Jeeps

[Californikan]

  On 2/28/2013 at 3:51 PM, Crosswind said:

Ah yes! typical cali... disowning his own statements...

Tell me.. did your parents disown you when you were a kid?

How typical of Crosswind to read people's posts and imagine/fantasize that he sees words and meanings in the post that are not actually there.

Crosswind reads the word "introduced" in my post and imagines "introduced" means "manufactured for sale" or sold.

Oh Look Crosswind! Ford introduced a Bronco SUV concept back in 2004. In your world, to you, Ford introducing this Bronco concept means that it was also "manufactured for sale" and sold, isn't it?

.

.

.

.

[Californikan]

  On 2/28/2013 at 2:17 PM, CJ5 said:

Wasn't the Jeep Wagoneer which commenced production in the late 40s considered the 1st SUV?

The Americans started to use and popularize the term "Sport Utility Vehicle" and "SUV" only in the mid 1980's when they used it to describe the 1984 Cherokee, which was a groundbreaking vehicle at the time.

The various Wagoneers were considered to be wagons (as in station wagon).

.

.

.

[Californikan]

.

.

The next two years will be an exciting time for Jeep as the entire line will get overhauled......

[CJ5]

  Californikan said:

The Americans started to use and popularize the term "Sport Utility Vehicle" and "SUV" only in the mid 1980's .

.

.

The Toyota Land Cruiser FJ35 LWB wagon made its debut, if I am not mistaken in the early 60s, then the Mitsubishi Jeep J36 wagon based on the Willys Wagoneer was introduced in the 70's and the Pajero 1st Gen came out in 1982, all before the Cherokee isn't it?????

The vintage Tourer is now called Convertible/Soft Top, similarly what made its debut as the GP (General Purpose) was then commonly referred to as "Jeep" the go anywhere 4WD, and then with a bit of refinement and body styling were being called as 4WD Wagons and are now with further refinement, creature comforts and technological advancements being called SUV (sometimes even regardless of being 4WD). Kind of an evolutionary process isn't it????

PS

I don't seem able to get any of the pics onto the post. Advice on how to do that?

Edited March 1, 2013 by CJ5

[GTAm]

  On 2/28/2013 at 10:22 PM, Californikan said:

.

.

The next two years will be an exciting time for Jeep as the entire line will get overhauled......

Hi Cali you seem to be a bit of a Jeeper. What's your view on the new Cherokee styling? I know lots of traditional Jeepers are angry over the styling as well as the FWD Fiat platform as the staring point.

[Watchman]

  On 2/28/2013 at 10:15 PM, Californikan said:

How typical of Crosswind to read people's posts and imagine/fantasize that he sees words and meanings in the post that are not actually there.

Crosswind reads the word "introduced" in my post and imagines "introduced" means "manufactured for sale" or sold.

Actually how typical of you. You have some vaguely relevant information about something, but you want to sound like an expert so you just copy paste something off the internet to appear knowledgable. But more often or not it backfires on you doesnt it. But you lack the core knowledge or common sense to even realize that a land-rover with a steering in the middle just "isnt" normal.

Yes, you never said that the specific land-rover was for sale, but then you also didnt say that jeeps were for sale.. so by that logic you're claiming that jeeps are not for sale

[Californikan]

  CJ5 said:

The Toyota Land Cruiser FJ35 LWB wagon made its debut, if I am not mistaken in the early 60s, then the Mitsubishi Jeep J36 wagon based on the Willys Wagoneer was introduced in the 70's and the Pajero 1st Gen came out in 1982, all before the Cherokee isn't it?????

All the vehicles you listed came out before the 1984 Cherokee, but they were not called "Sport Utility Vehicles" or "SUV's". Today we call them SUV's, but at the time they were called 4WD's, 4X4's, Four Wheel Drives, trucks, wagons etc.

Check out the description in this Jeep ad from the 1980's. The word SUV or Sport Utility was not used because the term did not come into mainstream use until later. Same thing for similar Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi etc vehicles.

.

.

.

[Californikan]

  On 3/1/2013 at 1:17 AM, CJ5 said:

PS

I don't seem able to get any of the pics onto the post. Advice on how to do that?

