Blake Noble

I wouldn't be suprised if the sixth-gen Camaro is more second-gen based than first-gen based overall. Considering that the next-generation pony cars (with the exception of the 2015 Challenger, which will embrace its role as the lone muscle coupe in America) are going to be smaller and lighter in order to make them more palatable to European buyers, it's sort of fitting. The second-gen Camaro drew heavily from contemporary European sports cars and it, quite arguably, felt somewhat European early on in its day. I don't think it'll be a blatant throwback, but then again the current Camaro isn't really either.

We've been hearing this, off and on, for some time now. I have a feeling someone might be crying wolf. Considering what Fiat has planned for Alfa, and that VW can barely manage essentially what is its own Alfa Romeo — a Spanish brand known as SEAT — pardon me if I have to say something here smells a little funny.

I'm not terribly overwhelmed by the new EcoTec 5.3 and I don't expect to be that impressed by the new 4.3 and the 6.2 either. Today's full-sized truck market moves too fast for a company to introduce a truck that just slightly eeks out its competition. While GM may be the last of the Big Three to have recently rolled out a completely redesigned pickup, they're also the first considering that the next-generation F-150 and Ram are just over the horizon. Either way, it doesn't look good on the new Sierra and Silverado, I'm afraid there's a very real prospect of both the Ram and Ford leaving the 2014 Sierra and Silverado behind once they debut. These trucks would have been excellent back in 2008 or 2009; they're what the GMT-900s should have been. But in 2013? Not so much, I'm afraid. GM may have go for broke with the mid-cycle enhancement for these two.

Happy belated birthday.

Uh ... okayyyy then. Consider my jimmies rustled. Imma just leave this right'chere. Granted, the Tru140S is a little better executed than the Eclipse, but a rubber duck is still a rubber duck (especially when it's yellow). In some form, yep.

I'm still feeling lukewarm about the revised front fascia and taillights, however I do see this in the shape of the taillights (not the details): If you're looking for a hint — if there is one — as to where the Alpha F6 Camaro may be headed in this revision, I'd say this is that hint.

I'm not a huge fan of the new front fascia, nor the taillights. I understand that designers are wanting to pursue new themes and advance the old ones, but that has to be a gradual thing, and you walk a fine line when you try to start doing that with an exsisting model. This MCE doesn't come across as cohesive nor very clean to me. It seems a little rushed, a little messy.

If you'll notice, some of the new press shots for the KL Cherokee Limited show heavily tinted healight clusters versus those Chrysler released previously. Consider that a light form of damage control, since the stacked light arrangement has been one of the main sources of negative opinion for the KL. I wouldn't be suprised if the KL becomes a little more conservative for its mid-cycle refresh. For those of you who are quick to point out that it seems there are a fair amount of people who actually approve of the design, consider this for a moment: a majority of people who drank New Coke in the '80s actually liked the taste of the new formula, but it only took a relative minority of traditionalists to get the company to change the formula back to Coke Classic in just a short amount of time. Keep the KL on your radar; it's still a pivotal introduction for Chrysler and it still has yet to prove itself. Changing gears for a moment, since it seems that HMTL embedding of YouTube Videos has been disabled 'round here, here are two links to two YouTube videos showcasing the Trailhawk model off-road: , . Like I said previously, the KL's off-road capabilities may prove to possibly match those of the Land Rover LR2/Freelander, but they certainly will pale in comparison to what the old XJ could do. Don't just take my word for it, though. Watch the videos and judge for yourself.

Just for the record, that's how that last bit should've read. I don't know if GM's 8-speed box is from ZF or Alsin, although considering what dwight posted about the ratio spread, he's probably right about it being from Alsin.

The information and subsequent rumorpile circulating around Chrysler's upcoming D-segment cars are both so horribly confusing it's honestly difficult to get a good grasp on what's going on. From what I can discern, the likelihood of a few new rear-drive D-segment cars from Chrysler is quite good. After all, the upcoming Alfa Romeo Guilia is supposed to be rear-drive and that certainly opens up an opportunity for Chrysler to use it's platform for a new 200. From what I've heard, if the Guilia is rear-drive, the platform would share a few common hardpoints with CUSW (read: Dart) to keep costs low. Technically, this would make a theoretical next-generation 200 Dart-based even if it were rear-drive. The SRT Cuda may also use this platform, if it isn't just a rumor.

