thetruthaboutcars.com road test review

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:14 pm

indianrefining wrote:

If, in your highly esteemed (at least, by you) opinion, the Jeep Liberty is something less than a "well assembled vehicle that utilizes high-quality componenents", yada-yada-ad-nauseum, why do you find it neccesary to continue to visit this forum and express your negativity? In case it escaped your attention, the vast majority of us like our Libertys. What is your objective, other than just drawing attention to yourself and your publication?

I’m here because I really love my KJ. I fell in love with them when I first read about them in 2000 and couldn’t wait to get my hands on one when we were ready to buy in ’05. It was the best combination of low cost, all-weather family taxi, room for four plus our Black Lab, and (for me) legitimate off-road capability.

Over the last 2 ½ years, our KJ has taken us on off-road adventures slogging through the mud in Arkansas mountains, over sand dunes on Galveston Island, old mining trails in Big Bend National Park, alpine lake hopping in Northern Utah, and exploring the high desert religion where the boarders of Utah, Nevada and Arizona converge. As such, LOST is my online spiritual home.

I have taken the time to respond to flamers who accuse me of being anti-Jeep, anti-domestic, never-driven-a-jeep-before, biased, and/or uninformed to show that my observations (positive, negative or neutral) are not flippant or baseless. I respect that others have different views but feel it necessary to answer others that throw rhetorical bombs ascribing inaccurate motivations to me personally.

I am not here to “express [my] negativity,” but since you bring it up, let me point out that you have posted only 10 times to this site. In your limited participation, you have managed to attack me personally twice and get into a scrap on the Amsoil thread. I’m not getting a real positive vibe from you, so I’d be careful of making that accusation.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:36 pm

LEDfoot wrote:

Obviously you can tune a suspension to different levels of comfort/performance. You can not; however, turn a pig into a princess. There is, in my opinion, no way you can transform a trailblazer into the best handling vehicle in the class with simple suspension tuning.

It’s more than simple tuning. In addition to lower stance, firmer springs and stiffer shocks, the Saab uses an electronically controlled air suspension that actively adjusts to road conditions and load requirements. It’s a wonderful system that makes a world of difference. If all TBs drove this well…

If you get a chance, drive one back-to-back with a TB. I think you’d be shocked.

indianrefining · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:04 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

indianrefining wrote:

If, in your highly esteemed (at least, by you) opinion, the Jeep Liberty is something less than a "well assembled vehicle that utilizes high-quality componenents", yada-yada-ad-nauseum, why do you find it neccesary to continue to visit this forum and express your negativity? In case it escaped your attention, the vast majority of us like our Libertys. What is your objective, other than just drawing attention to yourself and your publication?

I’m here because I really love my KJ. I fell in love with them when I first read about them in 2000 and couldn’t wait to get my hands on one when we were ready to buy in ’05. It was the best combination of low cost, all-weather family taxi, room for four plus our Black Lab, and (for me) legitimate off-road capability.

Over the last 2 ½ years, our KJ has taken us on off-road adventures slogging through the mud in Arkansas mountains, over sand dunes on Galveston Island, old mining trails in Big Bend National Park, alpine lake hopping in Northern Utah, and exploring the high desert religion where the boarders of Utah, Nevada and Arizona converge. As such, LOST is my online spiritual home.

I have taken the time to respond to flamers who accuse me of being anti-Jeep, anti-domestic, never-driven-a-jeep-before, biased, and/or uninformed to show that my observations (positive, negative or neutral) are not flippant or baseless. I respect that others have different views but feel it necessary to answer others that throw rhetorical bombs ascribing inaccurate motivations to me personally.

I am not here to “express [my] negativity,” but since you bring it up, let me point out that you have posted only 10 times to this site. In your limited participation, you have managed to attack me personally twice and get into a scrap on the Amsoil thread. I’m not getting a real positive vibe from you, so I’d be careful of making that accusation.

Hard to exude any sort of positive vibes regarding what seem to be either bashers or shills. :lol:

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:35 pm

Careful guys, we are all adults here so lets be civil.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:58 pm

Reflex wrote:

I think I'd take your 'professional' opinion more seriously if you could describe it in non-made up words. Well that and if you actually knew how to test a car, of course.

More ad hominem fallacy…

Okay, what could you possibly know about my ability to test a car? If you disagree with my conclusions based on your own experience with the KK (or any of the others), I’d be glad to hear them. If you think me inept as a reviewer because you hope my conclusions are wrong based only on your emotional attachment to the Jeep brand, then you really aren’t making any sense.

