Whatever took place, what can be seen is that we don't think the same way about the new 2020 Defender. You think it's shit, while I think differently. To me, it looks like it could be very fun to drive, and I do like its design. If I was offered the opportunity to drive one, I doubt I'd turn it down. And much like what Manfred said, at least Land Rover keeps the 2020 Defender planted in its roots, while Chevrolet missed an opportunity with the Blazer. They could've made an SUV that could rival the Wrangler, the upcoming Bronco, and even the Defender. Actually, they missed that opportunity twice, because they did the Trailblazer the same way. I don't think the new Blazer and Trailblazer are bad, but I'm not feeling those nameplates.
Oh for sure. If you want to find a vehicle undeserving of its nameplate, look no further than the Blazer. There are plenty of vehicles on the market worse than the Blazer, which is basically just a “sporty” Equinox. The only crime it commits, apart from being yet another boring crossover SUV in a flooded market, is its name.
I don't know anything about the Blazer either, but I think it is one of the nicer looking crossovers actually. A nice looking "crossover", but not a nice looking "Blazer". I'll have to stop by the dealership this week I guess. Now that my mother is in the market with the Explorer being scrapped... With the Mustang Mach E at least they had a reason to give the cross over that name since that's gonna have to compete with established names. With the Blazer though, GM just doesn't know what they are doing. The Bronco is almost back, the Defender is kind of back, the JL and G-Wagon are better than ever, the Raptor and TRD pro are all selling great. Then there's the Blazer...
I forgot about the Mustang Mach-E. I think just calling it the Mach-E would have been cool enough, but at least the obviously Mustang styling gives them the right (somewhat) to call it one. The Blazer looks like they tried to make a Camaro-like Equinox and then just pulled one of the beloved retired Chevrolet nameplates out of a hat. The Wrangler and G-Wagon have been doing it right. New platforms, but only updating the stying slightly to prevent it from looking dated. And despite the Wrangler’s dismal crash ratings (which is what happens when you have T-tops, a folding windshield, removable doors, and a design from a WWII military vehicle), they’re both very good cars. They’re proof that you can keep a nameplate going without changing major aspects of it (frame, body style, engine, etc.). The new Bronco worries me a little, that they might screw it up. Then again, I was worried Ford v. Ferrari and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood wouldn’t be good, and I loved both of them.
Well said. Tom Hanks is the best actor of all time. My only complaint about the movie was that it needed more Tom Hanks. Spoiler: Obligatory copypasta Tom Hanks, killing the game, as always. Tell me a bad Tom Hanks movie. I dare you. The Money Pit? Classic. The Burbs? Classic. Joe Versus the Volcano? Sleeper classic. Big? Fuck outta here. Castaway? Classic. The fat foreign guy in the airport? I call it Castaway: Airport. Classic. Sleepless in Seattle? He had panties creaming across the country. You've Got Mail? He had panties creaming across AOL. Philadelphia? He cured AIDS with that movie alone. Saving Private Ryan? Classic. He Knows You're Alone? You mean Tom Hanks: Afro Edition? CLASSIC. Splash? He fucked a mermaid. Classic. Forrest Gump? Tom Hanks plays mentally disabled better than actual mentally disabled people. Classic. Bachelor Party? Never seen it, don't need to, it's fuckin’ gold. The Man With One Red Shoe? Fuckin’ cinematic masterpiece. Turner and fucking Hooch? Tom Hanks > Ceasar Milan. Nothing in Common? Only movie that could be done better, honestly. More Tom Hanks is needed. The guy is fuckin’ Sheriff Woody. I'm not going on any more. Edit: I forgot the 2013 Dodge Dart was a thing.
Here's a ironic fact: It was never planned to even be related to the Mustang, in development it was originally just a FWD crossover coupe before they decided that it wouldn't be easy to market (i.e generic design doesn't sit well with Ford's executives or something) and decided to hit the roots that would help it sell well, which they selected the Mustang for their basis. Afterwards, they pretty much dressed it up with Mustang inspiration and that would later become what is now the Mustang Mach E. But even though I don't really like the vehicle myself, I can say that atleast it gives the attempt of recollecting the designs that make a Mustang and piling them into what was originally just a generic electric crossover. Others, such as the Blazer and Eclipse Cross, fall flat on their faces with how dissimilar they are from the originals, and as a result are scolded to this day for tainting their respective nameplates and not delivering on the promise of being worthwhile buys.
I forgot about the Eclipse Cross too. (And Mitsubishi Motors as a whole.) That goes up there with the Blazer and Dart. I have no idea how good the Mach-E’s going to be, but I’m excited for it nonetheless. I’m not a huge fan of the styling, and to be honest I’d much rather see an electric real Mustang (the “Mach-E” name would be really cool for that), but I’m glad Ford’s finally getting into the EV game.
