Anyways, I don't know if this is blasphemy or not but new

A friend of mine had a Jeep and it swallowed three valves at just over 100 k miles. She says, and I agree, that JEEP stands for Just Empty Every Pocket. IMHO these care are overpriced, over weight and over hyped.

>>14015546
People will pay for image - the same people you see owning these jeeps new will rarely take them offroad.

>>14015546
Its the parent company. They're trying to gain themselves some prestige since selling bare bones Wranglers isn't making their bottom line. If you look at their newest line up you can see they're trying to become a seller of entry level luxury mall cruisers, and prices are slowly creeping upwards on everything.

You're not going to get a new one without dropping a lot of cash. Unless you had a dealer in the family or something, then you could probably work something out.

>>14015556
Buddy has 200k+ miles on his 07 Commander, and the only thing that went wrong with it was a bad PCM and some firmware issue disabling 4 low. Apparently transfer cases could blow out or something. Getting Jeep to fix that was a huge pain in the ass, and every single Jeep dealer we went to refused to even look at it to reflash the firmware unless they did a $100 diagnostic first. As far as I'm concerned thats really fucking unreasonable, and if thats some sort of corporate policy then its a huge mark against the brand.

>>14015546

Jeep buyers spend an astronomical amount on accessories, they know this. For years Jeep has been the most profitable division of FCA.

Demand has never dropped on Jeeps so you will never really find a Wrangler on sale unless it's a manual stripper new or used.

When I went to buy my 05 Liberty the dealer initially wanted 6500, I watched him sit on it for months because it was a stick. Meanwhile the autos that came in were gone in weeks. I eventually got it for 4500 because people are too pussy to shift their own gears.

LS swap incoming because I know what is going to happen when I hit 175k miles, I'm at 165k now

I just priced SUVs, they are all up.

I had a 5.7 Jeep Grand Cherokee in 2006, cost ~36,000. Comparable one today is 55,000.

I had a Porsche Cayenne GTS in 2009, was about ~75,000. Comparable one today is over 100,000USD.

Inflation? Better economy? SUVs just gaining more popularity again? I'm not really sure.

>>14015546
I've been complaining about this same thing for years. The Renegade costs a ridiculous amount of money. I thought the 26k Trailhawk would be absolutely top of the line for that price, but you can option that goddamn thing over 30,000 dollars. Same with the Cherokee. The WK2 is probably the most reasonably priced Jeep.
>I had all 5 windows on my Tundra professionally tinted for $200.
Because the tint you got and the tint Jeep gets is different.

Used wranglers are very overpriced too. We're talking about $7000 for a rusty high mile unit. guess I'll stick with my rust free $3000 Blazer.

I live in a “wealthy” area in Scottsdale, AZ, and I have noticed that less and less people own Range Rover’s, and more people own Wranglers now. There’s a reason for this, because JK’s are so expensive, they’ve become a “status” symbol. I can’t tell you how many soccer moms I’ve seen in lifted wrangler in wealthy areas. I’ve personally seen prices for used lifted Jeep’s exceed $65K, which is an absurd amount for an SUV in this class.

Id go with a Toyota 4Runner or FJ Cruiser, for the simple fact that they’re more reliable, cheaper, and will still take you everywhere the Jeep will take you. Don’t get me wrong, a lifted JK can be an absolute monster on the trails, taking you anywhere you could ever want to go. But, they’re just not worth the money unless you’re a hardcore offroader,

>>14016000
I think it's SUV's getting popular, they are the "luxurious" land-barge fad of the 70s all over again so automakers sell em at luxury prices.

You can't say inflation/economy when you can buy a mirage for like 10k brand new.

Why do you want a Jeep with options? It should have the most powerful engine and shortest gears. That's it. They are milking the mall crawler crowd and why shouldn't they?

>>14016487
>Used wranglers are very overpriced too.
They don't really deprecate in price like a normal car does.
They're like Subaru WRXs, there's often no point in buying a used one because a new one is almost the same price imo.

>>14018132
>Why do you want a Jeep with options?
Because there is a certain level of equipment you should have in a 36,000 dollar car, today.

