4500lbs no problem with a Trailblazer. I don't know many that tow more than 5000lbs or so.

I think that many people feel that their need to tow something/anything automatically justifies massive equipment and horsepower to please themselves. I laugh when I see people towing their 15ft aluminum boat with a V8 Tahoe.

With the growing adoption of unibody to the larger vehicles, I think the unibody Durango is right on target. V8, full framed midsized SUV's is so 1990's :P

Playdrv4me
09-03-10, 08:53 PM
I always thought the Durango was a midsized SUV and that, just like the thought process with the Honda Ridgline, many mistook it for a under-capable fullsized.

Exactly, I have always considered it a mid-size.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-03-10, 09:25 PM
When it was introduced, I always thought the original Durango was in a class of it's own. It's not as long as a Tahoe or Expedition, yet it's longer than an Explorer, Blazer or Grand Cherokee. It's got three rows of seats, which was only had by the Suburbans and Expeditions in the late '90s, and unheard of in the midsized SUV's until later. Unlike most other midsized SUV's, it was body on frame and offered a V-8.

drewsdeville
09-03-10, 09:38 PM
Well the Exploder is a midsized...it was full framed and offered a V8 since the early-mid '90's with the 5.0 and the 4.6 when the 5.0 was done.

Ford was a little late on the 3rd row seating though, wasn't offered until 2000 or so.

But, which of these features are enough to put it in a different class? Who knows. I swear they create new vehicle classes every day. I find it quite annoying, personally. My favorite is when there are conflicting classes on a vehicle between magazines...hell even the "experts" can't figure it out. Heh.

hueterm
09-03-10, 09:58 PM
They need to make a RAM based full size SUV.....F*** CAFE. Fhrysler is going to have all those little Italian clown cars running around -- they can afford the CAFE hit on a full size SUV...or say...Grand Wagoneer.....

Jesda
09-04-10, 02:08 AM
When it was introduced, I always thought the original Durango was in a class of it's own. It's not as long as a Tahoe or Expedition, yet it's longer than an Explorer, Blazer or Grand Cherokee. It's got three rows of seats, which was only had by the Suburbans and Expeditions in the late '90s, and unheard of in the midsized SUV's until later. Unlike most other midsized SUV's, it was body on frame and offered a V-8.

Indeed. That was the thing that made Durango stand out back in the day. Bigger than Explorer, but not as big as a Tahoe. Capable truck platform. Helped them carve out a spot in the market.

But now that the market is smaller, the platform goes away.

Playdrv4me
09-04-10, 02:22 AM
They need to make a RAM based full size SUV.....F*** CAFE. Fhrysler is going to have all those little Italian clown cars running around -- they can afford the CAFE hit on a full size SUV...or say...Grand Wagoneer.....

LOL, I like how we all managed to forget about the TRULY full-sized Commander (an enlarged and extended WK Grand Cherokee platform). That goes to show you just how worthless that experiment was. That engineering SHOULD have gone into the Ram based full-size, OR it WOULD have been cool as an extra luxurious Grand Wagoneer as you mentioned.

Instead? It just ended up cannibalizing GC sales.

hueterm
09-04-10, 06:59 AM
Commanders weren't big enough -- those were a (nice) Land Rover Discovery (or whatever they're calling it now) knockoff...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-04-10, 10:03 AM
When they came out with those, I was like "oooh nice! A long over due replacement for the Grand Wagoneer!!" That wasn't the truth though. :(

Aron9000
09-04-10, 04:36 PM
The Jeep Commander was a joke IMO. Cheap interior, not big enough, rode rough, noisy, crap v6 base engine, very much an inferior vehicle to the Tahoe.

The last gen Durango was full size, it even had more rear seat room than a Tahoe. Once again it suffered from Chrysler's bad percieved quality rap(not really sure if the Durango was actually unreliable though), poor resale value, and a cheap interior.

Hopefully this new model will do well for Chrysler. If its anything like the new Grand Cherokee I recently rode around in, they got themselves a winner.

V-Eight
09-04-10, 06:35 PM
The Commander was meant to compete with the Tahoe....?

hueterm
09-04-10, 06:42 PM
I'd rather have a Commander than the last gen GC..... I prefer a boxy looking SUV, not a jelly bean. Not to say I don't like the new GC -- I just prefer the looks of the Commander and it's a little wider.