It's the tree icon under the smiley face. Click on that and paste the image link.

.

.

.

[Californikan]

  Watchman said:

Actually how typical of you. You have some vaguely relevant information about something, but you want to sound like an expert so you just copy paste something off the internet to appear knowledgable. But more often or not it backfires on you doesnt it. But you lack the core knowledge or common sense to even realize that a land-rover with a steering in the middle just "isnt" normal.

Yes, you never said that the specific land-rover was for sale, but then you also didnt say that jeeps were for sale.. so by that logic you're claiming that jeeps are not for sale

Like Crosswind, you're another one who doesn't understand the word "introduce".

The two of you are tripping over yourselves, trying so desperately to find some error in my posts that you didn't even stop to think that the word "introduced" does not mean or imply that something will be manufactured or go on sale or be sold. You two couldn't even stop to think and realize that one-off concepts and prototypes are introduced and shown to the public all the time.

Now this tripping over yourselves, trying to find fault with others is a backfire that seems to befall the two of you quite often. Just like the time when you were trying so hard to find fault with Syvi's English, that you missed the spelling and grammar mistakes in your own posts.

  Californikan said:

First Land Rover introduced in 1948 was a copy of the Willy's Jeep

.

.

.

.

[Californikan]

  On 3/1/2013 at 4:36 AM, GTAm said:

Hi Cali you seem to be a bit of a Jeeper. What's your view on the new Cherokee styling? I know lots of traditional Jeepers are angry over the styling as well as the FWD Fiat platform as the staring point.

I actually really like the styling, even though it doesn't show much resemblance to Jeeps design heritage. The use of the unibody FWD platform makes it a pseudo Jeep IMO. And we'll have to wait and see whether they can engineer a proper off road package with Jeep's Trail Rated certification using that platform. What are your thoughts about it?

.

.

.

[Pericles]

  On 3/1/2013 at 5:51 AM, Californikan said:

Just like the time when you were trying so hard to find fault with Syvi's English, that you missed the spelling and grammar mistakes in your own posts.

Someone had to look hard to find fault in Sylvi's English? Thats one of the few things thats even easier than pointing out how stupid Cali is.

[Californikan]

  Californikan said:

First Land Rover introduced in 1948 was a copy of the Willy's Jeep

.

Crosswind read the word "introduced" and somehow imagined that "introduced" means "manufactured for sale". Very strange and 'unique' thinking process this fellow has

I never wrote anything about the Land Rover prototype being manufactured or going on sale or being sold, yet this fellow imagines or perhaps fantasizes that I did.

  Quote

If you don't know something and if you don't know how to google it, then STFU!

The above Land Rover (known as Center Steering) was just a one-off prototype, probably built on a Willys chassis. It was never manufactured for sale.

[Californikan]

.

.

And not only that, then he and his backwards thinking friends once again pull AutoLanka below the standard of the international car forums by negative voting posts that have correct information and positive voting posts that have the incorrect information.

[Californikan]

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:11 AM, Pericles said:

Someone had to look hard to find fault in Sylvi's English? Thats one of the few things thats even easier than pointing out how stupid Cali is.

.

.

Oh here comes Pericles. Rushing to the aid of his friends.

.

.

[Watchman]

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:46 AM, Californikan said:

.

.

And not only that, then he and his backwards thinking friends once again pull AutoLanka below the standard of the international car forums by negative voting posts that have correct information and positive voting posts that have the incorrect information.

If you are so dissatisfied with the standards of AL why don't you get the F*^# out of here instead of wasting valuable your time copy-pasting random google results.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Watchman

[GTAm]

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:09 AM, Californikan said:

I actually really like the styling, even though it doesn't show much resemblance to Jeeps design heritage. The use of the unibody FWD platform makes it a pseudo Jeep IMO. And we'll have to wait and see whether they can engineer a proper off road package with Jeep's Trail Rated certification using that platform. What are your thoughts about it?

.

.

.

