the words “missed the boat” come readily to mind

Big deal…. I understand its bigger than the Liberty and its heavier. That’s an improvement?

well it’s way better looking than a Durango or Aspen, but that was an easy trick to pull off compared to those two malformed machines

C’mon Bob… more room than the gnewt, more power, good 4wd system, existing lift kits… 4.0 MANUAL!!!!! an srt6 version, and a damned good price.

Was Charlie Wenzel sent by Jesus to condemn us? Never shop on price Mike. Land Rover Defender is the best off roader going. If I weren’t gay I wouldn’t have a 95 Suzuki Sidekick

You HAVE to shop by price, it’s called bang-for-the-buck.

what vehicle best suits your needs? If I had 22k as a cap, and wanted/needed an suv, this would be one worth looking at as far as features for the price.

Defender is ARGUABLY the best off roader going, although you cannot legally buy anything newer than, what, 1996 in the US? Mog, Pinz, Rubicon, galandewagon are all equally as good out of the box. Mods, well that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame.

1995 Sidekick. 4.24:1 low range 5.83:1 R&P’s ARB’s front & rear Calmini 6″ combo lift.

good to see you still have it, I haven’t been on Pirate in a LONG time. Any meet and greets coming up? Trail runs? The fiance has a wrangler… which means I now have a wrangler…

You got a fiance? I was so grooming you for naked hikes in the Rockies

Why buy this over a Patriot or PowderPuff, sorry I mean Compass?

well, sure as hell beats the ooo so boring ford escape or chevy equinox.

Let’s see, It’s larger, so it can carry more people/stuff. Utility is the name of the game here.
It’s heavier, because it is nearly impossible to make something larger AND lighter at the same time.
Of course, if it had been smaller you would have complained about that, just because
it came from an American auto maker.
I will wait to judge it’s appearance after I see it on the street a few times, but from the picture it seems to have
Some softer lines like that of the previous generation Land Cruiser. Which, I suppose you all though was too big and too
heavy also.

I just want to know what happened about 10 years ago to make people think they needed oversized gas guzzling pieces of junk by any manufacturer, when most people had survived without them for so long before then

come on toole. regardless of what people who havent been alive for more than 14 year think, cars on average were always heavier than they are today.

besides for the side view I have never really loved this car. It doesn’t look terrible, but by no means is it beautiful

tool: fwd based vs rwd based. awd vs 4wd. i4 vs v6. IRS vs solid rear axle

I’d take the Nitro over compass/patriot anyday.

Fatstrat I think you’ll find that model for model cars are getting heavier

It’s O’Toole, I try to get your names right.
Why do you swap between MKbruin and MG TD 1952 and Mike?

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW FOR SPY PICTURES OF THE NEW LIBERTY

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35475

Looks almost identical apart from the front

prediction: SMASH HIT. Perfect size, great image, good looks, and relatively cheap. YOU GO DODGE BOYZZZ! errr, Dr. Z.

(I also predicted the HHR sales success when y’all were slaying it as a me-too PT Cruiser rip off that wasn’t Japanese enough.)

I disagree on the shop by price thing.
First I figure out what I want and then I figure out what that is going to cost me. If I wanted the best bang for the buck I would drive a scion or something.

Mike was too confusing as there are other Mike’s here; so I went to MKBruin and some idiot started spamming under that name; so I went to this…

the reason it was mkbruin above is that I have not yet changed the name on my computer at home, so it auto popped mkbruin in there.

The Defender was last imported for sale into the US in 1997 as an automatic hard top version with a 90 inch wheelbase.

In a couple of years you will be able to import early defenders legally as they will be 25 years or older and the various EPA DOT rules no longer apply.

You can also import Defenders right now if you take them apart load them into a container and ship them to the US. You can then put them back together and register the vehicle as a Kit or hobby vehicle. Defenders are built entirely by hand so they are fairly easy to take apart.

Just what this country needs….another $uck-u-v. I’m sure it’ll have 4 rows of seats for soccer moms who have just one kid to ferry around.

Thanks for the link Stuart. Like the Nitro but now after seeing those pics of the Liberty I’m curious to see what its going to look like.

O’Toole, having lived ‘back in the day’ the average family would have a very large station wagon or sedan that would outweigh the current mid and compact SUV’s.
There are heavy offerings from nearly evey automaker but they also have many cars available today that are far lighter than most cars available in the 70’s, 80’s.
IMHO

Fatstrat you are deluded, equivalent models are way heavier now than they used to be
Rabbit to Rabbit look at the weight gain
3 series to 3 series ditto et al et al

you have provided two examples of compact cars. Please compare what would be considered a mid size sedan that were popular then and now. Lets say a Chevy Impala. Todays version is much lighter than say the 1972 model. I agree that there are some heavier offerings today but across the model range there are far more light weight offerings that were not technologically possible then.
We must also consider one reason why vehicles are heavy today and its not just size as you have pointed out with your Rabbit/Rabbit comparison. It is content. Consumers of even highly efficient cars demand content and safety equip. That all adds weight.
I am not arguing with you, just trying to make my point clear which I think I am not doing a very good job of.

Edmunds only goes back to 1990:

1990 Golf 2 dr:

Length: 158 in. Width: 65.5 in. Height: 55.7 in. Wheel Base: 97.3 in.

Front Head Room: 38.1 in. Front Leg Room: 39.5 in.
Luggage Capacity: 17.9 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 40 cu. ft.