Playdrv4me
09-04-10, 11:05 PM
I'd rather have a Commander than the last gen GC..... I prefer a boxy looking SUV, not a jelly bean. Not to say I don't like the new GC -- I just prefer the looks of the Commander and it's a little wider.

Well the exterior styling was the only mildly interesting aspect of that whole thing. In fact, what was nice about the exterior is that it essentially brought back the styling from the XJ Cherokee that so many hard-core Jeep enthusiasts had missed with all the rounded bulky designs that came afterward.

Unfortunately everything else about the Commander was generally garbage, and it never should have had a V6 option. It did finally get Xenon headlights in 2009 which was kind of cool.

hueterm
09-04-10, 11:08 PM
Well, I would have never gotten a non-Overland Hemi...

Night Wolf
09-06-10, 02:30 PM
Well this looks appealing, very appealing. I can't remember the last time I saw a truck made by Mopar that looked this good. I do see hints of X5 in the rear styling, but the new Grand Cherokee also has this same que too. I just hope that this is still a true body-on-frame SUV like it should be, and not a unibody setup like the new Explorer. But, when you've got a 5.7L Hemi under it's hood, with a towing capacity of 7400 lbs, it's gotta be body on frame.

Just wondering why full frame or unibody on such a vehicle matters?

It is already nothing what a "real" SUV is. It's off-road performance is beat by a Subaru Outback.... so what is the difference? Other then what it "should" be, like a muscle car "should" have a V8, regardless of anything else - is there really a reason why a modern SUV that is made in such a way that would make it nearly impossible to actually be used off-road, to even have a body on frame design?

My girlfriends mother has a 2006 Kia Sorento. I was rather surpried to see that it had a full frame and real 4x4 system with low range.

Night Wolf
09-06-10, 02:33 PM
I knew that, Jeep thrives on unibody, plus it's a lot better for off-roading. That I'm not arguing. What I am complaining about is a unibody platform for a Durango, a full sized V-8 powered SUV, equipped with 4WD and (previously) used for heavy towing. The first two generations were bought by those who didn't want something as quite as large as a Suburban/Tahoe or Excursion/Expedition, but they still wanted to tow the boat or trailer. You can't do that so well with a Grand Cherokee, Trailblazer or Explorer. Granted, it can be done, but not for very heavy loads.

But.....the new Durango is by far the best looking one ever made, inside and out. I suppose that Chrysler just combined the Durango and Grand Cherokee platforms to save money and meet CAFE regulations. Such is life nowadays.

HUH? Explain please...

Night Wolf
09-06-10, 02:39 PM
I always thought the Durango was a midsized SUV and that, just like the thought process with the Honda Ridgline, many mistook it for a under-capable fullsized.

People overestimate their towing needs anyway. A Trailblazer can handle most reasonable towing just fine. And I don't mean "good enough"...it really does do a pretty decent job. My neighbor tows a 18.5ft Sea Ray at 4500lbs no problem with a Trailblazer. I don't know many that tow more than 5000lbs or so.

I think that many people feel that their need to tow something/anything automatically justifies massive equipment and horsepower to please themselves. I laugh when I see people towing their 15ft aluminum boat with a V8 Tahoe.

With the growing adoption of unibody to the larger vehicles, I think the unibody Durango is right on target. V8, full framed midsized SUV's is so 1990's :P

Yup, Durago is based off the Dakota.... then entry level "compact" pickup. As such, the SUV falls into the similar category.

A big difference with the Dakota and as such, the Durango was they were the only "compact" pickup that would be had with a V8.

People over estimate their towing capacity needs all the time. it's the whole "more is better" mentality, which ironically is quite similar to how many feel about the amount of power they think they need from a daily driver.

Stingroo
09-06-10, 07:13 PM
^ I lol'd.

HAZZARDJOHN
09-06-10, 09:21 PM
Having been around horses my whole life, IMO everybody starts with with less towing capacity than they need. I see it all the time. Someone buys a horse, which Ironically is the cheap part. they then buy an old stock trailer and find out that it is within their Trailblazers towing specs with the horse on board. Then they go about a dangerous set of trips, getting 6 MPG and overheating their transmission while risking. the horse. their SUV and the safety of others on the road. A year later they are dropping 40K for a used small V8 Half ton. Then a year after that they get sick of doing tranny work and getting 6 MPG so they trade it in on a 3/4 ton with either a diesel or a large V10 or V8. (trust me getting 10 MPG with a 3/4 ton gas is a big difference than 6 MPG from a half ton)

My contention has always been get the proper equipment for what you want to do. Towing a 4500# boat with a Trailblazer is not it.

