Shifter - Page 4 - Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum

Go Back   Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum > Jeep Platform Discussion > Grand Cherokee SRT - WK2

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #37  
Old 03-02-2016, 10:44 AM
Illegal Machine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 134
Thanks: 22
Thanked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 1014
Illegal Machine is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by overlanding View Post
Foot on the brake, press the button on the shifter, push shifter forward 2 clicks. Done. Idiots.
Such idiots that the comany pulled the design after 2 model years.

HA!

Sounds legit.

__________________
Instagram: @illegal_machine
2003 Neon SRT-4: SOLD; 2005 Crossfire SRT-6: SOLD; 2006 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2012 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2010 C63 AMG: SOLD
Current: 2014 JGC SRT-8
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #38  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:33 PM
Doc V.'s Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Ultimate Limit of Traction
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Rep Power: 669
Doc V. is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

The Road & Track article dealing with the NHTSA's preliminary investigation about the monostable shifter does not carelessly slant the rationale for the investigation by noting that the monostable shifter is "terrible," "shitty," or "the 'Edsel' of shifters." In fact, the article places the focus on the driver: "while it may seem silly that drivers could be confused by the operation of an automatic transmission, the reality is that this shifter design operates differently enough to require more concentration than a traditional shifter. Folks who've been driving for years, who are used to the way a mechanical PRNDL shifter operates, probably don't think consciously about the act of shifting—it's the kind of act we've committed to muscle memory years ago." A vehicle responds to inputs initiated by the driver, and the inputs are made with the car's controls. The monostable shifter is unconventional for some, and as a result it makes the correct input of commands unintuitive for those drivers.

The United States Patent Application Publication for the polystable shifter found on 2016 Grand Cherokees contrasts the monostable and polystable shifters:

More and more vehicles are being equipped with electronic shifters ('e-shifters') to place the vehicle’s automatic transmission into a desired gear state. Electronic shifters can replace the traditional console mounted P-R-N D-L mechanical shift lever and are typically implemented as levers, which can be pushed up/down or sideways, and/or buttons to effect gear changes. The typical lever type electronic shifter returns to its original or home position after it has been manipulated by the driver. As such, there is typically an indication adjacent to the electronic shifter lever providing a gear position indicator to visually show the driver what gear the vehicle is in. A more recent development is to have a multi-position stable or poly-stable e-shifter that retains an actuator setting that represents a driver requested transmission gear state. With the poly-stable e-shifter, the shift lever can retain a manipulated position of the shift lever and, as such, is preferred by many drivers [my emphasis]. For example, when a center console mounted poly-stable e-shifter lever is manipulated to a position to place the transmission into a drive gear, the shift lever can maintain that position in-line with an indication of 'Drive' or 'D' on a center console surface.

Consequently, the claim that FCA abandoned the monostable shifter for the polystable shifter because the monostable shifter's design is "terrible" is no more than an unsubstantiated assertion--one which follows from a flawed inductive inference. There is more evidence to conclude that driver preference served as the significant motivation for the change.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 858
Thanks: 23
Thanked 97 Times in 73 Posts
Rep Power: 3205
Snipe315 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by overlanding View Post
Foot on the brake, press the button on the shifter, push shifter forward 2 clicks. Done. Idiots.
I agree with not understand why folks are failing to put the 2014/15 WK2 into PARK. When mine has failed to go into PARK, I notice it right away & just keep my foot on the brake & push the shifter all the way forward with more force.

Going from Drive to Park isn't my issue with this shifter. However I have a HUGE issue with how it transitions from DRIVE to REVERSE.

The so called "detents, notches, or clicks" you encounter when push the shifter forward suck. It is VERY easy to push too hard and end up in PARK instead of REVERSE. It is also possible to use too little force and end up in Neutral.

The incident "antsjeep" wrote about is a perfect example. He was driving and needed to put his WK2 into Reverse FAST, but used a "little too much" force and ended up in PARK. Has a result, his vehicle was damaged by someone backing out of a parking spot without looking.

