Does the Cherokee not have a 5star side impact? Ive always heard they hold up really well in wrecks.. I didnt know the libby had more stars then it did though..
My teachers always have me stars.
| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| Why is the Liberty so Heavy? http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20772 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JohnnyCash [ Wed May 16, 2007 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why is the Liberty so Heavy? |
I think the Liberty weighs something like 750 lbs more than the Cherokee. Why was there such an increase in weight? The Liberty is only a few inches longer and wider. Where is all the extra weight coming from? You'd think the Cherokee would weigh more since it's got a reputation as being more rugged. |
|
| Author: | Skyjump136 [ Wed May 16, 2007 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The unibody of the KJ is MUCH more rigid than the old Cherokee...that strength comes with some extra weight. The new generation Liberty will be even more rigid according to the Jeep engineer who visited with us last year. |
|
| Author: | USPLibby [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you notice that 2001 was the last year for the Cherokee. It's not a coincidence that new NHTSA regulations came into effect the next year for side impact and roll over standards. That extra 750 lbs is the difference between a 2 or 3 star crash rating on the Cherokee and a 5 star side impact rating on the Liberty. The steel alloy on the Liberty's unibody is a little heavier also. |
|
| Author: | KY Liberty [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I actually like the extra weight of it. I had a '98 Cherokee Limited with the FT 4WD before my KJ. It's a very good Jeep, but it always felt like it would do better in the snow with some more weight to it. Helped to have a full load of people in it for the ski trips. My KJ puts it to shame in the snow and ice though. Also look at a KJ next to an XJ. The KJ is about the same length, but is a lot taller. Of course, the extra weight definately makes the stock KJ 3.7 sluggish compared to the XJ 4.0. |
|
| Author: | JohnnyCash [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
USPLibby wrote: If you notice that 2001 was the last year for the Cherokee. It's not a coincidence that new NHTSA regulations came into effect the next year for side impact and roll over standards. That extra 750 lbs is the difference between a 2 or 3 star crash rating on the Cherokee and a 5 star side impact rating on the Liberty. The steel alloy on the Liberty's unibody is a little heavier also.
That's an explanation that makes sense !!! I was thinking it had something to do with the crash rating. |
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wait till you satrt adding armor,my KJ is tipping the scales at 5400 lbs right now without my fat butt in it. |
|
| Author: | Dje Ryu [ Wed May 16, 2007 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
5 stars on side impact? I did not know that! |
|
| Author: | USPLibby [ Wed May 16, 2007 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, 5 stars side and front impact. Only 4 for the front impact passenger side though, I never figured out why. Might be airbag related, as in not deploying during some crashes? http://www.automotive.com/used-cars/safety/11/jeep/liberty/index.html |
|
| Author: | Dje Ryu [ Wed May 16, 2007 9:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
USPLibby wrote: Yes, 5 stars side and front impact. Only 4 for the front impact passenger side though, I never figured out why. Might be airbag related, as in not deploying during some crashes?
http://www.automotive.com/used-cars/safety/11/jeep/liberty/index.html Thanks. Possibly due to the airbag being farther away, and/or larger, maybe? |
|
| Author: | Jeepjeepster [ Wed May 16, 2007 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does the Cherokee not have a 5star side impact? Ive always heard they hold up really well in wrecks.. I didnt know the libby had more stars then it did though.. My teachers always have me stars.
|
|
| Author: | USPLibby [ Wed May 16, 2007 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, the Cherokee only has a 2 or 3 star side impact rating. It would have taken a big redesign to fix it, thus the change to the Liberty. Prior to 2001, only passenger cars were required to have side impact bracing and bulked up door pillars. SUV's and pick up trucks got a "utility" class loop-hole and were exempt from the new NHTSA rules. Car manufacturers could almost put any thin piece of crap door on a SUV/truck and get away with it. This changed in the late 90's with so many soccer moms and families driving SUV's and trucks. A myriad of TV shows like 20/20 and 60 minutes and insurance companies started pushing the safety hype. So new legislation was written to expand the side impact standards to cover all new SUV's and light trucks. All I have to do is look at my friends 22+ year old Toyota Pickup front doors, I could probably completely kick it in with my bare foot its so thin. Most of the other pick ups and SUV's of the same time period were built the same way. |
|
| Author: | Sir Sam [ Wed May 16, 2007 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
USPLibby wrote: No, the Cherokee only has a 2 or 3 star side impact rating. It would have taken a big redesign to fix it, thus the change to the Liberty.
