No Subject

Discussion in '1911 Locomobile Model 48' started by 2002wrx, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: No Subject

    hey, you can thumb your noses at this thing all you want to. . . but you idiots who are making fun of the performance are missing something. . . two things actually.. .

    1: its wieght. . . . it wieghs just a ton and a half. . . for an suv thats as svelt as a supermodel. . thats tiny..thats probably about 2/3s the wieght of even the smallest suv's (im guessing though)

    2: its top speed clues me in to something. . . you guys make fun of the low top speed, but that obviously means it is geared to give the power, and to give it quick. . . torque is not needed, what is needed is power at low rpm's. . . it doesn't need to be torquey unless you plan on towing a big boat or something. . .

    so next time, think before you make fun of something. . <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. this is one slow car. yep
     
  3. Re: No Subject

    I still think its a wonderfull design by Jeep .
     
  4. Re: No Subject

    whooooweee!! come on now, jeep. if the 4.0 can be balanced to the wrangler sport, why cant they pop the liberty's 3.7 into THIS?!?! a supercharger, and some timing modifications, and this oculd be a well balanced, MUCH quicker, and more fun ride. so this is another marvel of american engineering eh? HA!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: No Subject

    Its not all about how fast they can go. The only Jeep ever made to go FAST was the 5.p Limited. Calm down with the performance, it wasnt meant to go fast.
     
  6. Re: No Subject

    Guys, that thing has got 160 HP, my Jeep Cherokee has got 190. I would EXPECT that Jeep can do much better than that with a brand new car. Besides, my car isnt't even being made any more!!!


    <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: No Subject

    This jeep is a piece of junk, If Daimler decides to build this they are sorely mistaken
     
  8. Re: No Subject

    well thats the thing, its no made to be powerfull on the road, but i'll bet its a very good off-road machine as any JeeP is , depending on the conditions , also i dought that it will break down as mush as other cheap imitations triing to be JEEP ..
     
  9. Re: No Subject

    this thing won't be able to do shit off-road...it has no torque...that is what you need off-road...
     
  10. Re: No Subject

    this thing won't be able to do shit off-road...it has no torque...that is what you need off-road...
     
  11. Re: No Subject

    this is just the first Concept, pretty sure there will be a better version.
     
  12. Re: No Subject

    this car is made for off roads not for high ways. so dont blame them .it has a cool desighne.
     
  13. Re: No Subject

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Micho</i>
    <b>this is just the first Concept, pretty sure there will be a better version. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    yeah there will be a better one<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Re: No Subject

    ok first things first take it off road and it will shatter it looks like its made of fiberglass or its going to melt because it could be made of plastic.
    2. its so sharp youd have green piece on your @ss for chopping down trees in the woods while your off roading
    3.why did they make this???
    ITS UGLY DOEST DAIMLER SEE THIS
    same with the jeep liberty they replaced the cheroki whith WHY?
    WHY? the cherroki looked tough it was tough now they got some jeep with little round EVERYTHING it looks like a volkswagon bug gone suv<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Re: No Subject

    it's futuristic and, for an SUV it looks not bad but a vehicle that has 160 bhp, does 0-60 in 10.4 and can only lit 87 mph at tops is NOT a supercar!
     
  16. Re: No Subject

    wrong 2nd concept the first one was alot biger size and engine wise
     
  17. Re: No Subject

    It is a little pissy torque wize.

    Although it does look pretty bad, and does have a small engine, I still like it, in a weird kind of way. Its just.. different <IMG SRC="http://www.supercarforums.com/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  18. Re: No Subject

    the original willys jeep was slow as dog shit to but it got the job done and did it pretty well. the only 2 I know of that are taken up trail and up mountains are pretty good. Bigger engine don't alwasy mean better.<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. Re: No Subject

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TwinTurboR</i>
    <b>ok first things first take it off road and it will shatter it looks like its made of fiberglass or its going to melt because it could be made of plastic.
    2. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    It's going to melt?? are you fu(king stupid? It could be made of plastic? put down ur pipe ganja boy, check top see if theres any white rocks in it.
    Anywho, i dont like the front styling, the whole liberty concept is pretty damn ugly..although i like the tires, but thats pretty much it. SUV's dont deserve a 4-banger, even if it is supercharged. please dump a 6 in there if u plan on selling any.

    fes
     
  20. Re: No Subject

    EVERYONE IS FOCUSING ON THE POWER AND TOURQUE...WHILE I AGREE MY FUCKING JETTA HAS MORE BALLS AND HTE THING IS A POS...BUT HTE LOOKS! THE CONCEPT LOOKS LIKE THE DESIGNER WA HIGH ON CRACK OR SOMETHING...<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. Re: No Subject

    I think this is a clever design which Jeep should NEVER MAKE although it has no power that really doesnt matter cause its not ment to go fast but its #$%#ing ugly
     
  22. Re: No Subject

    ooh boy. . you guys are still missing something. . . ITS GEARED TO BE POWERFUL AT LOW SPEEDS !! ITS OBVIOUS!!! SO QUIT WITH THE SHIT ABOUT PERFORMANCE!<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. Re: No Subject

    i can't tell from the pictures for sure or not, but the reason this jeep tops out so quickly might be in the axles. it is rumored that suv designers will be trying electic axles. which would hide the motor inside the tire. chevrolet tried this on a unibody suv with minimal success. the good idea is that with the powertrain inside the tire there is more room for clearance and less differentials to get hung up on. that also is why they have such tall tires. a: to get better clearance, b: to house the electric motors. if you look on the rear view you can see the fins inside the tires. this can be brake housing, which is highly unlikely. or it can be this electric motor. now for the four cylinder engine. it's sole purpose would be creating energy for the motor's and car components to run on. although from the readout of the jeeps undercarriage it is hard to base any of these theories on facts, but it would explain the low speed. but wouldn't explain the transmission. because you wouldn't need a transmission for electric motors.<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. Re: No Subject

    Its a Jeep its as tough as nails. Power and Torque have never meant anything if you have actually played around in a 4 wheeler. I find it way more fun to venture off the trail. All you street rodders should pull your balls outta your a$$ and try it.
     
  25. Re: No Subject

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ddswinger</i>
    <b>i can't tell from the pictures for sure or not, but the reason this jeep tops out so quickly might be in the axles. it is rumored that suv designers will be trying electic axles. which would hide the motor inside the tire. chevrolet tried this on a unibody suv with minimal success. the good idea is that with the powertrain inside the tire there is more room for clearance and less differentials to get hung up on. that also is why they have such tall tires. a: to get better clearance, b: to house the electric motors. if you look on the rear view you can see the fins inside the tires. this can be brake housing, which is highly unlikely. or it can be this electric motor. now for the four cylinder engine. it's sole purpose would be creating energy for the motor's and car components to run on. although from the readout of the jeeps undercarriage it is hard to base any of these theories on facts, but it would explain the low speed. but wouldn't explain the transmission. because you wouldn't need a transmission for electric motors.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Thats crazy cool! where did u find out about all that?
     

Share This Page