And THAT is why the 2014/15 WK2 shifter is a POOR design. With a properly designed one (like the BMW), it is virtually impossible to end up in the wrong gear because you used too much force, or too little.
__________________
2015 WK2 Overland 4x4 V8, Granite Exterior/Black Interior, ORA II, Advance Tech Package, Rear Seat DVD/Blu-ray
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snipe315 For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #40  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:47 PM
Illegal Machine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 134
Thanks: 22
Thanked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 1014
Illegal Machine is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
Consequently, the claim that FCA abandoned the monostable shifter for the polystable shifter because the monostable shifter's design is "terrible" is no more than an unsubstantiated assertion--one which follows from a flawed inductive inference. There is more evidence to conclude that driver preference served as the significant motivation for the change.

The drivers prefer a non shitty shifter, and prefer their cars don't, on occasion, roll away. The NHTSA agrees.

FCA agrees, scrapping all of the time and money spent on R&D of the old shifter, spent more money desgning a new one, and promply threw it into production. All after only 2 model years.

There is no way. NO. WAY. FCA would rush a new shifter into production this quickly (as we approach the end of WK2 platorm no less!) if they felt the old shifter was acceptable.

If it was just user preference, they would have waited for the platform change.


USERS are responsible for failed GM ingition switches. They put lanierds and bundles of keys on their key rings. That doesn't mean the switch shutting off and killing people isn't a shitty design.
__________________
Instagram: @illegal_machine
2003 Neon SRT-4: SOLD; 2005 Crossfire SRT-6: SOLD; 2006 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2012 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2010 C63 AMG: SOLD
Current: 2014 JGC SRT-8
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:49 PM
Illegal Machine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 134
Thanks: 22
Thanked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 1014
Illegal Machine is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe315 View Post
I agree with not understand why folks are failing to put the 2014/15 WK2 into PARK. When mine has failed to go into PARK, I notice it right away & just keep my foot on the brake & push the shifter all the way forward with more force.

Going from Drive to Park isn't my issue with this shifter. However I have a HUGE issue with how it transitions from DRIVE to REVERSE.

The so called "detents, notches, or clicks" you encounter when push the shifter forward suck. It is VERY easy to push too hard and end up in PARK instead of REVERSE. It is also possible to use too little force and end up in Neutral.

The incident "antsjeep" wrote about is a perfect example. He was driving and needed to put his WK2 into Reverse FAST, but used a "little too much" force and ended up in PARK. Has a result, his vehicle was damaged by someone backing out of a parking spot without looking.

And THAT is why the 2014/15 WK2 shifter is a POOR design. With a properly designed one (like the BMW), it is virtually impossible to end up in the wrong gear because you used too much force, or too little.

BMW's is designed corectly now.

Before now though.....

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/20...y-when-parked/

Defect Investigations Results | Safercar.gov | NHTSA

"1 complaint and 46 field reports relating to either incidents of unattended vehicle rollaway or vehicle movement after the driver expected the vehicle gearshift to automatically shift to park. ODI's analysis of the data provided by BMW identified 14 crashes and 5 alleged injuries. ODI has also identified 3 additional reports in its database alleging vehicle rollaway incidents of which 2 resulted in crashes."
__________________
Instagram: @illegal_machine
2003 Neon SRT-4: SOLD; 2005 Crossfire SRT-6: SOLD; 2006 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2012 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2010 C63 AMG: SOLD
Current: 2014 JGC SRT-8
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:15 PM
Nitemare3219's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 340
Thanks: 1
Thanked 63 Times in 47 Posts
Rep Power: 867
Nitemare3219 is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
There is more evidence to conclude that driver preference served as the significant motivation for the change.
Driver preference? Right. Enough people would never complain about their preference to get a shifter design change mid-cycle, and even if they did, FCA would never do anything. Preference does not equate to drivers unintentionally crashing their vehicles due to the shitty design of the shifter. And the NHTSA clearly agrees. The shifter is obviously not "hard" to use - it's a damn lever that moves and returns to a centric position. But as stated, it is more "complicated" than a traditional mechanical shifter, requiring at the very least more attention to detail to ensure you end up in the desired gear, and that is why FCA has returned to that style. I shouldn't have to put any focus into what gear I am trying to select. All of my attention should be on where my vehicle is, and what is going on around me so that I can react if I need to. And in the parking lot incident, it makes panic shifting much more difficult - knowing you're about to get hit by another vehicle adds tons of stress and makes it much harder to do a simple task such as move a shifter lever, and the difficulty is further compounded because it's not a regular damn shifter.