Prior to 2001, only passenger cars were required to have side impact bracing and bulked up door pillars. SUV's and pick up trucks got a "utility" class loop-hole and were exempt from the new NHTSA rules. Car manufacturers could almost put any thin piece of crap door on a SUV/truck and get away with it. This changed in the late 90's with so many soccer moms and families driving SUV's and trucks. A myriad of TV shows like 20/20 and 60 minutes and insurance companies started pushing the safety hype. So new legislation was written to expand the side impact standards to cover all new SUV's and light trucks. All I have to do is look at my friends 22+ year old Toyota Pickup front doors, I could probably completely kick it in with my bare foot its so thin. Most of the other pick ups and SUV's of the same time period were built the same way. And being that the cherokee body was virtually unchanged with respect to safety design from 84-current........the body was a 20 year old design already when it was retired. |
|
| Author: | jcphoto20 [ Thu May 17, 2007 12:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
maybe the liberty has more glass too? seems the roof is higher. |
|
| Author: | Tokyojoe [ Thu May 17, 2007 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Add those rock rails and you have even more protection |
|
| Author: | sleeve84028 [ Thu May 17, 2007 7:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Besides all of the chasis stiffening for better structrural rigidity, I've always wondered if the IFS was a contributing factor to the increase in heft. I know that the case is aluminum, but all of the mounting structure to the body has to be pretty strong... |
|
| Author: | robert46123 [ Thu May 17, 2007 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sleeve84028 wrote: Besides all of the chasis stiffening for better structrural rigidity, I've always wondered if the IFS was a contributing factor to the increase in heft. I know that the case is aluminum, but all of the mounting structure to the body has to be pretty strong...
IFS definately adds weight. You pay a price for that better ride. I think adding the weight of all of the air bags, additional electronics, beefier tires and wheels, etc, etc, it all adds up. I know this much, prior to the Liberty we owned two Cherokees and they didn't come close to matching the Liberty's solid feel. They were great little vehicles in their own right, but the Liberty is hands down safer and much more solid. |
|
| Author: | sleeve84028 [ Thu May 17, 2007 9:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed! The Liberty is a more revised vehilce overall. |
|
| Author: | chetos [ Thu May 17, 2007 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Way to go guys, now our Libby's are gonna start asking, "Do I look fat with the new RL rear bumper, or the bigger tire on the swing gate?" |
|
| Author: | FastTRX [ Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well if heavier means safer...than I'm happier! Safety is #1 in my book and 5-Star front and side crash ratings are dang good. 
|
|
| Author: | jason thompson [ Thu May 17, 2007 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heavy is all realitive to what you know in the world of personal automobiles the stock KJ is average for its size let me give some examples of what I know 4 door toyota corrola with in 200# of a 4 door civic @ ~2600# Extended cab V6 4wd ford ranger with a 5 speed mostly stock compared to a EX. cab 4wd toyota V6 5speed both ~4400# Remember that fuel and tools and driver can add 400+ # now my TJ as it sits now ~4600# very fat for a TJ our KJ the same ,all stock yet the KJ is way bigger? My 2002 F250 work truck as it sits out front right now 5460# on the rear axel alone +3620 on the front =9080 with less than 1/2 a tank The 2003 Kenworth T-8000 truck I drive for work ~56,800 on a good day but when you consider than it hlods 150 gallons of fuel it can change over 1000# in just a fill up The KJ is not realy that heavy nor is the XJ light simply put the XJ is smaller than the KJ so it weighs less the KJ is smaller than my work truck so it weighs less |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|