Regarding the use of neologisms (no, I didn’t make that word up), I know they are hard for you to accept because in your hallowed circle of technical IT writing, new words and usages aren’t permitted. Oh, except the word ‘spyware’. Or the term ‘killer app’. Or the acronyms LOL and IMO. Or ringtone, Web site, intranet, Silicone Valley, diskette, google (verb form), avatar, Weblog, blogger, spam, convergence, dot-commer, avatar, wiki, computer virus, identity theft, Wintel, fanboy, cyberstalking, webcam, astroturfing, cybersquatting, malware, phishing, egosurfing, mouse potato, cyberslacking, WiFi, etc., etc., etc… So I apologize for any distress I have caused you from my liberal use of language.

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:23 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

Regarding the use of neologisms (no, I didn’t make that word up), I know they are hard for you to accept because in your hallowed circle of technical IT writing, new words and usages aren’t permitted. Oh, except the word ‘spyware’. Or the term ‘killer app’. Or the acronyms LOL and IMO. Or ringtone, Web site, intranet, Silicone Valley, diskette, google (verb form), avatar, Weblog, blogger, spam, convergence, dot-commer, avatar, wiki, computer virus, identity theft, Wintel, fanboy, cyberstalking, webcam, astroturfing, cybersquatting, malware, phishing, egosurfing, mouse potato, cyberslacking, WiFi, etc., etc., etc… So I apologize for any distress I have caused you from my liberal use of language.

you know you listed avatar twice right?

I do have a question for you black dog, how much off roading did you do in the KK for the review you gave?

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:01 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

I do have a question for you black dog, how much off roading did you do in the KK for the review you gave?

Sadly, this was a road test (see subject line of thread). TTAC normally publishes road and off-road tests separately. On paper it looks like it would be at least as capable as the KJ (some plusses, some minuses), but I didn't get a chance to evaluate it off road this time around.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:02 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

you know you listed avatar twice right?

DOH!

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:10 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

Sadly, this was a road test (see subject line of thread). TTAC normally publishes road and off-road tests separately. On paper it looks like it would be at least as capable as the KJ (some plusses, some minuses), but I didn't get a chance to evaluate it off road this time around.

So when is the off road test and how will that effect the road test if it turns out to be a well capable machine? To me it seems you are roasting the KK for being something it was never designed for. Maybe I just have the old feeling that Jeep is Mopar's off road devision.

tjkj2002 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:25 pm

Just to ask a ?, Does anybody really read vehicle reviews? If you do then you are pretty out of it since you are taking the word of someone that probally has only logged less then 500 miles in that vehicle and not driven it in every condition and altitude.Plus everyone has there own opinion.They need to ban all those car review places since they provide very false accounts of vehicles,just remember for that one negitive review/person there are probally 10,000+ that are positive.

Hey just my opinion right?

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Black_Dog wrote:

More ad hominem fallacy…

Criticizing your review methods and results is not 'ad hominem' nor an attack on you personally. As you like to say, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Quote:

Okay, what could you possibly know about my ability to test a car? If you disagree with my conclusions based on your own experience with the KK (or any of the others), I’d be glad to hear them. If you think me inept as a reviewer because you hope my conclusions are wrong based only on your emotional attachment to the Jeep brand, then you really aren’t making any sense.

I believe that your ability to test a vehicle is well documented, in fact its published. On a website you linked. If your testing them in some way not mentioned in your articles, feel free to let me know. My judgement is based on your published work as I have no other point of reference. Feel free to provide one however.

Quote:

Regarding the use of neologisms (no, I didn’t make that word up), I know they are hard for you to accept because in your hallowed circle of technical IT writing, new words and usages aren’t permitted. Oh, except the word ‘spyware’. Or the term ‘killer app’. Or the acronyms LOL and IMO. Or ringtone, Web site, intranet, Silicone Valley, diskette, google (verb form), avatar, Weblog, blogger, spam, convergence, dot-commer, avatar, wiki, computer virus, identity theft, Wintel, fanboy, cyberstalking, webcam, astroturfing, cybersquatting, malware, phishing, egosurfing, mouse potato, cyberslacking, WiFi, etc., etc., etc… So I apologize for any distress I have caused you from my liberal use of language.

Most of the terms you mention were invented either by the press or by 12 year olds trying to communicate briefly. Terms like 'WiFi' are not terms that those of us in IT invented, for us its always been 802.11x, and marketing comes up with the 'friendly' term. By contrast I am fairly certain that 'blingery' is completely devoid of any actual meaning, and exists only in your head. I'm pretty sure that the inventor of the term 'spyware' managed to come up with a much more useful term than that.

