The lost article

[Omar Brannstrom]

It was removed, the http://expeditionportal.com/guilty-pleasures-for-the-purist/

I have this text

"Bringing up the rear for the duration of our trip was the Rubicon Unlimited powered by Chrysler’s Pentastar 3.6L V6 driving the 5-speed automatic gearbox. I absolutely hate this combination. The engine is a total dog and it’s only made worse by the slush box. Not only is it a dog but it’s the kind of lazy dog that won’t hunt and is a complete chow hound. This engine is never happy"

Why was it it removed?

 

[Presto88]

I don't understand. I just looked at your linked article and the text you are talking about is still in there.

 

[toddz69]

I don't understand. I just looked at your linked article and the text you are talking about is still in there.

It was indeed gone when the original posted his note earlier today. It's back now. Perhaps a site glitch of some sort?

Todd Z.

 

[GetOutThere]

Personally I think the portal could do without articles like that.

The writer took 3 highly modified one off vehicles and proceeded to quote his own biased opinions on those modified vehicles as facts about the original vehicle.

The article did not review the stock vehicles, occasionally gave an only slightly formulated opinion on this or that piece of gear, and accomplished nothing in the end.

What was even the purpose of the article?

The whole thing came off as a self aggrandizing rant about things that aren't the things he specifically chooses, without factual backing.

 

[Plannerman]

I couldn't even finish the article...


Sent via fat thumb

 

[EMrider]

Personally I think the portal could do without articles like that.

The writer took 3 highly modified one off vehicles and proceeded to quote his own biased opinions on those modified vehicles as facts about the original vehicle.

The article did not review the stock vehicles, occasionally gave an only slightly formulated opinion on this or that piece of gear, and accomplished nothing in the end.

What was even the purpose of the article?

The whole thing came off as a self aggrandizing rant about things that aren't the things he specifically chooses, without factual backing.

Highly modified vehicles?

My reading was that all three were largely unmodified.

These comparisons are useful and interesting, but the article came across as a typical rant that anything new pales in comparison with the good old days.......whenever that might have been.

R

 

[Christophe Noel]

Gentlemen,

As the editor of ExPo I have to extend my apologies with regard to that piece. In retrospect we realized we didn't give a fair shake to the Front Runner JK as it had not received the full scope of modifications it was intended to receive. Those modifications would have complimented the alterations in place on the other vehicles for a more balanced evaluation.

Again, my apologies. We will make the appropriate corrections and start again.

Christophe Noel

 

[Plannerman]

Highly modified vehicles?

My reading was that all three were largely unmodified.

These comparisons are useful and interesting, but the article came across as a typical rant that anything new pales in comparison with the good old days.......whenever that might have been.

R

EMRider,

Thanks for pointing this out; you helped me put my finger on something here. I think this could be the real differential between the high quality, objective reviews we find in publications such as OJ and the Internet at large. And this trend seems to be infecting The ExPo forum more and more. Mr. Editor, I feel it would be much appreciated if you could curb this trend in ExPo's official articles.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Mr. Editor, I feel it would be much appreciated if you could curb this trend in ExPo's official articles.

I fully embrace my responsibility to foster editorials that are as educated and objective as possible. I think for the last couple of years, we have largely maintained that objective. If something stinks, we diplomatically say it stinks. If something is deserving of praise, we offer that as well. We always refrain from poison-pen articles as they're simply not necessary. This particular piece embodies Jack's passion for overlanding and probably sounds a bit more harsh than what you may have read prior. To your point, most of the people to write OJ pieces are the same to scribe ExPo pieces, so there is continuity there. This was a slightly different piece for us and your feedback is well noted.

As ExPo grows and refines itself you should know there is an increasing effort to spend more time, energy, and resources towards providing our readers with the best content we can produce with an authoritative and genuine voice. You -- deserve it. I made a misstep with this piece. I own it. Will do better.

 

[EMrider]

I fully embrace my responsibility to foster editorials that are as educated and objective as possible. I think for the last couple of years, we have largely maintained that objective. If something stinks, we diplomatically say it stinks. If something is deserving of praise, we offer that as well. We always refrain from poison-pen articles as they're simply not necessary. This particular piece embodies Jack's passion for overlanding and probably sounds a bit more harsh than what you may have read prior. To your point, most of the people to write OJ pieces are the same to scribe ExPo pieces, so there is continuity there. This was a slightly different piece for us and your feedback is well noted.

As ExPo grows and refines itself you should know there is an increasing effort to spend more time, energy, and resources towards providing our readers with the best content we can produce with an authoritative and genuine voice. You -- deserve it. I made a misstep with this piece. I own it. Will do better.

I clearly missed the vehicle mod details and read assuming these were all basically stock vehicles.