I hope a recall gets done. I want the piece of garbage out of my Jeep.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nitemare3219 For This Useful Post:
  #43  
Old 03-03-2016, 09:44 AM
Doc V.'s Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Ultimate Limit of Traction
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Rep Power: 669
Doc V. is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illegal Machine View Post
The drivers prefer a non shitty shifter, and prefer their cars don't, on occasion, roll away. The NHTSA agrees.

FCA agrees, scrapping all of the time and money spent on R&D of the old shifter, spent more money desgning a new one, and promply threw it into production. All after only 2 model years.

There is no way. NO. WAY. FCA would rush a new shifter into production this quickly (as we approach the end of WK2 platorm no less!) if they felt the old shifter was acceptable.

If it was just user preference, they would have waited for the platform change.


USERS are responsible for failed GM ingition switches. They put lanierds and bundles of keys on their key rings. That doesn't mean the switch shutting off and killing people isn't a shitty design.
You're jumping to conclusions, Illegal Machine, without compelling evidence.

1. The NHTSA has launched an preliminary evaluation; the NHTSA has not concluded--at least at this point--that all "drivers of [2014-2015 Grand Cherokees] prefer a non shitty shifter."

2. You typically offers conclusions that beg the question: you assume that your conclusions are unquestionably irrefutable and require no evidence. Take the time and demonstrate with more than hearsay and supposition that "FCA agrees [that the monostable shifter is flawed], scrapping all of the time and money spent on R&D of the old shifter, spent more money desgning a new one, and promply threw it into production. If it was just user preference, they would have waited for the platform change.tion. All after only 2 model years." Show something constructive to prove that "if [shifter change] was just user preference, they would have waited for the platform change." You would have everyone believe that the 14 complaints and 306 vehicle incident reports that the NHTSA has received regarding the monstable shifter prompted FCA to abandon the ZF-designed monostable shifter. In fact, the NHTSA preliminary evaluation notes "that operation of the Monostable shifter is not intuitive and provides poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection" (see 2015 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE | Safercar | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)). In other words--and as I pointed out in a previous post, a "vehicle responds to inputs initiated by the driver, and the inputs are made with the car's controls. The monostable shifter is unconventional for some, and as a result it makes the correct input of commands unintuitive for those drivers." Nevertheless, you take exception with that point and with the NHTSA's initial evaluation, and you write your own story, Illegal Machine (one which is even more entertaining than the yarn that you spun about the the BMW X5 M serving as the "gold standard" of SUVs based on its 0-60 mph times), about defective design and corporate motivations. However, you've failed to write the story's best part, viz., the portion that provides objective evidence for your otherwise dogmatically rendered conclusions. Moreover, while you conclude that the transition from the monstable to the polystable shifter was prompted by the monostable shifter's compromised design, you're unwilling to consider other possible explantions: (i) the polystable shifter is simply easier to use for more drivers and therefore makes the Grand Cherokee line more attractive for more prospective buyers, or (ii) unlike the monstable shifter, the polystable shifter gives the driver the option of manual shift control through the shifter.

3. Your conclusions about the monostable shifter may be legit, Illegal Machine, but thus far you have not confirmed them with objective evidence.

The polystable shifter, Nitemare3219, is, like the monostable shifter, electronic, not mechanical. Like a non-synchromesh or sequential manual gearbox, the monostable gear selector requires an initial learning process, after which gear selection can become intuitive. However, the monostable shifter apparently is not intuitive for all users, who struggle to select gears appropriately given the manner in which the monstable shifter operates, and as a result those drivers are not satisfied with it. You even imply that you prefer a "regular damn shifter"--that is, you prefer a more conventionally designed shifter. Consequently, when you're in hazardous situation and are called upon to make a "panic shift," you'd like to have a conventional shifter at your disposal. (It would follow, of course, that when you're not in a hazardous situation, an unconventional shifter is "obviously not 'hard' to use."