Bought a 78 Bronco that is arguably better than a new Wrangler off road, and it cost 1/10 of the price.

all jeeps are overpriced. they always have been.

you cant even get a stock tj from the 90s for less than 8k

>>14018244

This guy has the right idea, when I'm looking to replace either my patriot or liberty with a newer jeep (yeah, yeah I know) I'll need either a wrangler or grand Cherokee for towing purposes.

And I'm buying new, I now qualify for 0.9% interest

>>14015660
So basically, they've seen what Land Rover is doing and are trying to grab a slice of the same pie?

>>14019136
They have a long way to go if trying to compete with LR imo

File: comparison.png (150KB, 1671x870px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1671x870px

>>14018089
>Toyota
>cheaper

Toyota arguably suffers from a worse price inflation than Jeep does. Yes, Jeeps have horrid build quality, but if every single vehicle that rolled out of the factory was a lemon, the Wrangler wouldn't have nearly the resale value it does. Pic very related: new MSRPs for 4Runners and FJ Cruisers START ~$10k higher than base level Wranglers; they only compare in price after ~5-10 years when they've dropped more in value.

The argument seems to be that Wranglers are treated as luxury mall-crawlers, which is true to a certain extent. However, used Land Rovers and G-Wagons have a horrid price dive after a few years of use, whereas Wranglers can still stay above ~50% original retail value for 10 or 15 years.
Face it, the only "cheap" Toyotas are 20-year old 4Runners that are "200k miles and still running like new!" on Craigslist. You could buy an equally shitty Wrangler with that money, the only difference being more of the Wranglers will have been hooned to shit (which is easy to tell by looking at the owner). The old AMC-sourced engines on pre-2007 Wranglers are still great, though, so I don't know why everyone on /o/ likes to apply more recent problems like death wobble to every model year that existed before it.

File: 1447399474969.gif (479KB, 434x444px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 434x444px

>>14018132
Have you looked at new cars lately? Basic options are hidden in massive packages these days.
>oh you want tow mirrors? I know you already have the tow package for this truck but these are extra!
>It's only a 1,500 dollar package though
>btw it also requires this completely unrelated package that's twice as much :^)
Fucking GMC is the only company that isn't doing this shit right now.

>>14015546
>I'd never consider buying a vehicle that doesn't have power windows and door locks.

Why are you on /o/

>>14021083
Yeah, 4Runners are more expensive. I remember them being high even 10 years ago. 4Runners compare better to Grand Cherokees in features than they do Wranglers imo.

>>14021538
Yeah that pisses me off.

>>14021083
>Pic very related: new MSRPs for 4Runners and FJ Cruisers START ~$10k higher than base level Wranglers; they only compare in price after ~5-10 years when they've dropped more in value.
Because both of those cars have more standard equipment.

>>14022148
I haven't done recent ones, and I'm not the Anon who said that, but when I compared a Grand Cherokee and a 4Runner a few years back .. by the time I optioned them both out to be pretty similar the Toyota was significantly more money and with a smaller engine.

>>14015546
Jeep ain't what it used to be. If you want a real Jeep, but an old flat fender.

>>14022316
Jeep vehicles are far better than they ever were.

>>14022317
>using unreliable chrysler engines
>just a badge now that doesn't mean anything
Yeah ok.

>>14022322
>not having open differentials
>not having the weakest axles they could find
>not having underpowered and unreliable garbage engines
Face it, your Jeeps of old were pure trash.

>>14022328
>implying modern jeeps don't have open differentials
>implying modern jeeps don't have weak axles
>implying the AMC 4L I6 and 2.5 I4 are unreliable
Wrong on all counts, buck-o

>>14022333
>having a car with 190hp in 2015
>even considering one with less than 130hp as a viable option

>>14022344
What are you talking about? A CJ isn't powerful enough for what? They aren't freeway cars, they aren't for racing. They're for cruising around town and hitting the trails. You don't need 500hp for that you idiot.

>>14022333
>implying modern jeeps don't have open differentials
Sure but lockers are actually available, now, and the cars with open diffs have traction control.
>implying modern jeeps don't have weak axles
They stopped using the D35.
>implying the AMC 4L I6 and 2.5 I4 are unreliable
They last a long time but they're trash and require constant maintenance. Also the 2.5 is widely regarded as being shit.