There are a few different versions of the ZF 8HP 8-Speed that I know of, each designed to handle different torque ratings. Chrysler uses the ZF 8HP45 with the 3.6 liter Pentastar V6 — or, to be more specific, the 845RE, which is a Chrysler-specific version of the 8HP45 with revised internals and a larger oil pan. The 845RE is designed to handle somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 lb-ft. of torque, and the 8HP45 handles up to 450 lb-ft. As the Hemi-equipped Chrysler Group models ditch the old W5A580/NAG1 five-speed auto and the 65RFE six-speed automatic, those models will recieve the ZF 8HP70, which can handle torque ratings in the ball park of 700 lb-ft. The Hemi-powered 2013 Rams and 2014 Grand Cherokee already have the 8HP70; the Challenger will have it (as well as the 845RE for 3.6 liter models) when it is redesigned on its new LA platform for 2015, and the Charger and 300 will have it when they are refreshed in the very near future. The 8HP70 is also essentially the same transmission used in the new Land Rover Range Rover and BMW 7-Series. Considering the new TT GM 3.6 liter V6 is producing 430 lb-ft. of torque, the ZF transmission used here may either be the ZF 8HP45 similar to what Chrysler uses, or the ZF 8HP55 as seen in various Audis. Just my guess.

meanwhile at chrysler ...

Am I the only one that's a little irked that we're just now seeing an eight-speed automatic from Cadillac?

These were all design studies from a third-year transportation design student, but somehow I find them pretty interesting. As for the new 200 being Dart-based, I'm actually hearing conflicting reports on that. Some reports point to it being CUSW-based, others point to it being based on a new rear-drive D-segment platform.

That's pretty much one reason why the Patriot has consistently outsold the Compass — it looks like a Jeep. It wasn't until the 2011 refresh the Compass actually began to keep a steady pace almost equal to the Patriot. Exactly-So when you put the name cherokee on something, it should like a jeep, not art..... Took the words right out of my mouth. I will make one guilty admission about the new Cherokee, though. I see one heritage cue in the entire design and I sort of appreciate its interpretation. That kinked seven-slot grille was sort of there on the earlier XJs and the YJ Wrangler. That element on its own would be fine if the surrounding details on the KL were better and more traditional.

Sadly, as absurd and backward as that might sound, there will be folks out there who will see the KL as justification to further bloat the price of a decent XJ. There will also be people dumb enough to buy one, too. Trashed examples with 200,000 miles plus can still bring over a solid grand where I'm at, which I think is completely asinine. You would think that because people still buy XJs in such poor condition, someone running Jeep would notice and go, "Hmmm ... maybe we should start building a cheap and capable steel-roofed Jeep again." It doesn't have to be as capable as the JK and JK Unlimited. The XJ wasn't as capable as the contemporary YJ and TJ Wranglers of its era, either. I'm going to play armchair CEO here for a few minutes, so bear with me. If Jeep were being lead by someone smart enough to actually manage the brand, they would recognize the distinct need for three platforms to be used within the brand: one that could support efficient crossovers like the MK twins and the KL Cherokee; one that could support capable flagship models like the Grand Cherokee and upcoming Wagoneer; and one that could support capable traditional models like the Wrangler and a "new" new Cherokee. The idea isn't worlds away from what is currently unfolding at Jeep. Use Fiat-sourced platforms for the crossovers so that there's a decent scale of economy at work. CUSW is fine, but at least modify the suspension and powertrain (I think CUSW can be easily modified to accept rear-drive with a little work) hardware to be worthy of the Jeep brand. Like I've said before, there isn't anything wrong with an "efficient" Jeep — hell, that was the name of the game with the original XJ. Develop and improve the capabilities of the next-generation WK2 platform (Grand Cherokee/Wagoneer) to exceed that of a Range Rover while also focusing on making it supple and luxurious. Also, share it to build a (less capable) SUV or two for Ram or Dodge (i.e. Durango), and maybe even a new smaller Ram truck. Finally, make the next-generation Wrangler architecture flexible enough to support the Wrangler, a new J10 truck, and a new Cherokee (the 2009 Trailhawk concept was based on the JK Unlimited, so it isn't a far-fetched idea, either). Since it would be a Jeep-exclusive platform, this would be the best way to get decent "mileage" out of the platform. The recent Moab 2012 concepts show that the Wrangler platform has potential to support more than just an open-top off-roader. It's not that hard to do, really.

I believe the 9HP will also be in the KL Liberty and the Dart very soon.

That's pretty much one reason why the Patriot has consistently outsold the Compass — it looks like a Jeep. It wasn't until the 2011 refresh the Compass actually began to keep a steady pace almost equal to the Patriot.

It will probably be a FWD/AWD CUV based on the Fiat 500... Well, considering Mike Manley has said that sometime down the road the Wrangler may change to a unibody platform, that sadly may not be too far from the truth. I will be vocal about Manley; he is a tried-and-true marketing guy and his statements about Jeep tend to show that he's either slightly ignorant about the core values of the brand or simply doesn't care about them. At the end of the day, he seems to only care about maximizing profits. That's all well and good, sure, but when the decisions you make alienate your core enthusiasts, it ultimately will not reflect well on the brand. I like to think the brand's sustainability is due in part to dedicated Jeepers over the years showing to their friends and family how rugged and durable their Jeeps were. If you turn those buyers away — if those essential buyers aren't recommending Jeeps, talking about Jeeps, and buying Jeeps — then the brand will eventually start to wither. Chrysler and Marchionne needs to promote a long-time Jeep engineer to the position of Jeep CEO. That's the remedy to the situation: shiit-can Manley and put someone in charge who has been a dedicated Jeep engineer for 30 years. For the most part, marketing guys simply do not understand cars, let alone something like a Jeep. Hell, most of the time they can barely sell a car they've been tasked to design a campaign for. Someone like that does not need to be in charge of managing a brand.