My original critique stands. Your article is artificially elevated by the extensive use of Big Words(tm) specifically so that it would sound more technical than it actually is. Furthermore, when you cannot find a Big Word(tm) to suit your needs, you simply make terms up. When the BS is removed from the article you have about two paragraphs worth of actual content which can be summed up as "It sucked, I did not like its handling or ride, the Japanese are inherantly better, and I see no reason to even consider the fact that its designed as an off-road vehicle first." Of course you wouldn't get paid for an article that short so rather than get in depth, you made up words, used larger words, and tossed in fillers like this from the first paragraph:

Quote:

Let’s face it: the oh-isn’t-it-darling? brigade made the Liberty a star; they drew it to their collective bosom like a Hollywood starlet clutching the only real friend she ever had (a Chihuahua).

You expect people to take your article seriously with that kind of claptrap in there? Practically every paragraph has similiar asides and non sequiters.

And btw, I have no emotional attachment to Jeep. My last vehicle was a S-10, and this is the only Chrysler product I've ever owned. I don't really care, I don't work in the industry, but I do read a ton of reviews and I'm not exaggerating when I state that Consumer Reports did a better job with their infamous review of the CRD then you did with your KK review.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:13 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

So when is the off road test and how will that effect the road test if it turns out to be a well capable machine? To me it seems you are roasting the KK for being something it was never designed for. Maybe I just have the old feeling that Jeep is Mopar's off road devision.

As soon as TTAC can line up a vehicle - I don't have a date and I might not even be the reviewer.

I don’t think that it is correct to say that Jeeps are not designed to drive on roads. The KK was designed for both: primarily for on-road with a healthy dose of off-road capability. The reality is that most owners will never take the rigs off-road (90%+) and those that do don’t stay off-road for long (most less than 5 days a year). For apex users on the LOST site off-road ability is of paramount concern, but for most all other prospective owners the road test is the most critical measure.

Besides, logically speaking its off-road competence can’t make any vehicle perform better on-roads. If a vehicle sucks on pavement, its off-road prowess can only make it a better compromise in the mind of someone that richly values off-road capability. But the on-road performance remains what it is.

If you mean to say say that if I had tested the KK off-road it would have had a lot more positive language in it, you are definitely correct.

Even so, an off-road test would not have impacted my evaluation regarding its on-road operation.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Reflex wrote:

I believe that your ability to test a vehicle is well documented, in fact its published. On a website you linked. If your testing them in some way not mentioned in your articles, feel free to let me know. My judgement is based on your published work as I have no other point of reference. Feel free to provide one however.

Exactly my point. You have no way of knowing what methods are employed in the road tests because testing methods are not disclosed – only conclusions. This is not a scientific paper that explicitely details methodology, it is a stylized automotive review.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:12 pm

Reflex wrote:

When the BS is removed from the article you have about two paragraphs worth of actual content which can be summed up as "It sucked, I did not like its handling or ride, the Japanese are inherantly better, and I see no reason to even consider the fact that its designed as an off-road vehicle first."

Fact Check:
• I never said it sucked. Overall I rated the vehicle 3 of 5 stars. If I thought it sucked, it would have gotten 1 or 2 stars.
• I praised the improvement in ride quality.
• No Japanese vehicles were mention expressly or implicitly. Neither were any German, English, Italian, Korean, Indian or Chinese vehicles. Only four other vehicles were referenced: the Nitro, KJ, Wrangler and Trailblazer.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:15 pm

Reflex wrote:

Of course you wouldn't get paid for an article that short so rather than get in depth, you made up words, used larger words, and tossed in fillers like this from the first paragraph:

Quote:

Let’s face it: the oh-isn’t-it-darling? brigade made the Liberty a star; they drew it to their collective bosom like a Hollywood starlet clutching the only real friend she ever had (a Chihuahua).

You expect people to take your article seriously with that kind of claptrap in there? Practically every paragraph has similiar asides and non sequiters.

Fair enough. You don’t like the style and heavy editorial content. I’m certain you aren’t alone in this. Comments like the one you cite are in the article primarily for entertainment value which drives thousands of people to read it, which generates ad revenue, which in turn puts a few dollars in my pocket. Despite the rhetorical fluff (as you migh think it), I make sure that my conclusions are well founded in clear-eyed observation and that the opinions are logically sound.

Most people don’t read scientific papers because they are dreadfully dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. Our readers appreciate being informed in a more lighthearted manner that puts a little bright spot into their otherwise mundane work days. If this isn't your bag, then stick to CR or whatever else you prefer. I have no beef with that.

