1986 Jeep Grand Wagoneer Base Sport Utility 4-door 5.9l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Updated 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee ace same controversial moose test it failed in 2012 [w/video]

Some background: one of the more scandalous international incidents of he-said/he-said from 2012 was when Swedish magazine Teknikens Varld put the Jeep Grand Cherokee through its "moose (or elk) test" and reported that the SUV nearly rolled over. That lead to a whole lot of accusations and rebuttals: more than one website and Chrysler's own blog reported that the Jeep was overloaded; Chrysler said Teknikens printed the magazine then let Chrysler respond, Teknikens answered all of the charges in a lengthy post and said Chrysler was given a chance to comment before it went to print; when Chrysler sent investigators to oversee the test and the Jeep didn't go up on two wheels as it did in the first test, furthermore all four wheels stayed on the ground when Auto Motor und Sport tested a Grand Cherokee in the same way.
Teknikens then re-ran the test with a new vehicle and said it's been doing this test since the 1970s, uses the loading information that Chrysler provides to the Swedish motor authority and the previous Grand Cherokee passed with no problem. In the second test, the Jeep failed again, then it gave Chrysler engineers access to the car's electronics and ran the test again. In that second round the Grand Cherokee didn't repeat the lurid two-wheel action, but in eleven runs it blew out front left tire seven times. Chrysler still objects to the results of all of those tests and maintains that vehicle was safe.
The 2014 Grand Cherokee was given its shot at the gauntlet in the latest round of moose tests, and Teknikens Varld reports that it passed without any problem at all, its stability control working perfectly, controlling motion at low speeds and all the way up to 44.1 miles per hour. You can watch the video of the new test and read the press release from the magazine on the updated Grand Cherokee below.

In Michigan, car hackers could face life imprisonment

Car hackers may not want to mess with vehicles in and around the Motor City. A pair of Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would punish anyone who infiltrates a vehicle's electronic systems with penalties as harsh as life imprisonment. Senate bill 927 says that "a person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully destroy, damage, impair, alter or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle." Offenders will be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for any number of years up to life in prison. The proposed legislation is one of the first attempts nationally to address the consequences for car hacking, which has become a top concern throughout the auto industry. Critics have accused executives of being slow to respond to the threats, which were first known as long as six years ago but gained attention last July when a pair of researchers remotely controlled a Jeep Cherokee. In January, the industry established an Information Sharing and Analysis Center to collectively evaluate security measures and counter breaches. But the Michigan bill isn't noteworthy only because of the life penalty prescribed; it's noteworthy for what's missing in its details. Language in the bill doesn't delineate between independent cyber-security researchers and criminals who intend to inflict harm or havoc. Under its provisions, it's possible Charlie Miller, pictured below, and Chris Valasek, the researchers who demonstrated last summer that the Cherokee could be remotely commandeered and controlled, could face life behind bars. Provisions of the legislation that prevent a person from "altering" the motor vehicle could ensnare car enthusiasts or gearheads who tinker with electronic systems to boost performance, increase fuel efficiency or add aftermarket features. In that context, Senate Bill 927 seems like the latest measure in a running feud between independent researchers, gearheads and big automakers. Car companies don't like third parties poking around their electronic systems and would prefer the researchers not reveal security weaknesses. Researchers, on the other hand, say many carmakers are either slow to fix or unwilling to repair security holes unless they're able to publish their findings.

2020 Land Rover Defender vs. 2020 Jeep Wrangler: How they compare on paper

For ages, the Jeep Wrangler has had the serious off-road SUV market in America all to itself, especially when it comes to two-door variants. But competition is coming, and the first on its way is the 2020 Land Rover Defender, which was just revealed at the Frankfurt Motor Show. Each packages retro looks and impressive off-road capability, but does one have an advantage? We decided to take a look into each SUV's specifications and compare them on their engines, drivetrains, interior space and towing among other things, to see how they stack up. Since both SUVs are offered in two-door and four-door versions, we've made sure to feature both versions. You can find all the vital stats in the chart below, followed by more in-depth analysis. Engines and drivetrains The Land Rover is the clear high-performance option of these two SUVs. Its base turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, offered only in the four-door Defender 110, is more powerful than either of the gas engines offered on the Jeep Wrangler. The Wrangler's four-cylinder matches it on torque, at least. The optional turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six in the Defender makes over 100 more horsepower and pound-feet of torque than either Jeep gas engine. But if you're looking for diesel propulsion, along with its associated torque and fuel economy, the Wrangler will be your only option. Final specs haven't been released, but in the Ram 1500, the same engine makes 260 horsepower and 480 pound-feet of torque. Fuel economy hasn't been announced for the Land Rover or the diesel Wrangler. But if fuel economy is a concern, the four-cylinder Wrangler is the most frugal of the SUVs we have numbers on. As for transmissions, the Wrangler is your only choice if you have to have a manual. It's available on both the two-door and four-door models, but only with the V6 engine. If you don't mind an automatic transmission, both SUVs come with variations on the ZF eight-speed auto. Getting the power to the wheels is another area where these two SUVs diverge. The Jeep is very traditional with a standard selectable four-wheel-drive system with two-wheel drive, and low- and high-range four-wheel drive modes. On the Sahara, there's an available full-time four-wheel drive mode, but the other modes are still available. On the Land Rover, you get full-time four-wheel drive, the same kind used on the Land Rover Range Rover.