Yeah they're way fucking overpriced. I would never own a new one. I'm happy with my 1999 TJ.

The power windows and such as an option, I can believe that. You have to understand where Jeep's come from to understand why that stuff is optional. Historically they're tough offroad vehicles that you peel the doors off of and toss in a ditch. Chryslers fault really, they went with half measures on the newer ones. They either should have stayed completely rugged, or gone fully to soccer mom tier vehicles. But they're stuck in a weird halfway zone of luxury and ruggedness that makes no fucking sense. And it's become an image thing, unfortunately. That's why you almost never see newer ones with the top and doors off. It's too rough on their baby soft skin to use the damn thing like it should be used.

>>14015660
God forbid they get paid to figure out what's wrong with your car before just doing what some retard on the forum told you to do.

>>14022389
>Historically they're tough offroad vehicles
I wouldn't say that.

File: yotsuba_says_no_by_pardner.jpg (107KB, 818x479px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 818x479px

>>14022372
>AMC 242
>constant maintenance
Literally all you have to do is not let it get hot.

>>14022344
>>having a car with 190hp in 2015
And 220 ft-ibs of torque. That's fucking plenty for a sub-3000 pound vehicle. My cherokee does 0-60 in 9-10 seconds which is more than enough for any regular driving.

>>14015546
Youre paying for a name, and a jeep is a jeep man they are the absolute best 4x4 off the showroom floor in their price range. Youre going to pay that much because thats what everyone is willing to pay

>>14022591
>they are the absolute best 4x4 off the showroom floor in their price range.
No

>>14022593
Yes, yes they are.

>>14022598
Not at all. You have to pay 40 grand for one with lockers that's comparably equipped and smaller to something else like the 4Runner.

>>14022598
no

-4runner
-xterra pro-4x
-fj cruiser
-shit loads of pickup trucks

>>14022622
>-shit loads of pickup trucks
Hope they're at least mid size, because full size pickups don't belong off road.

File: 1.jpg (684KB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 3072x1728px

>>14022372
>4.0
> Constant maintenance
>Lockers just now available

You don't own a Jeep or specifically a TJ Wrangler. Pic related has D44s front and rear, rear air locker from factory. Has 115k, have had it for 50k no issues whatsoever. Had an XJ with 283k. Did a head gasket at 275k, had since 230k. And I do have a set of D windows with M/Ts for off road.

>>14022631
>You don't own a Jeep or specifically a TJ Wrangler.
Form what you're saying I don't think you own a TJ.
>Pic related has D44s front and rear
NOPE. Only TJ Rubicons have D44s front and rear. You might, and probably don't, have a D44 at all. You probably have a D30 and a D35.
> rear air locker from factory.
Again, NOPE. TJ Rubicons are the only TJs with factory lockers and they were front AND rear and not air actuated, they're electric.

You either modified it or got played, probably the last one.

>>14022644
Sorry, my phone somehow replaced Eaton with Factory. And I have a D44 rear standard and a swapped 44 front. Cheaper than shit to do. Either way, the 4.0 is still a bulletproof engine.

>>14022654
No, you got caught in a lie. Your modified vehicle doesn't represent what Jeep offers. Otherwise people could say 'well my Wrangler has D60s!'

>>14022658
Anon a D60 would have to be heavily nodded to fit in a wrangler. Regardless, for the yearset they are extremely capable and are an all seasons vehicle. They are a convertible for the summer, a 4x4 for the winter and are inherently American. That's why value holds so well which is the original topic here.

>>14015546
>V6
trashed

>>14022670
Nah, I have full width D60s on my wrangler.
Either way if you want them shorter all you have to do is machine the shafts and tubes.

It's fairly simple.
Either you cut the shaft in the middle, rebuild the metal with a welder and lathe it back down. Or you cut the length off the inside and re-mill the splines.

The tubes are just simply cutting them down and repressing the knuckle/hub

But, yes, I agree that the wrangler in general is a good vehicle. Once you stick an air locker in the rear you are good to go for basically any kind of snow, or light trailing. I still don't think they are worth the price that they hold used though.

>>14022725
I prefer front locker over rear if you're only going to lock one.

