Why doesn't anyone make a 2-door full size SUV anymore? The last one was the Tahoe in 1999. The Bronco was discontinued after 1996, the 2-door Yukon after 1997, and I'm not sure when the Ram Charger was cut. All three of the major American Automobile manufacturers had one and now there's none.

They're perfect for me and I would buy one immediately if anyone would build one. I like 2 door Blazers but they are too small and I want a full size for towing and a V8. The 4 door full sizes are just too long for me and look like giant stationwagons. The full size pickups are nice but I don't need a bed. The ones with no cab and a short bed are the perfect lenth but I need some back seats. Does anyone share my pain?

 

I too would be in line for a 2-Door full size Bronco, if available. Heck, I would even be in line for a 2-Door Explorer.

 

The reason why nobody still makes them is slow sales. During Bronco's last year of production (1996) Ford sold only 25,000 of them. That's nothing compard with 300,000 Expeditions in 1997.

 

yeah, but i still want one too lol

im actually thinking of getting a nice Bronco II to go with my Mustang II

 

The slow sales were probably due to practicality issues with these unique trucks. The Broncos and Tahoes were lucky to get 16 MPG on the freeway. People were willing to accept the poor gas mileage if they could either pack a bunch of people in the 4-door versions or move a lot of material in the pick-up versions. The 2-door just weren't worth the tradeoff. They were both gone when the redesigned took place in 1997 for Ford and 2000 for GM which featured more efficient engines.

But now Chrysler uses 'Displacement on Demand' in some V8's. This shuts off 4 cylinders seemlessly when cruising and can up the highway MPG a few. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Ford and GM have versions of this technology as well. Employing this may make people want to get back into a 2-door full size SUV. It definately would for me. My V6 Maxima rarely gets a tank over 20 MPG. Anyone know which vehicles use this kind of technology currently?

 

The Chevy Impalla SS uses this Where it switches from 8 to 4 cyl. depending on the load. They claim 28 MPG on the highway with the V8.

 

Yeah, I looked into it a little bit. GM calls it 'Displacement on Demand' or 'DOD' and it is used in their 5.3 V8 and has been used in the Trailblaver, Envoy, and the above mentioned Impala SS. It will be used in the 2007 Tahoe. I'm not sure if it is in the existing Tahoes or other GM trucks.

Chrysler calls their system 'Multi-Displacement System' or 'MPS' and they are using it in the Hemi V8. Its currently in the 300C and Jeep Grand Cherokee as well as others I'm sure.

Does Ford use any system like this yet? If not, they better get on it or they will be left behind in this excellent technology.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. This technology may make the 2-door full size SUV a little less impractical.

 

Didn't Cadillac used that in the late 1970s/ early 1980s and it proved to be one of the worst engines that ever came from GM?

 

'Readers who remember the 1980s will recall this isn't GM's first rodeo with cylinder deactivation. That first happened at Cadillac with the 8-6-4 engine, which was roundly criticized for its service record and its poor vibration (NVH) characteristics. The old adage of once bitten, twice shy applies here not only to potential LH6 customers, but also to the folks at GM working to make Gen IV the best engine architecture yet. GM's Meagher quickly points out the lessons learned: "I worked on the V-8-6-4 earlier in my career and [the LH6 is] the same idea. The key difference is the control system configuration. The key part of it that makes the transition imperceptible is electronic throttle control. Once the computer determines operating conditions are met to enable DOD, it uses engine vacuum as an indicator of customer power demand. When the computer decides to disable four cylinders, it calculates where the throttle needs to go such that the torque will be equal when you end up with four cylinders."

With the different modes of cylinder deactivation in the Cadillac 8-6-4, there was a dramatic change in NVH, and a corresponding difference in throttle response and exhaust tone. All of these were deemed unacceptable in a luxury car, and at the end of the day, the improved vehicle economy wasn't capable of offsetting the loss of comfort and power. In one sense, the failure of the Cadillac was a windfall to DOD engineers because the design obstacles had been clearly defined years ago.'

http://superchevy.com/technical/engines_dr...s/0405sc_gmdod/

 

More interesting reading on the subject:

http://www.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_chrysler_...lacement_system