KK Test Drive

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:35 pm

Reflex wrote:

I'll have to remember this the next time I take notice of the dozen or so KJ's I see on my way to and from work each day without a spec of mud on them looking like they just rolled off the lot. Yup, real hard core off roading crowd, ya know?

You guys are really funny. Just because something is capable of something does not mean that is what most people use it for. If that were the case I surely wouldn't see so many Dodge Ram Cummin's tooling around as daily drivers with no load in the back. And what about all those sports cars that have no track to run on? Heck, you just agreed that most 4x4's are never taken off road. What the heck makes you believe that inherantly due to the 'Jeep' badge suddenly its owners are going to buck the trend? Got any empiracle data to back that up?

I didn't think so.

You just proved my point by not reading what I wrote. That is the point...they buy them for what they are known for doing...that IS the target market. Whether they use it that way is not important to the marketing team. How many Hummers do you see on the road with armor ect...none...but people bougth them for the image and heritage. How many Corvettes do you see that never see a track day...they bouhgt it because of the heritage. You proved my point for me. Thanx!

Rush345 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:16 am

When I originally went for the Jeep I was not thinking off roading, I was thinking Wrangler for dependability when Denver gets it's every 3rd year blizzard if even that often. I had a Dodge Dakota 4x4 318 cid with complete armor plating. I was extrememly disappointed a couple of years back when we had a nice dumper blzzard. The Dakota high centered and even a Wrangler and a Ford F-150 4x4 couldn't pull it off. So I was determmined to get the Jeep Cause I don't like getting stuck. I wanted a Rav4 actuallly but wanted more motor then the 4-banger, I'ld remembered a lady telling me before you buy a Wrangler test drive a Liberty. The Wrangler felt Top Tippsy, the Liberty was roomy, lots of bells and whistles I never expected from a Jeep. So I bought the Liberty and started adding mods the first week. Once again didn't consider off roading (never have been before, not including the Dune buggy during my teens my dad and I built and towed to Cape Hatterus ever summer to play) After a year I found out about L.O.S.T., with in the first week I was educated and pleased that I hadn't bought a Rav4. Despite the Girly car, Grocery Getter Rep , I found that I had bought a real JEEP. Plus met some of the greatest most helpful people you would ever want to meet. :shock:

Now as far as the KK goes I'm disappointed in the placement of the spare, the head lights placement is OK just to EURO it just doesn't look like the Jeeps I grew up with. As for the suspencion, it could have been Chrysler's redemption instead it's their Folly. Even though I have never been a big deisel fan (due to ignorance), it would have been nice if they had brought back a power plant that is loved and desired by many. Just the opinion of an old man who wanted a ride that when he wants to go some place will do it no matter the weather a terrain. JMHO :twisted:

Pablo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1201

Hate to jump in, but oh why not...

The window switches:

If you have ever ridden in the back of a Cherokee going down a rough road (offroad)-- you can understand why they might have moved them. Every time you hit a bump in those things your knee would roll the window up or down. Really annoying. While they could have found a better way to put the switch in the door, moving it off the door was better than leaving them so exposed.

MB taking over Chrysler may have had something to do with many of the vehicles getting the switches moved to the center console-- most of the MB I have been in had the window controls in the center console.

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

Darby - If your only point is that people buy it for an image, then your not arguing any point that I was trying to make. Of course people buy things for image. That said, even that point is a bit off when you consider the high rate of female ownership of the Liberty, I highly doubt that many of them are buying it because they want to be seen as super off roaders. But I digress.

My point is that usability features matter. On these very forums I read regularly about how the big three don't get it, that the asians are eating their lunch, and that its all the 'little things' that they get right that the US companies do not. But then when an obvious little thing is mentioned, it is shot down as being too picky and not a serious point that would turn anyone off. Which is it? Should people simply accept the vehicle, warts and all, simply because it says 'Jeep' on the front? Or should they expect that the people designing it will put the same level of thought into their total experience that the Toyota and Honda engineers will? I don't see how we can have it both ways here.

I read the reviews in the magazines and these are the types of things they pick apart. You guys point out that the Liberty is the best selling SUV in its class, but I look and see Rav4's all over the road, and each one is a potential buyer who wasn't convinced. Sure we can sit back, point and laugh and go on about how they didn't get a 'real SUV' all we want, but that dosen't change the fact that every single lost sale is to the detriment of the brand that we all claim to love.

I feel that we should be holding Jeep/Chrysler to the highest possible standard, to ensure that they make products that will keep them in business, and for us in the long run, continue producing a product we will enjoy. I may disagree with many members on the forum here about their specific gripes, and I may feel that there is a degree of witch-doctorism in thier statements, however I do NOT have a problem with them bringing their problems up, repeatedly if necessary, as at the least that will hopefully get the issues noticed, and when there is a grain of truth to a complaint, hopefully it will get corrected.

Perhaps thats idealistic. But I'm in for the long haul. I'm hoping that there is a product there for me to continue to enjoy.