>>14022725
Yeah but then you are relying on a machine shop to do good work to a D60 and there aren't any close to me. That's why for the Plymouth I just orders an S60.

>>14022725
I mean electric locker. Not air.
No point for air on a normal street SUV.

>>14022739
Yeah for snow I could for sure see this.

On trails though, most of the time you will need a locker the car will be on an incline so most of the weight in the rear.

>power locks
>window tints
>navigation computer crap

A wrangler is supposed to be a dangerous two door metal brick with a short wheelbase. Even ABS and Airbags are too fancy. Something like the old CJ's would be illegal to manufacture now though.

>>14022739
>I prefer front locker over rear if you're only going to lock one.
Probably because you are idiot.

>>14022789
I love my screaming black death trap.

>>14023083
Second this. Literally the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

>>14023221
For snow it makes sense.

What boils my blood is that you can't option a car out anymore. I just want heated seats, not your whole package. Fuck me.

>>14023274
>not wanting the 'Front Comfort Package' instead, which features 2 zone HVAV, heating and air conditioned seats, 32-way multifunction seating, auto-dimming mirrors, entryway lighting, heated steering wheel, and lighted footwells for only 3,200.

>"This fully loaded, top of the line vehicle is expensive!"

Wow... really? You're fucking dumb.

>>14023229
That application, and that application only. For everything else it is retarded. Just fucking LSD both axles you cheap fuck.

>>14023229
Not, it doesn't. It makes no sense at all.

>>14022148

>both of those cars have more standard equipment

As >>14022157 points out, not really. Some basic items in Wranglers are optional (like power windows, a/c), but they are included in very inexpensive packages; almost everyone has them, and the average transaction price is still lower than 4Runners. Most of the price inflation for Wrangler models comes from more elaborate off-road equipment that doesn't even exist in the 4Runner and FJ Cruiser; hell, the FJ doesn't even have a solid front axle.

The biggest problem with Wranglers is honestly that people buy the highest-end models, modify them even more, and then try to sell them at 100k miles for $50k or more. But unmodified and good-condition Wranglers can sell in the same price range as similarly-aged FJ Cruisers, but you'll usually be able to find a more capable Wrangler for the same price.

>>14024405
>from more elaborate off-road equipment that doesn't even exist in the 4Runner
Such as?
> the FJ doesn't even have a solid front axle.
So what?

>>14024747
>Such as?
Front and rear Dana 44 solid axles with electronic lockers, 4:10 gearing, disconnecting swaybars. The 4Runner, by comparison has IFS and front-rear limited slip differentials. In addition, the base-model 4Runners are 2WD, which belies the "fully-loaded" aspect that seems to be touted here.

>So what?
The more "serious" the offroad crowd, the more they seem to want solid axles. They're easier to work on, cheaper to repair, and simpler to modify. Almost all of the dedicated trail rigs you see outside have front and rear solid axles. Independent suspension can help make a ride more comfortable and reduce vehicle weight, but they don't make technical trails much easier to navigate. Almost everyone who heavily modifies their vehicle for offroading either chooses a vehicle with solid axles or finds a cheap IFS vehicle they can perform an axle swap on. Unless it's pre-running. The weird thing is that the market for it hasn't shrunk; it's just that other solid-axle Wrangler competitors either switched to IFS/crossover territory (4Runner, FJ, Explorer) or went extinct (Bronco, K5, Xterra).

On top of that, solid axles are generally more robust, mechanically reliable, and have a higher towing capacity than independent suspension. That's why even SUVs and trucks that have swapped out the front solid axle for IFS have still kept the rear solid axle; it allows them to keep their towing capacity high. A front axle can still be useful for keeping your tires straight on undulating or difficult terrain.

Face it, Toyota's choice to switch to IFS is a soft-roading compromise, and the only reason the Wrangler keeps nearly the market share they do is by keeping the solid axles and body-on-frame construction at the request of their customers, not because of corporate compromises.

>>14025115
meant "4.10" gearing

>>14022622
Youre an idiot if you think they can get where a stock jeep can. Stock vs stock jeep wins everytime, period. Get mad.

>>14022622
Can't compete with a Rubicon. Those factory lockers really make a difference.

>>14015546
>but my S5 does that for free!

You shouldn't be shopping for new cars. That's pretty obvious.