Unibody off-roaders are shit, because unibody have several misunderstood flaws. 1. Perceived safety Modern cars are safer than classic cars, there're more modern cars using unibody and more classic cars using body-on-frame. Thus body-on-frame is preceived to be more dangerous than unibody just because more safer cars are using unibody(for lowering production costs). Also modern crash tests have weight-biased result. Since all vehicles are crashed to the solid, rigid wall. The heavier the vehicle, the worse the impact. Manufactures don't have to make lightweight cars very strong to get a good score, but must make heavy cars really strong to get a good score. Thus, in an actual accident, if two vehicles have the same crash test score, the body-on-frame have better occupant survivability. 2. Handling & comfort Unibody vehicles often believed to have better handing. Modern body-on-frame vehicles are often serious off-roaders and unibody vehicles only can do light off-roading. Serious off-roaders have higher ground clearance, so it's easier for them to tip over. Thus, if two vehicles have the same ground clearance, the body-on-frame vehicle has lower center-of-mass and less likely to flip over. Vice versa, if two vehicles have the same probability to tip over, the body-on-frame vehicle has higher grond clearance and more capable of off-roading. Body-on-frame vehicles are ofter preceived unconfort, due to the very same reason that most body-on-frame vehicles are serious off-roaders. Serious off-roaders usually have solid/live axle suspensions, which are uncomfortable on tarmac due to higher unsprung weight and bump steer. If two vehicles have the same suspension, the body-on-frame vehicle has better passenger comfort because most of the impact forces upon hitting a bump is absorbed by the frame. Spoiler: Copy-pasted form another vehicle forum "What in a vehicle was believed as a joke that is acturally useful as heck" Body-on-Frame. "Isn't frame only exist on a truck?" "Frame too big,occupy too much interior space" "Too heavy, a real gas guzzler" Until we went to a off-road driver experience centre with a group of friends. We really had lot of fun, the vehicle stucked and being winched by rescuers several times but we made it. A friend of mine was determined to drive his top-trim AWD Higherlander. As a result, the left rear door and the trunk are stuck after the off-roading. 3 comments "lack of vehicle rigidity, don't off-road in a crossover" "The body deformed" "Better safe than sorry"
Unibodies do in fact have marginally better handling, due to frame rigidity. Body on frame (From the crashes i've seen/been in) is almost the same as Unibody in a crash, but that's between two cars. Against a solid object (Building, tree, cement truck.) For some odd reason they don't hold up so well. Unibody is also lighter and cheaper, it's a step in the right direction but BOF will always have it's merits.
If you drive a D15 Pickup you often noticed the body flex that lowered handling, however the flex is elastic, the rigidity on a unibody are less likely to flex, however when they do flex, the deformation are oftern permanent. Also unibody has higher CoG than body-on-frame of the same class vehicle(already mentioned in #16951) The ETK1300 and the Off-road Roamer have the same probability of tipping over --- Post updated --- Ford should make two electric vehicles, a sport coupe/sedan that handles similiar to the Mustang, and a crossover that could do some sort of off-roading, instead of something in between like the mach-E.
I'm just going to stick a reminder here that the XJs and Grand Cherokees are all unibodys and not exactly bad off road.
Those are manufactured in a different way than modern crossovers. Those had frames underneath that were stamped into/welded (can't remember) to the floorpan of the car. New unibodies tend to use the hoops around the doors as the main structural component.
I'm certainly not saying that I'd take any modern cross over into an off road trail, just that the new Defender isn't necessarily bad off road just because it's a unibody.
I don't really know or care much about the new Defender because it is overpriced. They should have made it cheaper than $25,000 as a stripped base model and also a convertible should be available.
As far as I can tell it borrows a lot from the Range Rover, which is a $90k car. For reference, the G-wagon starts at almost $130k and the Land Cruiser at $85k. 2016 Defenders were also pricey. It's just how "luxury" SUV pricing is. There's buyers willing to pay that, so why water down their image with anything cheaper?
The old one was more Jeep than luxury SUV. There image to me used to be good offroaders, but recently they have been trying to appeal to the luxury mall crawlers market. I don't blame them for their decisions because thats where the money is, but having a cheap, capable entry level vehicle is what the Defender should have been IMO.
*laughs in ICE* You will never convince me that was not deliberate. Leave it to the Brits... The D15 is low key one of the most fun vehicles in the game to drive though. If the devs include a shortbody Custom Classic, now that would be a riot.