Okay, after that lengthy tirade, I will say something positive: if Jeep was aiming for the Land Rover LR2/Freelander with the KL, they may stand to come within a decent striking distance with it with the all-wheel drive models. We'll see.

To be fair here, the Compass and Patriot will essentially be "merged" into one model for 2015, so with the introduction of the KL Cherokee you're not really gaining a third crossover going forward. There will be one entry-level compact crossover and one mid-range mid-sized crossover from this point on. The next-generation Compass — which may or may not keep that name, considering Marchionne seems to have a thing for "heritage" names — is interesting in the fact that I've heard that it may actually retain a more traditional Jeep-like appearance similar to the current Patriot. I'm taking a skeptic's approach here considering how the KL Cherokee turned out versus what I had heard; it's not that the rumors were necessarily wrong mind you, just the descriptions didn't equal up to what I had pictured at all. Of course, there won't be any added capability for the NG Compass, not that it's really a big deal here. Personally, the real issue I have with the new KL Cherokee isn't the pretentious styling or even the fact it's essentially a Dart wagon clad in hiking boots and packing a little something extra in its pants (read: a jacked-up Dart wagon with a transfer case). It's the name I take issue with. With the KL you seem to have a certain three-way split between those who outright loathe the damn thing: you have one camp who hates it because it doesn't look like a Jeep; you have one camp who hates it because it doesn't function like a Jeep; and you have the last camp who hates it because it shouldn't wear Cherokee badges. While I do agree with the first two camps, I'm firmly in the last one, as are a lot of people who dislike it. If Marchionne, Manley and company decided to brand the KL with a new name, such as Renegade or Jeepster, or even kept the Liberty name, I tend to think fewer people would be inclined to even so much as bat an eye at it. You'd have a few folks bemoaning its appearance and front-drive platform, but everyone would move on pretty quick. No one would care so much; I would've cared maybe a little less. The Cherokee name, however, carries lofty expectations and generally good connotations. The XJ is known for being rugged, efficient, and dependable. When XJs were new, they were also fairly inexpensive. It checks off the correct boxes, especially for a Jeep. It also didn't take long for people to start saying, "Man, I wish Jeep still made the old Cherokee," after Wolfganag Bernhard and those peons from Daimler pulled the plug on the XJ and botched the hell out of the KJ Liberty. Dedicated Jeepers and fair weather buyers who may have had an old Cherokee or two alike have all but outright begged Jeep to bring back the Cherokee for almost a decade now. The KL is a rather insulting answer to many of those people. That's where most of the disappointment stems from, I think. I don't think anyone, myself included, expected Jeep to literally dust off the tooling and dies and build XJs again, but I know I expected something that would've been a modern equivalent to the XJ that would've at least exceeded the KK Liberty in capability and value. Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I have no issue with Jeep building a soft-roader or two so that it can pay the bills to keep developing more hardcore and traditional models like the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee. It's a necessary evil for an SUV-focused brand given the current political climate, federal standards, and market conditions here in America. Even Hummer would've had to cave in to this too somehow if it continued (which is actually why I'm glad GM pulled the plug). However, for those in charge of the Jeep brand to allow that necessary evil to further permeate and dilute the core values of the brand, while seemingly perverting the history of the brand, is concerning at the very least. With the introduction of the KL, it is becoming clear that those in charge at Jeep now seem to be tending to focus less on making all models adhere to one strict "Trail Rated" standard. Instead, there will be more lax model-specific standards. It's also clear now that completely respecting the associations and heritage behind a heritage name isn't really a priority if it might add an extra sale or two. Like I said before, the KL is the one vehicle that could stand to make or break Jeep and could stand to have a significant effect on Chrysler as a whole if it doesn't pan out as expected. This is the model to keep watch on. Marchionne said previously on 60 Minutes that Chrysler could afford to completely screw one car up. If this is that car, then whatever comes out afterwards will have to atone for the KL's mistakes, as melodramatic as that might sound.

The KL is CUSW (read: Dart) based, so base models will be front-wheel drive and probably feature some variation of the Tigershark four-cylinder, I believe. Upmarket versions will feature the 3.2 liter version of the Pentastar six, and will be all-wheel drive. I've heard from one source the all-wheel drive models may feature some form of an actual transfer case.

Yep, it airs in the UK Sunday nights, and it's already available for viewing in other countries through other means. smk is right, there are two episodes left in a two part special. Anyway, I really wish the embedded XCar video would work. The crew working on those videos are doing excellent work.

Sorry, guys. I've been busier with class and work than I anticipated. Bringing what photography and audio equipment I have up to speed is on the top of my to-do list.