I think they've overdone the styling big time. The double face is plain silly imho. Apart from that the front bumper is too "heavy-looking" with the long over-hang. Plus it's all accentuated with the chrome at the bottom. Pls note these official pics are the best angle. You can see some pre-production ones on allpar.com which a plain awful to my eyes. If I were them I will rush a less controversial facelift and delay the launch since this is such an important model for the company and brand.

Chrysler has confirmed that it will be trail-rated. However that long overhang is going to compromise its offroad ability. But I'm willing to bet it will be Jeeps' best vehicle on tarmac.

I'm wondering if they should have called it Liberty instead of Cherokee. Since the Jeepers have such high regard for the old Cherokee's (XJ?) offroad ability.......

[Gummybr]

  On 2/28/2013 at 1:10 PM, Californikan said:

My family owned one of these for years and I learned to drive in this.

1984 - 2001 Jeep Cherokee

Considered to be a classic Jeep and the world's first sport utility vehicle

.

.

.

.

The Range Classic was more of a SUV and it came in 1970. All round coilsprings for superior comfort and off road ability, V8 engine. Only issue it had was it was offered only as a 2 door till the 80s when the 4 doors came into production. It is regarded as the first off road vehicle to give a good comfortable ride. It was built as an alternate to the hardy and bouncy Land Rover Series11 / 11a vehicles offering better road manners together with the off road abilities.

I have no offense for the Jeep but, face it in 1984 it had rear leaf springs. Not sure how comfy those were.

[Pericles]

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:47 AM, Californikan said:

.

.

Oh here comes Pericles. Rushing to the aid of his friends.

.

.

Somebody needed aid? Man, this guy is stupider than a bunch of rocks.

[Crosswind]

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:45 AM, Californikan said:

Crosswind read the word "introduced" and somehow imagined that "introduced" means "manufactured for sale". Very strange and 'unique' thinking process this fellow has

I never wrote anything about the Land Rover prototype being manufactured or going on sale or being sold, yet this fellow imagines or perhaps fantasizes that I did.

are you from a family of politicians by any chance? u r so good at twisting and turning your own words according to the circumstance...

  On 3/1/2013 at 6:46 AM, Californikan said:

And not only that, then he and his backwards thinking friends once again pull AutoLanka below the standard of the international car forums by negative voting posts that have correct information and positive voting posts that have the incorrect information.

now what are those international-standard car forums that you are a part of?

[Komisiripala]

Did ANY of you realise that the jeep passing op question was posted 7 years ago??

It was watchmans first reply that tipped me off!

[Watchman]

  On 3/1/2013 at 11:07 AM, Komisiripala said:

Did ANY of you realise that the jeep passing op question was posted 7 years ago??

It was watchmans first reply that tipped me off!

I'll be dammed! Didnt even realize i had taken part in this thread...

And i seem to have been such a friendly and cheerful fella back then with loads of optimism... see what dumb-asses like Cali and the sorts has turned us into... siighhh...

[Komisiripala]

Site was new then too I guess eh? A ride op like that wouldve definitely got raped by the likes of vvti nowadays!

[CJ5]

  On 3/1/2013 at 11:07 AM, Komisiripala said:

Did ANY of you realise that the jeep passing op question was posted 7 years ago??

There is only ONE JEEP and that is evergreen. 7 years does not make a difference does it???

[Californikan]

  Watchman said:

If you are so dissatisfied with the standards of AL why don't you get the F*^# out of here instead of wasting valuable your time copy-pasting random google results.

.

.

That wouldn't solve the problem that you and your friends get your facts wrong all the time, try so desperately to find fault with other peoples posts that you trip all over yourselves, vote down posts with correct facts, harass other forum members, and act like asses.

.

.

[Californikan]

  Crosswind said:

are you from a family of politicians by any chance? u r so good at twisting and turning your own words according to the circumstance...

You're the one who attempted to twist and turn words by taking the word "introduced" and twisting and turning it into "manufactured for sale".

On other posts on other threads you've done the same thing that you attempted to do on this thread: You read a post and think that there are words and meanings in the post that are simply not there. That's called Crosswind twisting and turning words.

Since you're having such a hard time understanding the word "introduced" in the context of a 1940's Land Rover, I'll give you a more easy to understand example.

.

.