File: 1445824476155.jpg (58KB, 566x800px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 566x800px

>>14022600
To be fair, base-model 4Runners do not even have 4WD, let alone locking differentials. For 40k you could get similar high-end Wranglers and 4Runners, the main difference being the Wrangler also has a front solid axle with electronic locking differentials, low gearing, and better break-over and departure angles.

>>14025166
not against a land rover they don't...

>>14015631

Image? Im not trying to be a dick, but is chrysler considered to be good over there?

>>14025115
>Front and rear Dana 44 solid axles
Not a benefit.
>with electronic lockers
Which the 4Runner also has. The rear locker with ATRAC will perform virtually identically.
>4:10 gearing
The 4Runner probably has that or higher.
>disconnecting swaybars
Yea, that don't always work properly. 4Runner has KDSS or you can simply disconnect the regular ones the regular way.
>In addition, the base-model 4Runners are 2WD, which belies the "fully-loaded" aspect that seems to be touted here.
Yea, so? We're talking about Rubicons, obviously, since you're bringing up lockers, D44s, and disconnecting anti roll bars.
>The more "serious" the offroad crowd, the more they seem to want solid axles
Because people don't actually know anything.
>They're easier to work on, cheaper to repair, and simpler to modify
Absolutely none of that is true and the non modular construction would actually make it harder to repair. However you would need to repair an axle. I've never had to do such a thing, but I don't buy Jeeps with weak axle housings.
>it's just that other solid-axle Wrangler competitors either switched to IFS/crossover territory (4Runner, FJ, Explorer) or went extinct (Bronco, K5, Xterra).
Oh boy are you clueless.
>On top of that, solid axles are generally more robust, mechanically reliable, and have a higher towing capacity than independent suspension.
Nope. That's just something you made up in your head.
>Face it, Toyota's choice to switch to IFS is a soft-roading compromise, and the only reason the Wrangler keeps nearly the market share they do is by keeping the solid axles and body-on-frame construction at the request of their customers
Yea those customers sure have a lot of engineering knowledge. They know best. Or Jeep just doesn't feel like trying to convince morons of their design choices.

File: jim14.gif~c100.gif (46KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 100x100px

>>14025303
>not against a land rover they don't...
Which model? Half of them have open differentials. Plus all of them start at $40k or above, topping out around $226,000.

>>14025444
Discovery 3s and 4s have a rear locker and Land Rover has gold standard traction control.

>>14025444
I'm talking about the defender... and Oh yeah, you guys have to move earth and sky to get one of those...

>>14025464
Defenders are trash off road compared to newer LRs.

File: 1442672791580.jpg (57KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x501px

>>14025394
>4Runner has electronic lockers
Only in the rear. Many of the factory options on 70 series Landcruisers in Australia offer front and rear lockers, as both are useful. While the rear locker is more important, the front locker can also be necessary for certain obstacles
>I don't know what gearing my 4Runner has
Then don't argue what it has. Higher gear ratios can improve torque at the wheel, but reduces fuel economy and top speed. The 4Runner, while rugged, doesn't pander to "enthusiasts" the way Chrysler tries to with the Jeep. I would be surprised if they would sacrifice on-road performance for a feature like a good crawl ratio that's invisible to 99% of the people who buy it.
>If people want something I disagree with, it's because they're all stupid
Then take your IFS jap box and go play in the corner alone
>solid axle advantages are made-up
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/1308-frontend-feud-ifs-vs-solid-axle/
eat shit

>>14025507
>Australian
Yea that's when I stopped caring.

>>14025394
What kind of a 4runner can you get for 38k. Cause I can get a very very nice Rubicon with that money.

>>14025522
A Trail with KDSS will MSRP for about that. That's around the invoice for a Trail Premium with KDSS so maybe if you can blackmail the dealer you can get it for that.

File: Marauder_1.jpg (599KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1600x1067px

>>14025451
>>14025464
>>14025470
I think the point of this conversation was to identify the best factory 4x4 available to American consumers in the lower price range? I can't speak to the effectiveness of Land Rovers, but I'm aware they have substantial repair and reliability concerns, not to mention the price you have to pay.

