Check this weak ass article out...Looks like an article my little sister would write if she didn't know I'd ever see it (she works in auto advertising and drives a euro car)

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ars/index.html

 

Look at the silver lining here: If this discourages a few soccer moms from buying the JK, then there will be less pressure on Jeep to "soccerfy" it. If there are too many folks who buy it as a mall crawler, then we may see the gradual disappearance of this tradition we love. Besides, the H3 and the FJ also made the list. That tells you that what Consumer's Guide was reviewing has very little in common with the buyers of these vehicles. We hope so, anyway.

 

Yeah, but they give the Toyota Rav4 top place for Small SUV catagory......


Freakin Idiots.

 

This is another reason why there is a Jeep wave. Only true Jeepers understand what it is to be an enthusiast of the out doors.

We (Jeepers) have to be some of the most fun loving, get out there and have fun people around. Don't even get me started on the "I'm better then you, drive a super chared, turbo, german made......" These people just want to show how big there ego is and are the true ass hole drivers on the road.

Not Jeepers. We will take the noisieness, rough ride, poor handling, fuel economy, and our 17 out of 100 score. Because we have more fun and memories with out Jeeps then anyone else can your the "perfect car". I can take the top down, doors off, and go more places then most people couldn't even imagine taking a vehicle to. I knew what I was getting into when I bought my Jeep and still have no regrets.

I saulte to you all. True Jeepers. Taking bad reveiws and harsh criticism since 1941 and stilll running strong.

 

Wow, where do I start?

They list off-road performance as a high for the Wrangler, H3, Liberty, and FJ, then they say that that doesn't figure into the final score. My question is why not? If that's what it was designed for then it should be accounted for in the final score.

For the FJ, they list reliability as a high. I guess they haven't heard of the body rip issue. How reliable is a vehicle that is prone to breaking in half? Then they say that reliability wasn't part of the total score. Excuse me??? How can you not include reliability in any evaluation of a vehicle?

OK we know reliability isn't a factor, so what exactly are they evaluating?

Nevermind. I got my answer on the Nitro writeup.
I guess this is really all about cup holders.

 

Just remember Consumer Union's approach toward evaluating vehicles: It's just another applicance.

That is probably the most succinct assessment of why we should ignore Consumer's Guide. If you love cars/trucks/Jeeps, don't be bothered by a Consumer's Guide review of them. They're passionless in their review. I think that's totally acceptable for a TV, a hair dryer, a kitchen mixer. It totally fails for a Jeep (or any other vehicle for which one feels passion).

 

Most (well, about half) of the cars listed there are obviously not the worst of '08. They're just rating them for people who think driving is a chore and want a basic and dull appliance to get from point A to B. Even the Patriot is on the list and although some reviews weren't all that great, it had been said that it was superior to both the compass and caliber which it is based on.

 

See the problem is that what SUV USED to stand for (Sport Utility Vehicle) with key words being on UTILITY and SPORT....with off road prowess being a big factor) has turned into the new term for SUV being Shitty Ugly Vehicle...and the "cross-over" mating of the title to signify that they have lost any aversions to being an off-road vehicle at all, and were mated with some derivative of one of their models cars.

As others have noted, the push is towards how many cupholders, heated leather seats, surround sound DVD entertainment studios, etc you can put into one first and foremost.

I know for me personally....even with this being the first Jeep Wrangler I have owned (well first Jeep period), NONE of the above was high on my list of "must haves" for the first features.
I wanted:
1) off road prowess
2) 4 doors with at least some level of comfort for back seat passengers as well as front

The ability to take off the top and the doors was a big plus, but even that was not a "must have" for me....was simply sweet icing on the cake.

 

There lows are pretty spot on. And I would probably go on to agree with them on their scoring for the vehicles. They are aiming it at the general suv buyers. If you really think that what they are claiming is false, you need to open your eyes a little better.

 

Oh? Northern Virginia that explains it. Something about the air up there that makes the Politicians and well everyone a little, let's just say...... Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeep. Everyone has their opinions some good and some bad, and some really bad.