Controversial Vehicle Opinions

[89 MJ]

I'm not talking about opinions that most of us have, I want to hear some controversial automotive opinions that even those here might not agree with. Back this opinion up with reasoning too. That said, keep it civil, feel free to debate, but avoid arguing. Per the usual, keep politics and religion out of it too.

 

I'll start with an opinion that I have that is a pretty wild one:

 

The AMC and Jeep 4.0 is a boat anchor. The fuel economy is ok at best, it is not powerful and does not make as much low end torque as people say that it does (off idle, it is nowhere near that of the 258 AMC), its not terribly easy to work on, they leak, they aren't as tough as everyone thinks they are, and they aren't smooth (compared to its carbureted predecessor, the 258). The next time either my MJ or Eagle needs an engine, they aren't getting AMC 6 cyls.

 

 

Now for some less crazy ones:

 

Modern cars are so safe that they're dangerous. Lane keep assist, automatic braking, adaptive cruise control, etc. just enable the driver to be distracted while driving. 

 

99% of people do not need a 4x4 or a pickup. 99% of my winter driving experience has been split between my Eagle on worn out all terrains and my dad's plow trucks on all terrains. Aside from plowing snow, I don't think I've used 4wd more than 5 times. The Eagle and one of the plow trucks didn't even have ABS and I have never been stuck (I got close when plowing snow once, but that was me getting greedy, no fault to any of the vehicles there). Same story with trucks. How often do you really see a pickup with stuff in the bed? 

 

A truck with a bed less than 6' in length is a car. Darn near anything you can fit in that bed would fit in the trunk of a car or back of an SUV. There's no point for that. 

 

AC, power steering, power brakes, power locks, and power windows should go back to being options. Vehicles without those were perfectly drivable 50 years ago, they would be just as drivable today and would let people buy cheaper cars. 

[eaglescout526]

Dang. Some hot takes here ya know hahaha. 
 

My favorite one is that electric cars are environmentally friendly despite the god awful lithium mining operations and that that battery style is prone to fires. 

[89 MJ]

6 minutes ago, eaglescout526 said:

My favorite one is that electric cars are environmentally friendly despite the god awful lithium mining operations and that that battery style is prone to fires. 

Add on top of the fact that they're basically disposable because of the price of a battery when they go bad and the battery recycling process isn't good either, I'll stick with my old stuff

[coheed]

Small 4 cylinder diesels should be significantly more available than they are in the US. Most people don't need top end HP, they need torque to get up and go in traffic. They're usually way better on fuel too. My MK6 Golf averaged about 40 doing almost completely city driving.

[89 MJ]

14 minutes ago, coheed said:

Small 4 cylinder diesels should be significantly more available than they are in the US. Most people don't need top end HP, they need torque to get up and go in traffic. They're usually way better on fuel too. My MK6 Golf averaged about 40 doing almost completely city driving.

Yes! I'd love to see small 4 cyl diesels in most vehicles. 

[derf]

2 hours ago, coheed said:

Small 4 cylinder diesels should be significantly more available than they are in the US. Most people don't need top end HP, they need torque to get up and go in traffic. They're usually way better on fuel too. My MK6 Golf averaged about 40 doing almost completely city driving.

 

2 hours ago, 89 MJ said:

Yes! I'd love to see small 4 cyl diesels in most vehicles. 

I definitely like the 3.0 EcoDiesel in my Wrangler.

 

And, while the 4.0 is a couple of generations old at this point and it needed a complete overhaul, it is way better than the 3.8 and 3.6.  Want to talk about no low end torque.  You'd call the 4.0 a beast after driving those engines.

[derf]

Also, 90% of the people who own pickup trucks don't need or use them as trucks.  At all.  Everything they claim they need a truck for they can do in a station wagon or crossover.  Or a minivan for that matter 

[89 MJ]

16 minutes ago, derf said:

 

I definitely like the 3.0 EcoDiesel in my Wrangler.

 

And, while the 4.0 is a couple of generations old at this point and it needed a complete overhaul, it is way better than the 3.8 and 3.6.  Want to talk about no low end torque.  You'd call the 4.0 a beast after driving those engines.

Oh yeah, I don’t care for those 3.6s either. Never driven a 3.8. 
 

7 minutes ago, derf said:

Also, 90% of the people who own pickup trucks don't need or use them as trucks.  At all.  Everything they claim they need a truck for they can do in a station wagon or crossover.  Or a minivan for that matter 

Exactly! Trucks are for towing and hauling level things. Wagons and vans are for the majority of the work. 

[pizzaman09]

The 4.0L is an ok engine.  I've found the Renix powered ones in the 2 Comanches I've had to be far smoother than the one in my parents 97 Grand Cherokee.  

 

My hot takes, 90s cars were the peak of automotive development.  Quality was generally very good, engine management had been perfected with reliable ignition and excellent fuel injection but the rest of the vehicle didn't become a rolling computer.  Also interiors were well laid out with real dedicated buttons for everything.  90s vehicles are relatively easy to repair too. 

 

Minivans are the most practical vehicle for most people.  Fully enclosed storage space big enough to swallow 4x8 sheets, of which very few modern pickups and no SUVs can handle.  Hold lots of people, get pretty good fuel economy, and they are comfortable.  I'm not sure why nobody makes a luxury minivan in the theme of say a Denali or King Ranch.  