You make your own case for driver preference, Nitemare3219.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-03-2016, 10:39 AM
Illegal Machine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 134
Thanks: 22
Thanked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 1014
Illegal Machine is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
You're jumping to conclusions, Illegal Machine, without compelling evidence.
Overwhelming hate for the shifter, an NHTSA investigation due to crashes and injuries tied directly to the shifter, FCA embroiled in recalls and fines, and an abrupt change inshifter mechanism 2 years into production and 1-2MY before the platform is completely retired isn't compelling?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
1. The NHTSA has launched an preliminary evaluation; the NHTSA has not concluded--at least at this point--that all "drivers of [2014-2015 Grand Cherokees] prefer a non shitty shifter."
They opened the investigation because customers think it's overwhelmingly good?

I feel like you've got another motive here, Doc.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
and you write your own story, Illegal Machine (one which is even more entertaining than the yarn that you spun about the the BMW X5 M serving as the "gold standard" of SUVs based on its 0-60 mph times),
OOPS! Showed your hand,there, Doc!

Did I upset you in that other thread?

I said the BMW X5M and X6M are the gold standards for performance SUV's.

0-60, 1/4 mile and every track test that I've seen it's participated in supports this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
you're unwilling to consider other possible explantions: (i) the polystable shifter is simply easier to use for more drivers and therefore makes the Grand Cherokee line more attractive for more prospective buyers, or (ii) unlike the monstable shifter, the polystable shifter gives the driver the option of manual shift control through the shifter.
*sigh*

A) GC sales have been steady.

B) If they change the shifter to incrase sales, that's an indictment of the design old shifter. Please read the drivel you're typing. You're insinuating that it literally it could be a make-or-break factor regarding purchasing the vehicle, then trying disagree with my comments in the same paragraph. Unbelievable.

C) If the previous shifter eliminated the manual shift through the shifter...that's an indictment of the design of the 14-15 shifter.

Thank you for helping me point out more issues with the shitty design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
3. Your conclusions about the monostable shifter may be legit, Illegal Machine, but thus far you have not confirmed them with objective evidence.
So legit that a well respected, well known Jeep insider IN THIS THREAD supported my arguent.

But what would he know?

HA!
__________________
Instagram: @illegal_machine
2003 Neon SRT-4: SOLD; 2005 Crossfire SRT-6: SOLD; 2006 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2012 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2010 C63 AMG: SOLD
Current: 2014 JGC SRT-8
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-04-2016, 09:17 AM
Doc V.'s Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Ultimate Limit of Traction
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Rep Power: 669
Doc V. is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

You persist in offering negligible, constructive evidence, Illegal Machine, preferring to rely instead on supposition, conjecture, and innuendo. You've even recently made reference to a unnamed "insider"--an addition which amounts to no more than a appeal to authority. That someone has actually challenged your superficial reasoning and emotive language is of particular annoyance for you, clearly.

Your position is straightforward, Illegal Machine. To explain the replacement of the monostable shifter with the polystable shifter, you assert that the monostable shifter is "shitty" since the NHTSA is currently investigating complaints associated with it. You add that the FCA would not have made the change if not for the investigation--particularly since an unnamed "Jeep insider" agrees with you, and since there's "overwhelming hate for the [monostable shifter]" (even though that claim amounts to no more that a hasty generalization, viz., another error in reasoning).

When the facts get in the way, you expend lots of energy rationalizing your disregard of them.

The NHTSA has logged 14 complaints and has reports of "306 incidents of vehicle rollaway following intended shifts to Park in the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee. These resulted in 117 alleged [my emphasis] crashes. Twenty-eight of the crashes reportedly [my emphasis] caused injuries...." The first NHTSA investigation was opened on 20 August 2015 and closed on 5 February 2016. A 3 February 2016 investigation is still open.

From 2014 to 2015, 10,124 Jeep SRTs were produced for the US market. If the 14 complaints and 306 incidents are combined and if the production totals for the 2014-2015 US model SRT are used as a sample of all of the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokees, then the compliants/incidents are associated with 3.16% of the sample. In other words, Illegal Machine, the alleged issues associated with the monostable shifter are linked to a very small percentage of the sample.

