Except this truck won’t get 33 MPG real world, just like all of the inflated full-size fuel economy numbers these days. Plus its fuel costs more.

The “surrounding empirical facts”? It’s a fantasy vehicle. Nothing it claims is overtly outrageous. It’s completely possible that Chrysler could have made a special limited-edition EFI 360 capable of ~250-260 HP. For example, Ford’s 302 in the F-150 made 185 HP, but the SVT Cobra 302 made 240 HP.

Eh, a lot of those features weren’t even novel in 2004. LandCruisers had had the locking axles forever. A a 1990 LS400 actually has a lot of those fancy “power” features (electric seatbelt adjust w/memory), full climate control, adjustable ride height and firmness suspension, advanced traction control, the mirror…

I really wouldn’t call the original XJ Cherokee or Grand Cherokees Crossovers. They were unibody.

The problem is “Crossover” and “SUV” are really synonymous these days. A true crossover was something like a 1st or 2nd Gen Rav 4. Now we have the “Crossover” label being put on everything - including 3 row monsters that are literally larger in every dimension (including weight) to a late 90's SUV.

The FuelEconomy.gov website calculates the annual cost difference for you, especially since the average American drives well over 12,000 miles a year. Also keep in mind to reach those fuel economy and power targets, the Ram 1500 requires mid-grade fuel. That substantially increases fuel costs.

$800/year is a a lot of…

Might want to check your numbers again. The Ram 4x4 gets 17 combined, the Ridgeline 21. That’s an extra $800/year in savings. I would be THRILLED if my employer gave me an $800 bonus every year. If $800/year doesn’t matter to you, then you must make far more money than I do.

Fuel economy isn’t a wash. It’s far better on the Ridgeline.

A Jeep Grand Cherokee is a crossover?

It really boggles my mind how much they’ve perverted the word crossover. A 2800 pound 1st Gen Rav4 is a crossover. A Subaru Crosstrek is a crossover.

The Toyota FZ engine in the LX450/FZJ80 has literally nothing in common with the “F” series engines used in the FJ40,50, 60 and FJ80 series.

Inline 6 engines are not inherently “smoother” than V6 engines. The Toyota F series and Jeep 4.0 are some of the worst “modern” engines I’ve experienced in terms of NVH. Both are I6 engines. Modern V6 engines are ridiculously smooth.

I just don’t get how these new 4 cyl mid sizers get such atrocious fuel economy. My ‘02 2.4L 5spd 2wd Tacoma gets an honest 28 MPG in mixed city and highway. My best tank in the summer has been 29 MPG, worst 26. In the winter it drops to 23-24 MPG with my studded tires, but still not bad.

A small, low hatchback is not the same thing as a giant jacked up box that’s bigger than a late 90s body-on-frame SUV.

Why do I want a jacked up wagon with worse driving dynamics, less space, worse fuel economy and higher cost? I mean really at this point, “CUVs” aren’t even CUVs. A 2019 Rav 4 is 3" wider and and 1" taller than a 2nd Generation Ford explorer, and about the same size as a 3rd Generation. There’s nothing “crossover”…

Just look at the packaging nightmare on the back of the motor. I bet you can’t service any of that emissions stuff with the cab of the truck still on.

Short answer: For average drivers, no. For people that beat on their cars: yes. You can build the hard parts to not break, but the cylinder pressures inside this engine will be extremely high. Rings and bearings will wear much faster at high loads.

Yeah it’s just you man. I could instantly tell he was being facetious and sarcastic.

It’s really a shame that Nintendo’s corporate overlords suck so hard, because their creative teams are amazing. Nintendo has become ridiculously anti-consumer and they just constantly shit on their fans.

The physics do not work like that. If anything, the outer tire cantilevering would add even more of a bending moment onto the bearing. Draw up a free body diagram and you’ll see what I mean.