Base Engine Size: 1.8 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 100 hp Max Horsepower: 5400 rpm
Torque: 107 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 3400 rpm

Fuel Tank Capacity: 14.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 25 mpg / 32 mpg Automatic: : 23 mpg / 28 mpg

2006 VW Rabbit:
Length: 165.8 in. Width: 69.3 in. Height: 58.2 in. Wheel Base: 101.5 in.
Curb Weight: 2974 lbs.
Gross Weight: 3968 lbs.

Front Head Room: 39.3 in. Front Shoulder Room: 54.7 in.
Rear Head Room: 38.5 in. Rear Shoulder Room: 54.6 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.2 in. Rear Leg Room: 35.3 in.
Luggage Capacity: 15 cu. ft.

Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 5 Horsepower: 150 hp
Max Horsepower: 5000 rpm Torque: 170 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 3750 rpm

Fuel Tank Capacity: 14.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 22 mpg / 30 mpg

OK lets look at the big sellers
Camry versus Camry
Accord Versus Accord
Civic versus Civic
F150, Silverado, Explorer
I bet all the latest models are way heavier than the old models

As long as the added weight contributes to the vehicles overall saftey I have no problem with it. If they can figure out ways to eliminate the excess weight without compromising safety that would be great.

There is no curb weight listed for the 1990 Golf. I find the very similar EPA very interesting.
But, I am talking about ‘corporate’ weight averages. This would be difficult to compute because the makers offer so many more models than they did 15-20 years ago.

I can guarantee that while all the models ARE heavier, they are also larger in every respect, far more safe, have far more power, and are as efficient, if not more-so.

I understand that the Euro version will have a Diesel version available…it’s a damn shame that most of the U.S public isn’t interested in Diesels.

camry vs camry:

1990: Length: 182.1 in. Width: 67.4 in.
Height: 54.1 in. Wheel Base: 102.4 in.
Curb Weight: 2811 lbs.

2007: Length: 189.2 in. Width: 71.7 in.
Height: 57.9 in. Wheel Base: 109.3 in.
Curb Weight: 3263 lbs.

1990:Front Head Room: 37.9 in. Front Shoulder Room: 54.3 in.
Rear Head Room: 36.6 in. Rear Shoulder Room: 53.7 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.9 in. Rear Leg Room: 34.4 in.
Luggage Capacity: 14.6 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

2007:Front Head Room: 38.8 in. Front Hip Room: 54.6 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 57.8 in. Rear Head Room: 37.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.9 in. Rear Hip Room: 53.9 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.7 in. Rear Leg Room: 38.3 in.
Luggage Capacity: 15 cu. ft. Maximum Seating: 5

1990:Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 115 hp
Max Horsepower: 5200 rpm Torque: 124 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4400 rpm Drive Type: FWD

2007:Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.4 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 158 hp
Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm Torque: 161 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4000 rpm

1990: Fuel Tank Capacity: 15.9 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Automatic: : 25 mpg / 31 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 397.5 mi. / 492.9 mi.

2007: Fuel Tank Capacity: 18.5 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 24 mpg / 34 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Manual: 444 mi. / 629 mi.

This doesn’t factor crash test safety, interior noise levels, emmisions, etc…

Just thought I’d point out to the people debating weight that the Corvette is 500 lbs lighter than it’s counterpart 30 years ago and the Mustang is 600 lbs lighter than it was 30 years ago. The Carrera is about 900 lbs heavier than it was 25 years ago. I’d have to say that on AVERAGE, cars from the 70s are heavier. I’m sure we can all realize the reasons for this.

Next Week, Dodge Nitro production stopped as demand satisfied

The Ntiro is not doing anything special for the segment, its not revolutionizing anything, its just adding another mediocre gas chugging midsize SUV to an already flooooded market. Too bad really. Give me a Forester, Rav4, CRV, the new redesigned Outlander, or hell even the new redesigned Grand Vitara or redesigned SantaFe over this any day

This is a good discussion and the provided stats are also very interesting. However, I agree with Rally Girl.
On average I think the older corporate fleets will be heavier on average.
Though MG 52 is also correct. We get far more for a measly few extra pounds in some of these cars. I think that we may see heavier more efficient cars if fuel cells become a reality. Heavier does not have to be a negative.
All this good info exchanged without anyone telling anyone else to STFU? is this still LLN?

STFU Fatsrat, you know jack ****. Weight needs more energy to move it around Period. aint no magic can get around that physical law

DON’T make me research emission output levels for a 1990 Toyota Camry 2.0

Puff, try some research yourself, here are some pointers:
compare emission output levels.
compare acceleration figures
compare engine size
compare engine output numbers

relate everything as a percentage. Then you will see that todays cars have come a LONG way in even the last 15 years. I think that the emmission levels will be quite astonishing as a comparison. An engine twice the size, with 2.5 times the power, and 2/3 to half the emissions.

Exactly 52 MG.
Puff, put down your blunt and move out of your parents house and get a job.

But houses are so expensive, and I have no qualifications, and my lack of arms means i can’t even flip burgers, oh what am I to do?

At least you have a sense of humor.

Finally! Seems like we’ve been waiting forever.

If you are interested in the Dodge Nitro, be sure to check out:

http://www.dodge-nitro.com

that front bumper is the most disgusting thing i have ever seen on a car, other than that it doesnt look that bad but that bumper has to go