The nostalgia that so often comes across for the good old days, when everything was presumably better, usually undermines credibility in my view. IMHO, rarely is the old stuff better, when all aspects of a product are considered (in this case maybe reliability, safety, value, range, etc......).

Thanks for commenting. I do think it was a well done piece overall.

R

 

[Christophe Noel]

I think as a team, everyone at Overland International fully appreciates cutting edge and "classic kit" almost equally. We're just as apt to marvel at satellite communications as we are a vintage truck, or old hunk of retro-gear. While we appreciate things of a certain era, often well outside the last decade, we understand our position in the industry and still need to feature, if not embrace, the new advancements coming out every year.

 

[GetOutThere]

Gentlemen,

As the editor of ExPo I have to extend my apologies with regard to that piece. In retrospect we realized we didn't give a fair shake to the Front Runner JK as it had not received the full scope of modifications it was intended to receive. Those modifications would have complimented the alterations in place on the other vehicles for a more balanced evaluation.

Again, my apologies. We will make the appropriate corrections and start again.

Christophe Noel

Well that post is like a refreshing beer after a really hot day.

I will admit I definitely took exception to that article and was vocal about it both in this thread and in the article comment section, where I posted JK vs 4runner engine facts and specs. I have never (not once) felt this way about an article in OJ or on Expo, and it worried me a little. Your response and action, however, are exactly the calibre I have come to expect (and respect) out of the staff/contributors.

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

 

[Plannerman]

Well that post is like a refreshing beer after a really hot day.

I will admit I definitely took exception to that article and was vocal about it both in this thread and in the article comment section, where I posted JK vs 4runner engine facts and specs. I have never (not once) felt this way about an article in OJ or on Expo, and it worried me a little. Your response and action, however, are exactly the calibre I have come to expect (and respect) out of the staff/contributors.

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

X2


Sent via fat thumb

 

[Omar Brannstrom]

Hi

I wrote this to the article

Discussion on Expedition Portal

Guilty Pleasures for the Purist


HasseH• 2 days ago

Hi from Sweden

Very intresting article and a good one.

I had a 2012 2 door Wrangler with Pentastar and now I have a 2013 Rubicon unlimited with the Pentastar. I dont have so much to compare with, I only had a Suzuki Jimny before with a 1.3 liters engine so the Wrangler have hugh and sometimes scary power and I have read that the Pentastar have about the same power as old small V8.

I keep my Wrangler light and stock and it feels like a sportcar. I only do maybe 4 days camping but I have light stuff in my Wrangler.

Maybe 6 years ago my Sisters son and me test drove a new Landrower Defender 2 door and we booth found it would not be worth to uppgrade to a Defender compared to my Suzuki Jimny with 1.3 liters engine. They were rather similar.

The Author say that the Pentastar is a slug, maybe that is thru?, but compared to what? I have driven a Defender and that is a slug, but I have not tested it in terrain. I see that the Author have a Defender with 300T di engine and it has 111 hp, and 195 lb/ft (264N/m) compared to the Pentastar with 285 HP and has about 265 lb/ft (359 N/m). But the power is at the lower band with the defender as it is a Diesel. The Toyota 70 series do not sell in US or in Europa. It is a very basic vehicle and I like it because it has a snorkel, duel tanks, and and duel batteries, and a snorkel as standard.

This guy says that the suspension is rough on the 70 series and that the engine have low power?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Anyway, I thought about a Defender first, but it lacks airbags, no automatic, to high for my garage, cost maybe 10 000 dollars more than a Rubicon here in Sweden. I dont like diesel sounds= tractor. Defender looks better than a Rubicon and hauls more. Landrover should bring us a Defender with theres 3 liters supercharged Petrol engine (that Discovery has) that has alot of more power than the pentastar and bring us airbags and NAV with detailed maps and other normal standard stuffs at low price

From the author

"Bringing up the rear for the duration of our trip was the Rubicon Unlimited powered by Chrysler's Pentastar 3.6L V6 driving the 5-speed automatic gearbox. I absolutely hate this combination. The engine is a total dog and it's only made worse by the slush box. Not only is it a dog but it's the kind of lazy dog that won't hunt and is a complete chow hound. This engine is never happy. It searches for a powerband which must be a sine wave and it's either lugging or over-revving in nearly all conditions. It produces 285 hp at 6,400 rpm. Does that sound right for off-road use? It's not. Maybe that's because this engine was designed for the Dodge Challenger, Charger, Chrysler 300, Grand Caravan and countless other street-only vehicles. The terrible performance behavior of the Pentastar 3.6 is only masked in low range by the JK's superbly geared transfer case. Fuel economy is atrocious for an engine of that size"

 

[discotdi]

I sure would like to read this article for myself rather than having it edited out of existence. What gives? It's like the Chinese Internet, edited for your protection.