~HJ

drewsdeville
09-06-10, 10:09 PM
Most safety issues when towing are due to the drivers lack of experience or lack of respect for others. I see many people that hook on to heavy equipment and then drive down the freeway like they would in their regular car. It's ridiculous and it actually really irritates me. There's NO REASON anyone towing 5000lbs with a 6000lb truck should be barreling through a metropolitan freeway system in the left lane going 75mph. The DRIVER is in control of safety, NOT the vehicle. Many arrogant vacationers have it the other way around and it's unfortunate that I see the above scenario often.

That said, the Trailblazer is plenty capable of towing 4500lbs. Hell, it's safely rated for 5400. The brakes, tranny and suspension can (and have) handle it just fine.

Besides, the importance of having the trailer set up correctly is just as important as the truck and is another area ignored by most. I'm not talking about a 4500lb box on wheels. The trailer has electric brakes (any trailer weighing that much should have them) and the tongue weight is balanced perfectly for his Trailblazer, providing great balance for the suspension. The truck is PLENTY capable of stopping and maneuvering that boat

I fail to see how this is a safety concern.

Aron9000
09-07-10, 01:40 AM
Good point Drew about having your rig set up properly to distribute the load. Another thing I think people don't realize is that your v6/small v8 midsize suv/truck may not have the horsepower to safely tow 5000lbs at 80mph up the hills. If its shifting out of overdrive or hunting for gears to pull that grade, its really hard on the trans. If you just slow down to 60-65 mph and leave it out of overdrive, it will pull up the hills a lot better. It'll suck the gas, but its a lot less abuse on the trans.

Night Wolf
09-07-10, 02:16 AM
I agree that much of towing problems come from peoples' generally driving like an idiot, doing stupid things or improperly loading/setup the vehicle.

Towing capacities are interesting - because in the real world, it is hard to put a solid number on what is being towed. A vehicle in flat-tow behaves differently then one on a dolly, or a tandem axle trailer. Does the trailer have brakes? Shape of trailer, hitch design and all that makes a difference.

A Jeep Wrangler, due to its' short wheel base is a poor tow vehicle. With that said I have towed twice the rated capacity of my Jeep without issue.

The AMC 4.0 I6 wasn't the issue. This same engine in the XJ Cherokee and ZJ Grand Cherokee is rated to tow up to 6000lbs. The transmission is heavy duty and up to the task as well. Stock TJ brakes are pretty bad, so that was a problem area, but where I was towing was flat. I gave myself plenty of room and downshifted each time I was slowing down (I double clutch when downshifting) which was very effective and required minimal use of the brakes.

The TJ is rated to two 2000lbs. The LJ (TJ Unlimited) which is ~10" longer but otherwise exactly the same vehicle is rated to tow 3500lbs. The only difference is wheelbase.

I have an aftermarket rear bumper that attaches to the frame at two locations as well as the rear crossmember at four locations (with heavy duty backing plate). It has a 2" receiver. I called the company and asked them if the bumper was used on an LJ if it was capable of towing the max rated 3500lbs. They said if it was properly installed using all mounting locations then there would be no issue to it towing that weight. This bumper is made out of 3/16" steel and is pretty durable.

I towed a dolly up - which towed horrible and picked up my '92 BMW 318iC. The cars empty weight is around 3100lbs, the dolly was another 400 or so, plus what ever misc items I had.... total weight was most likely around 3800lbs.

At the time the Jeep was on 31" tires, now with 33's it may be a bit more interesting. I could feel the weight behind the Jeep and could tell that in hazzardous weather conditions it would get bad around turns - but it was dry. I came to the conclusion that I would do it again, but not in slick weather.

I kept my speed to 55-60 on the interstate, which gave me plenty of room as pretty much all others were passing me, and the slower speed didn't increase my travel time all that much. Because of the lower speed it was very easy to judge when I would need to slow down and simply let it coast or downshift to control speed. Power wasn't that big of an issue and downshifting to 5th or 4th on some of the bigger hills kept everything moving smooth. I did have it in OD 6th a bit, but generally kept it in 5th.