JJsTJ · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:41 am

I like where my window switches are in my KJ's. I often keep my left hand on the wheel, right arm resting on the console and the window switches are right where I want them when needed. Window switch placement would never bother me enough to keep me from buying a vehicle though. I could care less where they are as long as they work when needed.

This thread is funny. Reminds me of those round & rounds on JU back in the day. :lol:

k99jk99j · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:56 am

who cares about window switches? drama drama

KeswickDave · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:37 am

I like the window switches on the console, took a bit of getting used to but now I like it.

It got me to thinking though, that there is a lack of standardization in controls across vehicle manufacturers... I have several examples in my driveway.

Was driving my Acura Integra last weekend. Set the cruise, later wanted to dis-engage it so my thumb automatically reached for the Cancel button which resulted in me honking the horn. There is no cancel switch and the horn buttons are where the cruse control buttons are in the Jeep.

My fiance drives a Chevy Venture minivan. When I get in that one I try to turn on the lights, instead I get wipers.

You would think that basic controls such as these would be standardized, especially when safety could be an issue - I don't want to think about whether I have to push the center of the steering wheel, or one of two little buttons on the steering wheel spokes if I want to use the horn.

I also don't want to be turning my lights on and off when instead I need to use the windshield wipers urgently.

I exagerate a bit, I am aware of these things and adapt pretty well moving back and forth but they are annoyances.

Dave

duckhunter71 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:17 pm

I don't know what I'll do when I get my Jeep.. my last 3 trucks have been Silverados with automatic headlights. When I get in my sister's Honda or my girlfriend's VW Beetle I forget to turn them on half the time!

sleeve84028 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:14 pm

Doesn't the KK come with Automatic Head Lights? (AHL?)

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:11 pm

I don't think so...Unless specified by the buyer, its not a standard feature

Guest · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:42 pm

letsroll wrote:

The Liberty was my 3rd vehicle with center mounted window controls so it was nothing new for me. My prior vehicles were a 72 Mercedes 280 and my 88 T-bird Turbo coupes. No make that the fourth whereas I think my 2001 PT cruiser also had these!

Well, I should say you suck and thanks! I was hoping I'd be the first to bring up the 83-88 Birdie window switches :lol:

I honestly don't see any point in the Liberty existing anymore from a business standpoint...Jeep is saturating their own market, and Caliber/Compass and Unlimited Wrangler sales are cannibalizing potential Liberty sales, on both extremes.

Also...whoever criticized ChryCo for using the 3.8L Minivan motor in the JK...I can't tell you how many 250,000+ mile Chrysler minivans with 3.3s and 3.8s I've seen that have had nothing more than the occasional belt tensioner, water pump, and your average minivan's 10,000 mile oil change intervals. Granted, they don't usually run GOOD...but they run, and that's the important thing. I'd rather have the "stupid soccer mom minivan" engine than the 3.7, and I think more highly of that 3.8 than I do the 4.0 I6 and 2.5 I4. Bravo to Chrysler on that front.

k99jk99j · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:36 am

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

letsroll wrote:

The Liberty was my 3rd vehicle with center mounted window controls so it was nothing new for me. My prior vehicles were a 72 Mercedes 280 and my 88 T-bird Turbo coupes. No make that the fourth whereas I think my 2001 PT cruiser also had these!

Also...whoever criticized ChryCo for using the 3.8L Minivan motor in the JK...I can't tell you how many 250,000+ mile Chrysler minivans with 3.3s and 3.8s I've seen that have had nothing more than the occasional belt tensioner, water pump, and your average minivan's 10,000 mile oil change intervals. Granted, they don't usually run GOOD...but they run, and that's the important thing. I'd rather have the "stupid soccer mom minivan" engine than the 3.7, and I think more highly of that 3.8 than I do the 4.0 I6 and 2.5 I4. Bravo to Chrysler on that front.

right on brother! the 3.3/3.8 is one of the best motors in the world below are links to the 200,000 mile club over at allpar. just keep hitting next at the end of the page! (there are 7 pages for the 3.3) mike

here is the 3.3
http://www.allpar.com/old/club/search.p ... ype=engine

here is the 3.8 (bored and stroked 3.3)

http://www.allpar.com/old/club/search.p ... ype=engine

i wish they would of put the 3.8 in the liberty! it seems like the 3.7 while is promising is still a little to early to tell if it is going to be durable for 300,000 + miles

sleeve84028 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:37 am

We've had a few people reach the 150K+ mile mark on the 3.7 but like you are saying there haven't been enough to really boost the confidence of people like me who plan to keep my KJ until something serious happens to it.

