First, they are synonyms, check a thesaurus. Dictionaries are not the same thing. Maybe look up synonym.

As for the practical, the fact that it meets certain needs does not make it a general practical vehicle. I know a guy who owns a F350 and does hotshot work, that doesn't mean Ford was trying to make the vehicle practical, as defined. An F350 is not a good choice to get groceries.

At one point I was driving through 15" deep (or more) fast moving water several times a day, on poorly maintained rig access roads. If you think home access roads are poor try a temporary road made to last no more than a few weeks. We aren't talking about something you are going to be visiting for the next thirty years, the concern is the next three weeks till virtual abandonment. The Wrangler was a great choice for me (and you), but that hardly makes it a practical vehicle. The question as posed was whether Chrysler meant for the vehicle to be practical, and the answer to that is no.

 

You don't call the ride rough? Have you driven many vehicles? The ride is not excessively brutal, but compared to an average model year vehicle the JK rides like shit. I don't mind it - but hop in a new Grand Cherokee or a Lexus sedan or even a Civic, and after seeing what is possible and commonly sold - tell me the JK doesn't ride rough. Solid axles mean a rough ride.

Why is a sports car impractical if the Wrangler is not? A 2 door convertible can drive over 99.999% of the roads in the city where it is driven. It can get all the groceries you could need, etc. The only thing it can't do is ride trails. If you don't want to ride trails, that makes a Miata as practical as a Wrangler.

 

I have had a couple sports cars, and loved them. But while many people work in a city, some choose to live in the country. A Miata would not have got me to work on the public roads I live on just a couple days ago. Nothing but 4wd with some clearance (or a snowmobile) was getting down those for at least 24 hours when the plows finally show up.

In addition, when the spring thaws come our gravel roads are a soupy, potholed mess for awhile. They cannot be graded until the frost is out. Most vehicles without good suspension travel, decent sized tires, and a real frame end up being a pile of rattling junk in a few short years on such roads.

My JK takes all these conditions in stride. It is more nimble and fun than my pickup or my wifes Tahoe and in the summer I can pull the top off. It does not even get that much worse mpg. So I sold my sports cars. The Jeep is now my do it all toy and many times a year, pretty practical too.

I have to disagree riding trails is the only thing that can make a Wrangler more practical than a car.

 

Yes, please look up synonym. "Sensible" and "Practical" cannot be interchanged in context. They are not synonyms. Thesauruses are dangerous ... they are supposed to be used to spark connections but are in fact usually used by lousy writers to expand apparent vocabulary. The result is gibberish. The main thing most people should use thesauruses for is playing that game where you follow the "synonyms" until you find an antonym -- that can be fun.

Your statement is correct. Your approach is wrong.

Basically all cars sold in the US are practical in general. They carry life-sized humans at necessary speeds, stop when the brakes are applied, most vehicle miles are traveled solo or with one passenger and most vehicles can carry at least two people. That's generally practical for you. In fact vehicle designs are legally constrained so it isn't even legal to sell truly impactical cars. Oh, some are better than others, and some are definitely not sensible choices, but manufacturers aren't allowed to sell vehicles that are truly impractical.

However, even though they are generally practical they may fail for special cases (e.g. a sports car is fine for general use but fails if you have to carry five kids).

Since general practicality is the default, the specific approach should be negative. It is practical unless it cannot meet a need I have.

It succeeds. It also offers a broad range that makes it practical for other uses too. It may not be sensible for people with the funds for multiple vehicles.

Sounds practical to me.

I think you are trying to overthink this.

Day before yesterday I was out driving along dry stream beds and up and down steep hills (plus over some rocks). No pictures (bummer) but it was fun.

Yesterday morning:



That's snow on top of sandy mud and slush from previous snowfall. Not very much at that point, but it could as easily have been more. There were hills, too, and the trailer was loaded. No, it wasn't snowing in Dallas yesterday morning (as far as I know).

After about 30 hours in the vehicle, and 1500 miles, towing a loaded trailer... this afternoon I went out and bought groceries using the same jeep.

Tomorrow I may get in that same jeep and drive to work.

Economical? Hell no...I think I've spent close to $400 for fuel in the past week... but very practical.

As far as I know, I was using my jeep for exactly the things Chrysler designed it for. So Chrysler designed it and it is practical. Are you saying they succeeded by accident?

As for ride and the like... having just spent about 26 of the last 30 hours behind the wheel, I think the ride is fine. It's better than most sports cars, worse than most luxury cars. It's fairly quiet too. With the freedom top and a hands-free adapter I had no trouble carrying on an extended phone call while cruising 70 and towing a trailer (well, not up any steep hills obviously). I've driven quieter/better riding vehicles (including my old LR Disco I with solid axles) but I've driven a LOT of worse vehicles too.

 

Probably not practical since the majority of people don't see the appeal of a Wrangler. I just got my JKU a few weeks ago and I have four kids.... To me the JKU is absolutely practical for my purposes but if it were supposed to be "practical" there would be more people out there driving JKUs.

I've always been a Jeep person, just had to get rid of my first one after I had my second daughter. Not enough room in the YJ for a rear facing infant car seat.

I must share that I have had dozens of "jealous, Minivan/SUV Moms" rave about how much they love my new Jeep. Do they love the JKU enough to own one? Highly unlikely. They wouldn't find it to be a practical vehicle.

 

I don't think most people buy a jeep ( wranglers cj's, jk's, jku's) with practical in mind. They buy them with the spirit of adventure that comes with them. Just knowing you can go places most can't.
That said I think the jku was developed to be more practical and appeal to a larger group than the smaller jk and earlier predecessors and still carry the spirit within. Face it the Grand Cherokee does have more soccer mom written on it. Even though it is a capable off roader. In my situation the jku was a more practical choice than my old ride. My old 1500 ext cab was a pain to maneuver in the city (Chicago) and most parking lots. Gas mi. was I never really haul that much but I did sleep in the bed a few times. ( high topper and used for camping.) Now I have one daughter and gaining two more kids when my GF moves in.( two are 16 her youngest is 5) so a 4 door is good with a car seat.
So there are some practical reasons for my choice but not all my reasons were practical as I think it was and will be intended

 

Nope, not practicle, just fun!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twbr4J80fJ0

 

One has to define the term "practical".

For example, if practical means being able to drive anywhere I need to, in any weather, then it's certainly practical.

A 2 door may not be practical for a large family. Hell, anything short of 10 passenger van may be impractical for that family.

"Practical" is defined by the needs of the individual user.

 

I don't think so I think JKU's were meant for people who like to carry more stuff around.

The JK is pretty practical for me though, I only drive 3 miles to work/school and back don't really carry people or things.

 

x2 ... and i have the same rescue green as this guy too...
must give him a shout...