 

People think they need 4x4 for winter driving.  Actually what they need is good snow tires.  I live in the snowbelt and have never drive an AWD vehicle in the winter.  Currently my winter daily is a 99 BMW M3, it has 4 inches of ground clearance, is RWD with an LSD.  I plow snow with it and embarrass lots of AWD vehicles with the wrong tires.

[89 MJ]

9 minutes ago, pizzaman09 said:

The 4.0L is an ok engine.  I've found the Renix powered ones in the 2 Comanches I've had to be far smoother than the one in my parents 97 Grand Cherokee.  

 

My hot takes, 90s cars were the peak of automotive development.  Quality was generally very good, engine management had been perfected with reliable ignition and excellent fuel injection but the rest of the vehicle didn't become a rolling computer.  Also interiors were well laid out with real dedicated buttons for everything.  90s vehicles are relatively easy to repair too. 

 

Minivans are the most practical vehicle for most people.  Fully enclosed storage space big enough to swallow 4x8 sheets, of which very few modern pickups and no SUVs can handle.  Hold lots of people, get pretty good fuel economy, and they are comfortable.  I'm not sure why nobody makes a luxury minivan in the theme of say a Denali or King Ranch.  

 

People think they need 4x4 for winter driving.  Actually what they need is good snow tires.  I live in the snowbelt and have never drive an AWD vehicle in the winter.  Currently my winter daily is a 99 BMW M3, it has 4 inches of ground clearance, is RWD with an LSD.  I plow snow with it and embarrass lots of AWD vehicles with the wrong tires.

I generally agree. 90s have all the amenities you want, without the screens and complications. Easy enough to work on and still good economy. 
 

@Pete M would for sure agree on the minivan thing. They can do everything most people use trucks for. 
 

Tires always make a world of difference. 

[AnotherOldJeepGuy]

4 hours ago, 89 MJ said:

A truck with a bed less than 6' in length is a car.

Agreed!

[Pete M]

my SUV can absolutely handle 4x8s    I don't even need straps, I just screw them down.

 

 

I do miss my minivan  

[White_Comanche]

People in General: ***Buy NEW*** WAY TOO MUCH.

 

What is this pattern really from? A status symbol? A honey-do-need? Or people just completely oblivious to their extreme cost and/or financial situation?

 

Case in point... all these HUGH "computers on wheels" we see.  $50K to $80,000 is not uncommon... and they are EVERYWHERE it seems.

 

Can ALL these people really be affording such an extremely priced vehicle?

 

**************

 

ARGUMENT >>>

•  Buying New is no longer achievable for most Americans.

•  Also, there is great value in getting into the right vehicle, and sticking with it.

[89 MJ]

2 minutes ago, White_Comanche said:

 

People in General: ***Buy NEW*** WAY TOO MUCH.

 

What is this pattern really from? A status symbol? A honey-do-need? Or people just completely oblivious to their extreme cost and/or financial situation?

 

Case in point... all these HUGH "computers on wheels" we see.  $50K to $80,000 is not uncommon... and they are EVERYWHERE it seems.

 

Can ALL these people really be affording such an extremely priced vehicle?

 

**************

 

ARGUMENT >>>

•  Buying New is no longer achievable for most Americans.

•  Also, there is great value in getting into the right vehicle, and sticking with it.

 

Yet they keep buying new anyways. I think you’re right with it being a status thing. 
 

There is definitely great value in sticking with a vehicle that works for you. I have some that work for me, and I’ve driven plenty of stuff that doesn’t. 

[derf]

2 hours ago, White_Comanche said:

People in General: ***Buy NEW*** WAY TOO MUCH.

 

What is this pattern really from? A status symbol? A honey-do-need? Or people just completely oblivious to their extreme cost and/or financial situation?

 

Case in point... all these HUGH "computers on wheels" we see.  $50K to $80,000 is not uncommon... and they are EVERYWHERE it seems.

 

Can ALL these people really be affording such an extremely priced vehicle?

 

**************

 

ARGUMENT >>>

•  Buying New is no longer achievable for most Americans.

•  Also, there is great value in getting into the right vehicle, and sticking with it.

People will get an 8 year loan on a car just to buy new.  And then in 3 years they want to trade it in and they're upside down but they roll it all into the next loan, paying stupid interest rates.

 

They also lease, which can lower your monthly payment but you don't actually own the car so you're stuck with a payment every month for the rest of your life.

 

My folks would buy new with a 3 year loan.  When they paid it off they'd keep setting aside the payment money into savings.  After about 8 years and 100K miles the car was done (60s and 70s cars, into the 80s).  But they had a bundle to put down on their next car.  So they could have a nice car with a low payment for only 3 years.

 

These days, cars last longer.  It's not hard to get 200K miles out of a car.  So it's easier to bank some money after it's paid off and have a good down payment.  But that's 15 years or so and you have to accept having an old car for years.

[DirtyComanche]

8 hours ago, 89 MJ said:

A truck with a bed less than 6' in length is a car. Darn near anything you can fit in that bed would fit in the trunk of a car or back of an SUV. There's no point for that. 

Sure, but it's a lot easier to load a 2 yards of gravel into a truck bed.  And honestly a lot easier to get it back out.