I still think window switches are one of the most important items for interior ergonomics... Looking forward to hearing from our KK brethern soon

tommudd · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:14 am

mini van motors ....yes love them , well love the way you follow them down the road smoking all the way, yep great motors!
I think the 3.7 is doing a fine job, its like any, some are good some bad! Keep changing the oil and plugs and mine will go 200,000 plus I am sure the ones you read about on allpar are just a few of the millions out there. Heck my 95 4.o in the Cherokee still uses no oil at 265000 plus and doesnt smoke either, just gotta take care of them.

k99jk99j · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:25 am

tommudd wrote:

mini van motors ....yes love them , well love the way you follow them down the road smoking all the way, yep great motors!
.

living in toledo i would think you would know more about the mopar brand. the smoking motor you refer to is not the 3.3/3.8 mopar motor. the motor that smokes in the mopar minivans is the OUTSOURCED 3.0l (v-6) MITSUBISHI motor. just for your info it was in minivans along with the 3.3/3.8(90-present)/2.2/2.5(Stopped production in 1995)/2.4(1996-2007) from 87-01(3.0l mitsubishi). the problem with the 3.0l mitsubishi was the soft valve guides from mitsubishi, hence the smoking, but as you can see in the proof below it did not effect the reliablity of the mitsubishi motor. here is the link

3.0l mitsubishi motor (aka the leaker because of the valve guides)
there are lots of pages of people replacing mitsubishi valve guides and seals so make sure you hit next at the botttom.
http://www.allpar.com/old/club/search.p ... ype=engine

tommudd next time before you post in a public forum please get your facts straight!

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:27 am

k99jk99j wrote:

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

Also...whoever criticized ChryCo for using the 3.8L Minivan motor in the JK...I can't tell you how many 250,000+ mile Chrysler minivans with 3.3s and 3.8s... I'd rather have the "stupid soccer mom minivan" engine than the 3.7, and I think more highly of that 3.8 than I do the 4.0 I6 and 2.5 I4. Bravo to Chrysler on that front.

right on brother! the 3.3/3.8 is one of the best motors in the world...

i wish they would of put the 3.8 in the liberty! it seems like the 3.7 while is promising is still a little to early to tell if it is going to be durable for 300,000 + miles

When the Liberty debuted, Jeep went to great lengths to extol the virtues of the 3.7L engine as an off-road power plant. The engine was sealed up tight as a drum so that Liberty’s won’t drip oil on Mother Nature when you are exploring the wild frontier. Jeep supposedly torture tested the 3.7L beyond what is expected of standard engines for operating in the extremes of temperature, in mud and underwater.

When Jeep released the new Wrangler with the Chrysler 3.8L, they made no such claims. I’m not saying that the 3.8L is a bad engine for running about town but I am skeptical of its ability to withstand the long-term pounding that hardcore Jeep owners will inflict upon it.

If you look at the sales figures, Chrysler minivans have been tanking in recent years. The minivan market has shrunk with the emergence of CUVs and Chrysler has yielded market share to Honda and Toyota. The Chrysler plant was underutilized (and might have had contractual obligations with the UAW to produce a minimum number of units) and the Jeep’s internal production was maxed out producing 3.7Ls for the popular Liberty, Grand Cherokee, Nitro and Commander. So Chrysler executives made a financial decision to stick the minivan engine into the Jeep Wrangler. I think it has nothing to do with the notion that the Chrysler engine is better in a Jeep than an internally-developed Jeep engine. IMO.

k99jk99j · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:40 am

i like the 3.7 but i question why they made it? when the phoenix motors come out in 09 it is rumored all current v-6's are gone! that is a short 8 year production of the 3.7? but who knows they may continue to make it due to it being produced next to the 4.7 at the mack road sight? the 4.7 should be inservice for quite some time! and we all know that the 3.7 was a derivative of the 4.7. mike

sleeve84028 · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:20 pm

Yup soon enough the 3.7, 3.8 and all other engines will be replaced with the Phoenix line. I'm not up to speed on them but I'd expect: VVT, Flex Fuel and cylinder deactivation to be some of the key features.

Guest · **Posted:** Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:12 pm

Black_Dog wrote:

Jeep supposedly torture tested the 3.7L beyond what is expected of standard engines for operating in the extremes of temperature, in mud and underwater.

When Jeep released the new Wrangler with the Chrysler 3.8L, they made no such claims. I’m not saying that the 3.8L is a bad engine for running about town but I am skeptical of its ability to withstand the long-term pounding that hardcore Jeep owners will inflict upon it.

If you look at the sales figures, Chrysler minivans have been tanking in recent years.

the 3.8L has been torture tested by soccer moms all around north america, Jeep didn't need to make that claim because this engine has already powered everything from my grandma's 88 Dynasty to god knows what else.

Also, all minivan sales have been slow...not just ChryCo's.

My 3.7L has done less than impress me in terms of power, fuel efficiency, and overall NVH. it idles like my old 304 that had ported heads and a pretty big cam (maybe I'm exaggerating a bit there...). Granted, it probably doesn't help that I came from two 5.0 Fords (Exploder and T-bird) in the power department, because my biggest complaint is lack of bottom-end.

At any rate...if I had a choice, I'd take the 3.8L in the KJ over the 3.7...but I don't like it enough to go out of my way to swap one in...but in my opinion, the 3.7L is the unknown factor for abuse, with its pressed-on cam lobes and powdered metal connecting rods, NOT the pushrod 3.8.

Black_Dog · **Posted:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:01 am

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

the 3.8L has been torture tested by soccer moms all around north america

Great. Jeep should use this in their next advertising campaign.

KK Test Drive

Who is online