It was about a 120-mile trip that was around 2.5-3hrs. I felt safe and in control the whole time as well and while not ideal, I like the fact that I can tow another vehicle on a dolly with the TJ.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/BMW92/Bringing%20home/Ashleigh016.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/BMW92/Bringing%20home/Ashleigh022.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/BMW92/Bringing%20home/Ashleigh005.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/BMW92/Bringing%20home/Ashleigh014.jpg

Even at mignight on Wednesday night I hit traffic in Atlanta - gave myself plenty of room

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/BMW92/Bringing%20home/Ashleigh017.jpg

On just about any roadtrip, it's almost a guarantee to see alteast one billy bob in a super duty hauling a large trailer that feels the need to display the fact that he can do 85+ down the passing lane. I get so impressed by that sheer display of power :bigroll:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-07-10, 09:02 AM
I'm a little worried that you're taking pictures while towing a trailer.

Anyways, whenever I tow my little 5x8 enclosed trailer with my Astro, it's always loaded with atleast one 55 gallon barrel of ATF, so that in of it's self is about 600 lbs, plus the weight of the trailer, so even at roughly 1600 lbs, it's not very much (towing capacity for the Astro is 5500 lbs), but then I've got about 1200 lbs of product in the back of the van, so all together it adds up. Obviously when I tow, I stay in the right lane and don't exceed the speed limit, unless I need to pass. Because the key to good towing is confidence behind the wheel, and for me that's when I'm going a normal, sane speed, in the right lane, and I'm not hindering the traffic flow at all, also when I've got the weight balanced in the trailer out too. I've gotten into trouble with that trailer before on icy roads, and don't want to replay those events.

But anyways, even at roughly 3000 lbs (as opposed to the 5500 lb towing capacity), I feel that the Astro is overworked and doesn't have enough power to confidently move around. Granted, it has 228,000 miles on it, but I'd rather have too much power than not enough. I can only imagine how pathetic it would feel if I was towing the full 5,500 pounds it's rated for.

CIWS
09-07-10, 09:05 AM
The problem with Dodge/Chrysler isn't their designs or ideas. It's their execution.

http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/JDPAContent/CorpComm/News/content/Releases/charts/2010034-1.jpg

gdwriter
09-08-10, 04:23 PM
People over estimate their towing capacity needs all the time. it's the whole "more is better" mentality, which ironically is quite similar to how many feel about the amount of power they think they need from a daily driver.I don't need 250-hp (327) to 275-hp (Northstar), but I like having it. I've only had one car that was truly underpowered, but after 10 years of driving two 4-cylinder Accords, I was tired of the 4-cylinder drone on acceleration. Even with a smooth, willing-to-rev Honda engine, it just doesn't sound as good as a V6 or V8. I doubt I'll have another V8 for my daily driver, but I like the performance, the sound and am perfectly happy with my gas mileage.

And I agree with John. It's better to have a properly set up rig with a rated towing capacity that's gives you some cushion above what you expect to haul. If I wanted or needed a mid-size SUV, and a V8 was available, I'd probably choose the V8 for that extra measure of capability. A lightly stressed V8 would likely use no more gas than an overloaded V6 in the same vehicle.

drewsdeville
09-08-10, 04:40 PM
Bleh, V6's sound like @$$, I don't care which one it is. I HATE HATE HATE the sound of a revving V6. Nothing but a bunch of racket. That's subjective of course...

I'll take a screaming Toyota GTS 4 cyl over a V6 any day. But, thumbs up to the V8- nothing sounds like a roaring V8 whether it's small, large, slow, fast, high revving or low revving. It's all music to the ears.

Back on topic, as far as capability, my buddies 3.5L V6 Pathfinder has GOBS of power with an incredibly wide powerband. It is also geared properly. It's never "overloaded" and therefore the Pathfinder never needed a V8 option.

Back in the '90's, maybe a V8 option was needed with the low horsepower V6's out there. But this is 10-15 years later. With todays V6's making 300+ hp and being backed by strong 6 or 7 speed transmissions, if you feel that a V8 would have boosted your midsized SUV's capabilities to your liking, then you made a poor choice when opting for the midsized category. There's no need for V8's in the midsizers when you have the powerful V6's and 6-7 speed trannys in todays market.

I'm willing to bet money that the V6 Pathfinder I spoke of is a far more capable towing vehicle than the V8 Durango ever was, regardless of the V8 spec on the Durango.

gdwriter
09-08-10, 05:00 PM
Bleh, V6's sound like @$$, I don't care which one it is. I HATE HATE HATE the sound of a revving V6. Nothing but a bunch of racket. That's subjective of course...Definitely. I drove a friend's V6 Accord, and it was like a jet turbine. The Nissan V6 in my sister's '03 Maxima also has a nice sound to it, though certainly not as cool as her '69 Firebird.