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:28 pm

I hate to be rude Mr. Montgomery but your article does comment on the 08 Libby off road ability although you just said you only did a road test. So how exactly can that opinon be considered logically sound? Also you said you praise the improvement in the Libby's ride but where is that in the article. I read a part about KJ being poor on speed bumps and "surprising poise for a porky truck standing nearly six-feet tall." but it never mentions anything about the KK? are you expecting readers to read between the lines? The paragraph after that mentions about the KK being able to float across broken surfaces but to me that means off road or at least paved Nebraska roads :lol:

(If you haven't driven Nebraska roads consider yourself blessed)

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:17 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

I hate to be rude Mr. Montgomery but your article does comment on the 08 Libby off road ability although you just said you only did a road test. So how exactly can that opinon be considered logically sound? Also you said you praise the improvement in the Libby's ride but where is that in the article. I read a part about KJ being poor on speed bumps and "surprising poise for a porky truck standing nearly six-feet tall." but it never mentions anything about the KK? are you expecting readers to read between the lines? The paragraph after that mentions about the KK being able to float across broken surfaces but to me that means off road or at least paved Nebraska roads :lol:

(If you haven't driven Nebraska roads consider yourself blessed)

I so know what you mean...I lived in Scottsbluff for a year and let me tell you.. oh wait you already live there

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:11 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

I hate to be rude Mr. Montgomery but your article does comment on the 08 Libby off road ability although you just said you only did a road test. So how exactly can that opinon be considered logically sound?

Your question is not rude at all. I appreciate that you took the time to read my article, and I thank you for the tone and content of your comments.

I first characterized my review of the KK as being on pavement only when I began the threat “KK Test Drive” on September 21st. At that time I had submitted my article under the title, “Jeep Liberty Road Test Review.” The publisher omitted ‘Road Test’ when the article ran on the 26th. In light of this I can see where my comments regarding the new Hill Descent Control and Brake Assist equipment would imply that an off-road test was conducted. This was not my intention and I’ll ask the editor for a clarifying correction.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:13 pm

toy4everyseason wrote:

Also you said you praise the improvement in the Libby's ride but where is that in the article. I read a part about KJ being poor on speed bumps and "surprising poise for a porky truck standing nearly six-feet tall." but it never mentions anything about the KK? are you expecting readers to read between the lines? The paragraph after that mentions about the KK being able to float across broken surfaces but to me that means off road or at least paved Nebraska roads :lol:

(If you haven't driven Nebraska roads consider yourself blessed)

Yes, the 7th paragraph addresses the harshness of the KJ (“Before”) and the 8th paragraph addresses the modifications that “well and truly sort” out the “stiff-legged proglem” in the “new Liberty” over the broken surfaces of North Texas roads (“After”).

In the next to last paragraph I characterize the ride quality as being that of a “magic carpet” when contrasting the KK with the new Wrangler.

Also, in the Review Summary I give the ride 4 of 5 stars and comment, “A little jittery to start, but can smooth-out the Grand Canyon at speed.” The implication from this statement that I tested the KK off-road is unintentional.

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:20 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

toy4everyseason wrote:

Also you said you praise the improvement in the Libby's ride but where is that in the article. I read a part about KJ being poor on speed bumps and "surprising poise for a porky truck standing nearly six-feet tall." but it never mentions anything about the KK? are you expecting readers to read between the lines? The paragraph after that mentions about the KK being able to float across broken surfaces but to me that means off road or at least paved Nebraska roads :lol:

(If you haven't driven Nebraska roads consider yourself blessed)

Yes, the 7th paragraph addresses the harshness of the KJ (“Before”) and the 8th paragraph addresses the modifications that “well and truly sort” out the “stiff-legged proglem” in the “new Liberty” over the broken surfaces of North Texas roads (“After”).

In the next to last paragraph I characterize the ride quality as being that of a “magic carpet” when contrasting the KK with the new Wrangler.

Also, in the Review Summary I give the ride 4 of 5 stars and comment, “A little jittery to start, but can smooth-out the Grand Canyon at speed.” The implication from this statement that I tested the KK off-road is unintentional.

gottcha, I was just a little confused where amongst the flowerly langauge, does it say that clearly. That little summary link is very nice. I wonder why they just didn't put it at the bottom of the review. Maybe then you wouldn't be getting as much flack as your getting. Almost seems as if the editor is setting you up for a fall.

thetruthaboutcars.com road test review

Who is online