3 ms·

Maybe. But cars were getting larger regardless with safety legislation in the early 2000s anyway. Take a look at the Jeep Cherokee -> Liberty. Rather than inves

Maybe. But cars were getting larger regardless with safety legislation in the early 2000s anyway. Take a look at the Jeep Cherokee -> Liberty. Rather than invest in higher strength materials they kept pumping up the size of the vehicle until your compact SUV is quite a lot larger. If the vehicle's footprint was exclusive, it sure seems strange that vehicles have retained or lost cabin capacity instead of filling out the new found sizes. CAFE requirements were premature. You can take a look at the prius and see the improvements in fuel economy. Government may assume, well just build those, but industry doesn't move that fast. It's taken nearly 15 years before we've started to see hybrid electric vehicles become more common place, which _should_ improve fuel economy and allow overall vehicle footprints to shrink. Of course, as written what's the incentive for that beyond consumer demand.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Interesting vehicles you picked. Because I worked on both of those. The Jeep Cherokee had a wheelbase of 101, the Liberty had a wheelbase of 104. It was not really much larger in footprint. The liberty gained a couple inches because it addressed the single biggest issue with the jeep Cherokee, and that is no one could get in the rear doors easily. The independent front was also new for Jeep and it wasn’t to any degree compact because unlike a lot of the jeep vehicles today, they kind of expected someone to take the liberty off road still. Don’t get me wrong, the liberty wasn’t slim, but it was smaller than the Nitro and Liberty/Cherokee that replaced it after a short life.
- DCH3416 2y ago
  I own both a Cherokee and the model Liberty that replaced it. It's dubious whether or not the added height solved that rear door entry. That almost needs an extra long hinge to allow it to open out further, and even then the trim would still probably get in the way. I just wish it got the I6 instead of that V6. Good V6, just doesn't communicate its power very well. That independent front. Even though I don't like how it feels on the road at all. And the non serviceable sealed bearings are annoying. And the sealed upper ball joints. It did kind of set the standard for most modern trucks and heavier SUVs. Since it's not too much of a fatty with a relatively good wheel base you could generally get around off road pretty well stock. That's the thing about Chrysler's engineering which I appreciate. They were quite good at picking fairly modern technologies to go with. When the parts bin dries up. The revised Liberty and Nitro adds two inches to the wheel base. Actually looks like they lowered it a half inch too. It's debatable whether it had a significant increase there. Probably doesn't make much of a difference now these days when they replaced it with the Cherokee SUV in '13. Admittedly having seen a few videos of people throwing those rentals into at questionable rock climbing situations* I do tend to give those a pass on the "trail worthiness". *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prEa-xSYHo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prEa-xSYHo0

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

Interesting vehicles you picked. Because I worked on both of those. The Jeep Cherokee had a wheelbase of 101, the Liberty had a wheelbase of 104. It was not really much larger in footprint. The liberty gained a couple inches because it addressed the single biggest issue with the jeep Cherokee, and that is no one could get in the rear doors easily. The independent front was also new for Jeep and it wasn’t to any degree compact because unlike a lot of the jeep vehicles today, they kind of expected someone to take the liberty off road still. Don’t get me wrong, the liberty wasn’t slim, but it was smaller than the Nitro and Liberty/Cherokee that replaced it after a short life.

DCH3416 2y ago
I own both a Cherokee and the model Liberty that replaced it. It's dubious whether or not the added height solved that rear door entry. That almost needs an extra long hinge to allow it to open out further, and even then the trim would still probably get in the way. I just wish it got the I6 instead of that V6. Good V6, just doesn't communicate its power very well. That independent front. Even though I don't like how it feels on the road at all. And the non serviceable sealed bearings are annoying. And the sealed upper ball joints. It did kind of set the standard for most modern trucks and heavier SUVs. Since it's not too much of a fatty with a relatively good wheel base you could generally get around off road pretty well stock. That's the thing about Chrysler's engineering which I appreciate. They were quite good at picking fairly modern technologies to go with. When the parts bin dries up. The revised Liberty and Nitro adds two inches to the wheel base. Actually looks like they lowered it a half inch too. It's debatable whether it had a significant increase there. Probably doesn't make much of a difference now these days when they replaced it with the Cherokee SUV in '13. Admittedly having seen a few videos of people throwing those rentals into at questionable rock climbing situations* I do tend to give those a pass on the "trail worthiness". *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prEa-xSYHo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prEa-xSYHo0