Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Intrepidation

Stalling Problems

Recommended Posts

Yep..one year only..I've seen a few of them in Colorado...GCs, and Jeeps in general have long been very popular in Colorado...I think I read somewhere Colorado has the highest registration percentage of SUVs (and Jeeps) in the country.

I don't know the sales figures but there's a lot of Jeeps up here in New England (wonder why? :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the sales figures but there's a lot of Jeeps up here in New England (wonder why? :P)

Same reasons...unpredictable weather and mountains... same with Subarus...they got their initial popularity in New England and the Rocky Mountain West...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same reasons...unpredictable weather and mountains... same with Subarus...they got their initial popularity in New England and the Rocky Mountain West...

I want a Wrangler Unlimited.

On a more realistic note I've always wanted a cheap Cherokee that I could do some off roading in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see one of those Grand Wagoneers around town. There is a GC TSi in the parking lot at work. The special edition GC that I'd love to have is the Orvis Edition, the interior was pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see one of those Grand Wagoneers around town. There is a GC TSi in the parking lot at work. The special edition GC that I'd love to have is the Orvis Edition, the interior was pretty cool.

Yes, I always liked the green colors the Orvis ones were in... ironically, I have a few Orvis shirts. Another model I've always liked is the '03 or so Overlands..had neat 2 tone seats. I thought about trading mine on an Overland a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say that I wouldn't mind having a Grand Cherokee sometimes, but at the same time, I really have no use for one, they're a little too small for what I really need and if I want to go bounce it off trees, or crawl through mud a Wrangler or a K-5 Blazer would do the job much better in my book. Now I will admit that the new 4-door Wranglers are very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah the ones used in the 3rd gen vans were especially bad. That being said the transmission in the Intrepid is original. Or is it? According to Sixty4 it's probably a lie, or a mistake, or something. Can't be possible. No way.

Will you get off the bitter-wagen?

I can make an educated guess about your transmission, but without

more proof I'd never insist on knowing if it is or is NOT original.

Getting 38.7 MPG in a 100% stock, BOF, 4.6 liter V8 powered, 1990s

Mercury Grand Marquis?

Did - NOT - happen. You still want to beat a dead horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you get off the bitter-wagen?

I can make an educated guess about your transmission, but without

more proof I'd never insist on knowing if it is or is NOT original.

Getting 38.7 MPG in a 100% stock, BOF, 4.6 liter V8 powered, 1990s

Mercury Grand Marquis?

Did - NOT - happen. You still want to beat a dead horse?

Technically you're the one who took the time to find this thread and make a comment on it. You may not have noticed but I've dropped the subject entirely, it's not worth arguing over, however just now you insist on bringing it back up now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically you're the one who took the time to find this thread and make a comment on it. You may not have noticed but I've dropped the subject entirely, it's not worth arguing over, however just now you insist on bringing it back up now.

You've "dropped it"? Your comment eluded to my disbelief of your claims,

and we both know you were talking about the MPG thing.

You made a silly claim, and after your MPG claims for your rental Cobalt

I felt the need to call you out on what is obviously a flawed system of

measuring fuel economy.

Tell us again that the same driver got 15 MPG in a 2007 Chevy Cobalt LS

and 38+ MPG in a 1993 Mercury Grand Marquis?

Just cause we're friends does not mean I turn off my B.S. meter. :AH-HA_wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've "dropped it"? Your comment eluded to my disbelief of your claims,

and we both know you were talking about the MPG thing.

You made a silly claim, and after your MPG claims for your rental Cobalt

I felt the need to call you out on what is obviously a flawed system of

measuring fuel economy.

Tell us again that the same driver got 15 MPG in a 2007 Chevy Cobalt LS

and 38+ MPG in a 1993 Mercury Grand Marquis?

Just cause we're friends does not mean I turn off my B.S. meter. :AH-HA_wink:

Hmm I don't know, maybe because the Cobalt was mostly city, their I've seen mention that Cobalts don't exactly set the fuel economy charts on fire? Likewise some people on this very board claim it could have been a problem with that particular car, etc. etc.

Likewise, the Mercury was all highway, all cruise. The numbers don't lie, but I guess they do and so does the odometer evidently despite the mileage being accurate.

Like I said, I haven't made a comment about it in days, you're the one who hunted down a post to bring it back up again.

I stand by the results I got, if you don't want to believe it it's your choice, I really don't care.

Edited by Dodgefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you get off the bitter-wagen?

I can make an educated guess about your transmission, but without

more proof I'd never insist on knowing if it is or is NOT original.

Getting 38.7 MPG in a 100% stock, BOF, 4.6 liter V8 powered, 1990s

Mercury Grand Marquis?

Did - NOT - happen. You still want to beat a dead horse?

68... yes the mileage is correct.. i was the one that drove the car.. i had cruise control on the whole time and overdrive on the whole time as well, it was also ALL highway driving which i was going a solid 70mph.. so yes the mileage is correct, we even had to check it several times because we thought it was wrong as well, but it is all in the math... 38.7mpg. the roads were also completely clear so i never had to slow down as well... so i am sorry my friend the numbers are correct.. you are just in denial. lol.. now bow to my great driving abilities.... :booyah::D sorry i just could not help myself... i am just wanting to put this to rest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DF:

I addressed the fact that pizza delivery in the city, in winter was not conducive to

high or even reasonable MPGs.... to which YOU said "same driving style/miles the

Prizm gets high 30s..." to which I wanted to say "bull$h!" but I bit my tongue.

More and more your MPG numbers are silly.

68... yes the mileage is correct.. i was the one that drove the car.. i had cruise control on the whole time and overdrive on the whole time as well, it was also ALL highway driving which i was going a solid 70mph.. so yes the mileage is correct, we even had to check it several times because we thought it was wrong as well, but it is all in the math... 38.7mpg. the roads were also completely clear so i never had to slow down as well... so i am sorry my friend the numbers are correct.. you are just in denial. lol.. now bow to my great driving abilities.... :booyah::D sorry i just could not help myself... i am just wanting to put this to rest..

Dear lord guys... do you STILL really believe that mercury got 38.7? :blink:

There's a million different explanations for the possible discrepancy in

numbers,but the lack of LOGIC is what makes it silly.

XP said it all in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DF:

I addressed the fact that pizza delivery in the city, in winter was not conducive to

high or even reasonable MPGs.... to which YOU said "same driving style/miles the

Prizm gets high 30s..." to which I wanted to say "bull$h!" but I bit my tongue.

More and more your MPG numbers are silly.

Dear lord guys... do you STILL really believe that mercury got 38.7? :blink:

There's a million different explanations for the possible discrepancy in

numbers,but the lack of LOGIC is what makes it silly.

XP said it all in the other thread.

Right well whatever. You believe what you want and I'll do the same. You can keep this up if you want but I'm done with it, so no more hijacking the this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it should get a good wash and wax...

:yes:

I just had the thought of having it professionally detailed. It's like magic...I have no idea how they get into all of the little nooks and crannies.

I think that might be a good treat.

Oh, and maybe if I've got the money a set of alloys.

b7b5_1.jpg

Edited by Dodgefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thread nazi, one lst thought for YOU.

You're bringing down the legitimacy of this forum by posting that you got 38.7 MPG in a 1993 Grand Marq.

It pretty much makes anything else you post questionable if you believe that, and I for one think that

it's a lot like the quote about Reg you used to have in your sig.

- paying good money for Aztek = out of room to talk about automotive styling.

- insisting a high-milage Grand Marq. from the early 1990s gets 38.7 MPG = (insert duRRR comment here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...