Consider, then, Illegal Machine, how that percentage changes when the total US sales numbers for the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee are used. For 2014, 183,786 Grand Cherokees were sold; for 2015, 195,958 were sold. 379,744 Grand Cherokees were sold in the US for the 2014-2015 model years, and the NHTSA has logged 320 complaints/incidents. Those complaints/incidents ared related to .084% of Grand Cherokee sales for 2014-2015.

You've tried to slant the NHTSA data to support your foregone conclusion that the monostable shifter is "shitty," Illegal Machine. You would have everyone believe that the extremely small percentage of NHTSA complaints/incidents (a fact which gets in the way of your question-begging conclusion) (i) proves that the monostable shifter is seriously flawed, and (ii) caused FCA to replace the monostable shifter with the polystable shifter. And while is admirable that you've tried to support your conclusion by adding a hasty generalization about the "overwhelming hate for the [monostable] shifter and by reasoning ad verecundiam, the only overwhelming feature in our debate is your sloppy thinking.

When and if the NHTSA forces the FCA to recall all 2014-2015 Grand Cherokees because of a "shitty" shifter, or when and if you uncover documentation that indicates that FCA abandoned the monostable shifter due to the shifter's flawed design, because of pressure from the NHTSA, or because of concerns over potential legal action, then your conclusion will have the constructive evidence that it so desperately needs. Currently, beyond the emotional appeal that you've worked so hard to generate for it, your argument is more amusing than it is rational.

As an aside, Illegal Machine, the BMW X5 M and X6 M are terrific vehicles. The performance of each, however, when evaluated with a sustained test--Nurburgring lap times--falls 20 seconds off the pace set by the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S. Even the Range Rover Sport SVR has posted a quicker Nurburgring lap time, taking 10 seconds from the BWWs. By this measure, Illegal Machine, the BMWs would serve (to use your metaphor) as the Bronze standard of performance SUVs.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-04-2016, 10:32 AM
Illegal Machine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 134
Thanks: 22
Thanked 46 Times in 31 Posts
Rep Power: 1014
Illegal Machine is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
You persist in offering negligible, constructive evidence, Illegal Machine, preferring to rely instead on supposition, conjecture, and innuendo. You've even recently made reference to a unnamed "insider"--an addition which amounts to no more than a appeal to authority. That someone has actually challenged your superficial reasoning and emotive language is of particular annoyance for you, clearly.

Your position is straightforward, Illegal Machine. To explain the replacement of the monostable shifter with the polystable shifter, you assert that the monostable shifter is "shitty" since the NHTSA is currently investigating complaints associated with it. You add that the FCA would not have made the change if not for the investigation--particularly since an unnamed "Jeep insider" agrees with you, and since there's "overwhelming hate for the [monostable shifter]" (even though that claim amounts to no more that a hasty generalization, viz., another error in reasoning).
If you didn't notice the source of major insider information on this message board (and several other Jeep message boards) posting in this thread, that's on you.

I certainly hope you, at least, KNOW who you're claiming isn't a reliable source of information........but you probably don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
When the facts get in the way, you expend lots of energy rationalizing your disregard of them.

The NHTSA has logged 14 complaints and has reports of "306 incidents of vehicle rollaway following intended shifts to Park in the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee. These resulted in 117 alleged [my emphasis] crashes. Twenty-eight of the crashes reportedly [my emphasis] caused injuries...." The first NHTSA investigation was opened on 20 August 2015 and closed on 5 February 2016. A 3 February 2016 investigation is still open.
All I can give you are facts:

NHTSA investigation (I should say YET ANOTHER investigation)

Terrible reviews from customers and press. (here's a funny link)

Today’s Rant: Gear shift in the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT | Drive, She Said

An abrupt change in shifter design from a company that is known for perpetually avoiding vehicle refreshes and design changes. The change coming 2 years into the design, and before the entire platform is scrapped.


If you think it's a coincidence....then I guess we agree to disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc V. View Post
As an aside, Illegal Machine, the BMW X5 M and X6 M are terrific vehicles. The performance of each, however, when evaluated with a sustained test--Nurburgring lap times--falls 20 seconds off the pace set by the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S. Even the Range Rover Sport SVR has posted a quicker Nurburgring lap time, taking 10 seconds from the BWWs. By this measure, Illegal Machine, the BMWs would serve (to use your metaphor) as the Bronze standard of performance SUVs.
Nurburgring times.....ha! Is it 2007?