And if we're talking about ANY consumer 4x4 now, why not just get a Marauder? $650k, but money is obviously no object and it objectively proves the Land Rover, Jeep, and Toyota are shit by comparison. FFS if you don't own a Marauder, you don't know anything about engineering, offroading, or SUVs and should stop posting on 4x4 threads

>>14025566
That's too large to go off road.

File: 1449786528008.jpg (107KB, 640x1050px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x1050px

>>14025592
So is a full-size SUV

>>14025394
>>14025507
I have a 2014 4runner trail and a 2015 Rubicon Unlimited.
The 4 runner is more comfortable and better on the street but it is no where near the rubicon off road, with the exception of semi smooth trails at speed. The crawl control on the 4runner is pretty damn cool though. It works quite well.
Both are 100% stock with an exception of a winch and bumper on the jeep.
I payed 35,700 for the rubicon and 39,000 for the trail.
From my experience owning both the 4runner is a much better , i sometimes offroad on weekends vs the jeep. The jeep is more of if there was a dirt road or trail i could use instead of the street i would take it, kind of vehicle.
They both have pros and cons depending on what your needs are.
If you want to know anything about either ask me.

>>14025394
>>On top of that, solid axles are generally more robust, mechanically reliable, and have a higher towing capacity than independent suspension.
>Nope. That's just something you made up in your head.
Are you fucking retarded? Less parts equals higher reliability and robustness. More parts is more things that can go wrong.

File: 1443681401153.jpg (31KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x480px

>>14022739
>I prefer front locker over rear if you're only going to lock one

>>14026506
I have a JK Wrangler Sport, actually, and I was wondering how frequently you actually need to engage your front/rear differentials? I've done some light trails, and have found that I can't at all tackle steep hills with sand or dramatically rocky areas. Are locking differentials that much more helpful in any of the stuff you'd be wheeling in? I do actually make use of 4L, so I wasn't sure how much more locking differentials would help me

Also considering getting the axles geared to something lower. I have a manual and it's impossible to inch forward in traffic without riding the clutch because 1st gear will roll at ~5 mph with no throttle at all. Have you had a problem with that? I'm hoping a lower gearing would help with that and also improve crawling off-road.

File: 1445400305441.png (4KB, 207x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 207x160px

>>14022739

>>14026506
>The 4 runner is more comfortable and better on the street but it is no where near the rubicon off road, with the exception of semi smooth trails at speed
Sounds like driver error.

>>14028426
Out of curiosity, what tire pressures are you typically running?

>>14028426
>I do actually make use of 4L, so I wasn't sure how much more locking differentials would help me
Lockers help immensely if you don't have traction control or the traction control is trash. I know the JKs have traction control, but I don't know how good it is.

>>14028426
Lockers vs none is night and day.

>>14028426

the thing with lockers is that you can do things in a more controlled way. without lockers you might need to build up some speed to get past an obstacle, which puts your vehicle at risk of taking damage. this is not the case with lockers as you'll crawl across the obstacle at a slow but steady and safe rate.

and there are ofcourse obstacles you simply wont get past without lockers. they can be costly tho so if you do fine whereever you are wheeling i wouldnt worry about it.

>>14015546
Jeeps are lemons

>>14029945
>Some cars are lemons

FTFY

Don't buy a jeep. Good jeeps are the ones you take offroading, the ones that don't pretend to have luxury. The interior is shit, the engine is unreliable and not that great as a DD, and the brand image is fucked (if you care about that at all).

Do you absolutely have to buy new? You could buy a great SUV used. Maybe even an optioned out pickup.

>>14030113
Jeeps are especially bad.

>>14028637
~15-25 psi, depending on the ground resistance

>>14028933
I was thinking of trying to find lockers from a part-out, there are plenty of Wranglers that get salvage titles in crashes in my area.

I don't know, do you guys think Rubicon parts would be the first things swiped? It seems like people either stick with the Rubicon's gearing, or they buy a Sport and spend an extra 15k and just get D60 swaps. I'm just wondering if the salvage yard won't jew you on an axle or two?

>>14030345
>I don't know, do you guys think Rubicon parts would be the first things swiped?
Yes. Also you won't just need the axles. You'll need the computer for the lockers and all associated wiring, might need a harness to plug the computer into, etc.