Guess Forbes hates Wranglers...
#11
JK Super Freak
I want to see an off-road review of a Toyota Camry as done by Consumer Reports, or Forbes. Nevermind, they'd still find a way to give it pardon.
They may claim impartiality and that they test all vehicles the same, but it's really about which tests they use that promote certain brands and/or classes of vehicles. Smart people see right through it and toss it aside just like the sponsored garbage that most reviews are.
I'm not sure how a prescription to "avoid" something should come from nonconformity to mediocrity or even average statistics. But, if you need to be told how to spend your money, by all means, keep reading...
They may claim impartiality and that they test all vehicles the same, but it's really about which tests they use that promote certain brands and/or classes of vehicles. Smart people see right through it and toss it aside just like the sponsored garbage that most reviews are.
I'm not sure how a prescription to "avoid" something should come from nonconformity to mediocrity or even average statistics. But, if you need to be told how to spend your money, by all means, keep reading...
#12
JK Jedi Master
Here's a concept for Forbes (and Consumer's Union): Assume your readers have sufficient smarts to buy a vehicle suited for their intended use. That way you don't rate a Porsche for trailer hauling inadequacy--or a Jeep for comfort headed to a night on the town. And separate reliability into serious and nonsense. Taking it to the dealer for a cupholder that doesn't stay put shouldn't be treated the same as a failure that could leave your family stranded 100 miles into a wilderness trip. Not for a Jeep owner, anyway.
#13
I think it's probably fair. I mean a Jeep is a terrible vehicle for most people. It's very purpose built and not all that good at doing the things that the vast majority of consumers use their cars for. Sure, maybe the article should have a few more caveats, but if you're not off-roading, which 99% of the population doesn't, a Jeep is not the best choice of vehicle.
#14
JK Jedi Master
I think it's probably fair. I mean a Jeep is a terrible vehicle for most people. It's very purpose built and not all that good at doing the things that the vast majority of consumers use their cars for. Sure, maybe the article should have a few more caveats, but if you're not off-roading, which 99% of the population doesn't, a Jeep is not the best choice of vehicle.
#15
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beachside, FL
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old design...rough ride...slow...purpose built...lacks modern sophistication and technologies...not enough room to carry more stuff...
All things the Jeep Wrangler and the A-10 Warthog have in common. Both still kick ass
All things the Jeep Wrangler and the A-10 Warthog have in common. Both still kick ass
#16
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Nokesville, Va
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#17
I think it's probably fair. I mean a Jeep is a terrible vehicle for most people. It's very purpose built and not all that good at doing the things that the vast majority of consumers use their cars for. Sure, maybe the article should have a few more caveats, but if you're not off-roading, which 99% of the population doesn't, a Jeep is not the best choice of vehicle.
Many people have Jeeps because of the statement that driving a Jeep makes, or because they just like the iconic shape, or because they live in a climate or topography where a capable 4x4 makes the difference between being mobile or not, or for any other reason which is not offroading.
Whether you like it or not, the Wrangler is a highly capable mall-crawler...
The reality is that offroading is not the only criterion by which the Wrangler is evaluated by many of its buyers.
Most of the "bad" things one could say about Wranglers, apply to a Ferrari 458...
The Ferrari is really a terrible vehicle for most people. It has room for just one shoulder bag, inconvenient to get in or out of it, bad m.p.g., if parked next to a tall sidewalk you can't even open the door, and the list goes on.
The majority of Ferrari owners had never "offroaded" on a race track...
As a DD, a 2-seat Ferrari is much less practical than a Wrangler.
Why is the Ferrari 458 not on the 'cars to avoid' list? ...
Last edited by GJeep; 12-03-2014 at 03:36 AM.
#18
JK Jedi
I agree with the article 100% jeep JK wranglers suck and jeep wrangler unlimited JK's suck the most of all. I owned a 2013 sport unlimited and now own a 2014 Rubicon.....they suck my bank account right down. I have 20,000 miles on my 14 in 1 year and knock on wood no trips to the dealer yet. I had just over 20,000 on my 13 and no trips to the dealer with that one either. No watch mine probably will break down today.
#19
I agree with the article 100% jeep JK wranglers suck and jeep wrangler unlimited JK's suck the most of all. I owned a 2013 sport unlimited and now own a 2014 Rubicon.....they suck my bank account right down. I have 20,000 miles on my 14 in 1 year and knock on wood no trips to the dealer yet. I had just over 20,000 on my 13 and no trips to the dealer with that one either. No watch mine probably will break down today.
Ever hear of the expression "fool me once shame on you... Fool me twice shame on me"
Last edited by robsjeep9; 12-03-2014 at 09:33 AM.
#20
JK Super Freak
Here's a concept for Forbes (and Consumer's Union): Assume your readers have sufficient smarts to buy a vehicle suited for their intended use. That way you don't rate a Porsche for trailer hauling inadequacy--or a Jeep for comfort headed to a night on the town. And separate reliability into serious and nonsense. Taking it to the dealer for a cupholder that doesn't stay put shouldn't be treated the same as a failure that could leave your family stranded 100 miles into a wilderness trip. Not for a Jeep owner, anyway.
I'm so tired of seeing "poor reliability" ratings for things like the infotainment/voice recognition system having a few bugs.
Having an engine or transmission that's gone down the road for 200k miles without issue in the same or different vehicle apparently means nothing because it seems all the reporting industry looks at these days is the first 6-12 months of ownership where "20k miles" is deemed a "long term study".
Vehicles are slapped with categorical nonsense like "worst picks of 2014" or "Top 10 vehicles to avoid" or "poor reliability" because a few owners reported that the vehicle's infotainment doesn't always run the Pandora app in conjunction with their cell phone when they want it to. Who the f*ck cares, that's not going to leave you cold and stranded in a snowstorm or on the side of a busy interstate.