The Porsche is VERY fast. Definitely #2 behind the BMW.

Motortrend beat the Turbo S with the X6M by 2 full seconds (and the SVR by 6 seconds). In fact, the X6M was faster than the M3 they tested on the same track.

The SVR is a joke. Randy Pobst (Motortrend) said there was NO WAY ON EARTH the SVR did that time on factory tires as they thought their test car was going to pull the tires off the rims under cornering. This is supported by it placing dead last (by a long shot) in their track testing.

Nurburgring times are wrought with manufacturer manipulation. It's common knowledge, (which is why many manufacturers stopped releasing offical numbers, and some don't go at all anymore), but I suppose you refuse to believe that until I get every auto manufacturer development and testing teams to pinky-swear with Jesus and record a taped confession while hooked up to a lie detector test, and injected with sodium pentathol.
__________________
Instagram: @illegal_machine
2003 Neon SRT-4: SOLD; 2005 Crossfire SRT-6: SOLD; 2006 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2012 300 SRT-8: SOLD; 2010 C63 AMG: SOLD
Current: 2014 JGC SRT-8
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:00 PM
Doc V.'s Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Ultimate Limit of Traction
Posts: 23
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Rep Power: 669
Doc V. is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

I understand, Illegal Machine.

You don't like the monostable shifter; therefore, it's "shitty." The NHTSA investigation focuses on .084% of all 2014-2015 Grand Cherokees, but that investigation is, in your way of thinking, sufficient to account for the replacement of the monostable shifter with the polystable shifter. There's "overwhelming" dislike of the monostable shifter, you claim, even though you can offer no proof of "overwhelming" dislike. The chicagonow.com "rant" doesn't offer any credible proof concerning the "overwhelming" dislike of the monostable shifter, but you believe that the "rant" serves as realistic proof for your position.

It's clear that you're confused about the pitfalls of reasoning ad verecundiam. The veracity of the source that, peculiarly, you won't name (but you hope that I and everyone who's interested in our debate know who that individual is) is immaterial. With a lack of constructive evidence to support your conclusions, you advocate a position (one apparently consistent with yours) attributed to another individual, haphazardly inferring that the conclusion that you're supporting is correct because someone else says so. Your methodology is flawed, Illegal Machine.

You could not have made it easier, Illegal Machine: the bait was easy to place, and your response was even easier to anticipate. I've already noted that you regularly exclude evidence which is inconsistent with the position that you're trying so diligently to support. Your reaction to my mention of Nurburgring lap times represents your approach to disconfirmatory evidence: you select the evidence which lends credence to your position and disregard any evidence with detracts from your position. (In this case and with a novel twist, you even resort to hyperbole.) You're an expert at special pleading, Illegal Machine. (Parenthetically, even though you're an authority on all things Nurburgring, where, I'm sure you realize, BMW, Porsche, et al., have their own testing facilities, you might want to research current Nurburgring lap times.)

Your methods, Illegal Machine, help you go wrong with confidence. I'm skeptical about your conclusions only because of the slipshod means that you have employed to produce ithem. After all, we can't let the Caped Crusader become the poster boy for sloppy thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:19 PM
Philthy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 552
Thanks: 214
Thanked 160 Times in 123 Posts
Rep Power: 2596
Philthy is on a distinguished road
Re: Shifter

Stfu


Sent from my iPhone using JeepGarage
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Philthy For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shifter cover for the 8-speed "T" shifter Rule62 Interior/Exterior/Visual/Lighting 4 12-02-2014 11:18 PM
Paddle Shifter Mod JETLIFE Visual Modifications 89 03-24-2013 11:32 AM
How to remove my shifter knob hydro899 Visual Modifications 9 08-27-2010 11:10 PM
T-Handle Challenger Shifter On Jeep BillsHoe Visual Modifications 20 06-15-2009 12:46 AM

» Premium Vendor Showcase
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 - JeepGarage.Org
The Jeep Grand Cherokee Owners Community

JeepGarage.org is in no way associated with or endorsed by FCA US LLC. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Mopar and SRT are registered trademarks of FCA US LLC.