In my brief drive of JimmyH's '09 CTS, the 3.6DI V6 had plenty of grunt and sounded great, which is one of the reasons, besides styling and handling, that it will be my next car in a few years.

Jesda
09-08-10, 08:19 PM
Indeed, a lot of V6 engines are noisy and unpleasing, but most 4-bangers are worse. There's a handful of 4-cylinder engines out there that aren't cacophonic, like Honda's F20 or Toyota's 22RE.

The majority of V6 engines on the road in America (and this is a wild guess based on the fact that the average used car is 9 years old) are the 3.1, 3800, Nissan VG and VQ V6, Ford's 3.8 and 4.0 (Cologne), and hmm... whatever's in the Camry and Accord. The 3800 and VG30 are smooth and quiet, but the rest are forgettable or powerful but arguably displeasing (Nissan VQ).

Playdrv4me
09-09-10, 06:27 AM
Please... do not confuse a V6 with an INLINE six cylinder engine. The BMW 3.0 and 3.5L I6s produce some of the most amazing sounds ever to come out of a mechanical device. The Mercedes V6 on the other hand sounds like crap, even when supercharged. And while I am a fan of the engine, the Jeep/AMC 4.0L is just about the only Inline six I DON'T like to hear. Such a course and unpleasant sounding mill.

Jesda
09-09-10, 11:07 AM
I love the 4.0. It sounds trucky and raw. The 3.8 that replaced it is too quiet and refined for a Jeep.

Night Wolf
09-09-10, 12:21 PM
Bleh, V6's sound like @$$, I don't care which one it is. I HATE HATE HATE the sound of a revving V6. Nothing but a bunch of racket. That's subjective of course...

I'll take a screaming Toyota GTS 4 cyl over a V6 any day. But, thumbs up to the V8- nothing sounds like a roaring V8 whether it's small, large, slow, fast, high revving or low revving. It's all music to the ears.

Back on topic, as far as capability, my buddies 3.5L V6 Pathfinder has GOBS of power with an incredibly wide powerband. It is also geared properly. It's never "overloaded" and therefore the Pathfinder never needed a V8 option.

Back in the '90's, maybe a V8 option was needed with the low horsepower V6's out there. But this is 10-15 years later. With todays V6's making 300+ hp and being backed by strong 6 or 7 speed transmissions, if you feel that a V8 would have boosted your midsized SUV's capabilities to your liking, then you made a poor choice when opting for the midsized category. There's no need for V8's in the midsizers when you have the powerful V6's and 6-7 speed trannys in todays market.

I'm willing to bet money that the V6 Pathfinder I spoke of is a far more capable towing vehicle than the V8 Durango ever was, regardless of the V8 spec on the Durango.

I too notice that many V6's don't sound that good.... yet I have heard many I6's that sound good, in my personal opinion BMW sounding among the best. Not sure if it is just personal preference or the actual engine configuration has something to do with it.

I agree, V8's sound the best though.

Night Wolf
09-09-10, 12:39 PM
The AMC 4.0 is not the best sounding engine. With the stock exhaust I disliked going above 3000RPM because it just sounded bad. The engine can date back to the 30's as a tractor engine. It has a tractor sound/feel to it. Pushrods, non-crossflow head etc...

With that said, I did add a Dynomax cat-back exhaust, and though while very subtle, did change the exhaust tone, especially above 3000RPM.... now it sorta has an angry tractor sound.

Stock:

cSFINxKTyrs

Ox2qspsviFk

Dynomax:

vxIJn8Dk9Ng

-oL3tBUoAiw

from :20-:30 you can hear it too

LTWeOlR2LFk

But then there is this.... low compression, SOHC, valves that need adjusting and distrubutor goodness. BMW I6s sound very good already, but the M20 just has a certain rhaspy but refined sound - another reason why the I6 and convertible configuration are so much fun :)

B9ZWjNMVQlQ

orconn
09-09-10, 12:51 PM
Who cares what it sounds like it's a Jeep! If you are that sensitive to the sound of the engine get a car with a V-8 or better yet a V-12! Straight sixwes can be nice too.

Night Wolf
09-10-10, 12:21 AM
I've noticed V10's don't sound that good either.