this will be a nice feature good for those days that don't fit with the season like the 60 degree days in january

This article may clear up some of the confusion about roll over requirements, etc.

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103546

[quote]
Roof edict could be called 'Wrangler rule'

The federal government wants to expand the reach of its roof-crush rules aimed at protecting passengers in rollover crashes. But the move would cover just one additional model: the Jeep Wrangler.

DaimlerChrysler AG spokesman Max Gates says the company does not believe the Wrangler, as currently designed, would pass a roof-crush test.

Gates said in an e-mail that Wrangler's "sports bar is not designed and engineered as a protective device, such as roll bars on some sports cars and racing vehicles."

A redesigned Wrangler is expected next year, while new roof-crush standards will not take effect until the 2010 model year at the earliest. It is not known whether the next-generation Wrangler would meet roof-crush resistance standards.

In proposed roof-crush rules, "open-body type vehicles" with structures between the A- and B-pillars no longer would be considered convertibles. They no longer would qualify for the exemption that convertibles get from roof-crush testing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal cites the Wrangler as one example. But officials acknowledge they know of no other that meets the same criteria.

Steve Kratzke, NHTSA's associate administrator for rule making, says the purpose of the change was not to target the Wrangler. Other similar vehicles could be introduced at any time, he adds.

Safety activist Gerald Donaldson predicts automakers will "go nuts" over that provision. He is senior research director at Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a coalition of consumer groups and insurers.

Barry Felrice, director of regulatory affairs in DaimlerChrysler's Washington office, says his company has not decided how to respond.

Kratzke explains the rationale for extending roof-strength requirements to Wrangler-like vehicles this way: "If a vehicle has a fixed, rigid, structural member that's connected, it's not unreasonable for that vehicle to meet roof-crush standards."
[/quote]

Well, if it is for some stupid Gov't regs they have to do this to the Jeep... I hope when the pieces are removed it has a strong resemblance to the Icon show Jeep DC had not too long ago. Other than that, guess we'll just have to wait and see.. and pray in the meantime.

Mike,

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not saying that the government is banning convertibles. All I'm saying is that it seems like with the new goverment crash requirements for 2007? (I think) the days of the roll bar only Jeeps will be gone. I imagine we will be stuck with something that has airbags coming out of the roof or door. I'm not sure how other convertibles will work.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa STOP, STOP, STOP...

First of all...Motor Trend, JP magazine, 4-Wheeler, 4-Wheel and Off Road, and numerous OTHER automotive news sources, all which are much more reliable news sources than 'Leftist-lane news.com' have ALL reported that the 'TK' will have a 5-panel removable hardtop and a 5-panel unzippable soft-top...I don't know where the notion of a t-top came in...

Second of all...WHAT government regulations are we speaking about? Has the Government BANNED the convertible alltogether while I was sleeping ??? That would be a big blow to prestigous automakers like BMW, VW/Porsche, Mercedes, as well as ALL of the domestic and Japanese automakers who mass-produce CONVERTIBLES, and more importantly, have just REDESIGNED their convertibles...I don't think that the Government has banned the convertible since the last time I checked, and more importantly, I do believe that a Wrangler, with a full rollcage, would be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH safer than, say, convertible versions of the MINI, Z4, Carrera, Boxster, SLK, Cabriolet, PT-Cruiser Convertible, and countless other convertibles on the market.

And Third of all, OOJ, you are such a Jag, and I dont mean the one made by FORD...the YJ sucks, it ALWAYS sucked, if it didn't suck, they would never have made the TJ, but since they did, it (the YJ)must have REALLY sucked, or they would have had 2 models, like the CJ-5 and CJ-7, but since they didn't, then it means that it just plain ol' sucked, you suck, If the YJ actually did conquer the RUBICON trail, then it did so with so much trail damage that it would then suck to the point that it would be undriveable, and they would have had to scrap it immediately afterwards, and did I mention that you and your YJ suck?, the YJ soft-top sucks, the suspension sucks, the I-6 and 2.5L do NOT suck, but the YJ transmissions suck SOOO much that they make the engines which do not suck, suck....You still suck, your YJ still sucks, it sucked last week, it will suck next week, the rear seat sucks, the spare tire bracket sucks, the fuel filler location sucks, the roll bar sucks, the soundbar sucks, the swaybar sucks, the trackbar sucks, the stereo sucks, the glovebox sucks, the center console sucks, the shifters, the seat brackets, the U-joints, the bumpers, all suck, not all YJ's suck, only YOUR YJ sucks, the front axle disconnect technically sucks since it operates off of a vacuum line, but even if it didn't suck in the form of a vacuum, the design still sucks, the wheelwells suck, the brakes suck, the heater sucks, the AC sucks, the airbags suck...Oh, I'm sorry, the YJ doesn't have airbags, if you get into an accident, that REALLY sucks, and before you say that you don't need airbags if you wear your seatbelt, guess what...the seatbelts suck too, just like you and your sucky YJ, you know what YJ stands for?

(Y)our a (J)ag

I HOPE the TK has 4 wheel independent suspension, because it would still be better than your rusted out suck piece of crap YJ

This just in...OOJ STILL SUCKS...

Death to the YJ, Long live the TK and it's 5 piece removable hardtop with zip-in removable canvas panels.

UPDATE...Hey JeepXK, I did forget that square headlights and goofy sun and palm tree stick on graphics suck (remember the MANGO Islander? did that package suck) I mean, it's bad enough that the graphics sucked when they were new, but give them about 5 years of sitting in the sun to fade, and that sucked even more than when they were new...I bet OOJ's YJ had the Islander package...slap on some of the 'EURO' double blades on the wipers (HEY!, I forgot that the YJ wipers suck too) and the pink coil antenna, and bolt those euro mirrors to the windshield frame, and you have OOJ's sucky YJ---THANX for reminding me...and yes OOJ, I did spell vacuum wrong, and I am now correcting it, however, as someone who does not suck, I usually don't think along the lines of sucking, and vacuum is just not in the TJ vernacular, since the TJ front axle does not have a suck axle disconnect...I have still come to the conclusion that you and your YJ did, do, and always will suck...But, hey, look at it in a constructive way, if there were nobody like you in the world who did suck, then there would be nobody like us who do not suck, and if your YJ did not suck, then all jeeps would be equal, and then all jeeps would in fact, suck.

The top news (if true) is disappointing. Also the words "upscale interior" are a tad disappointing too. I will hold judgement until we see a press release set of pics and specs.

I agree that the Wrangler line will suffer if it is no longer a true convertable.

But for me I'm still holding out for the Gladiator, I don't need a Wrangler I need a truck.

They are saying that they belive it will have removable T top sections in the front and a removable hard top in the back, sort of like the sunrider soft top just in Hard Top form. In other words the top will still be removable just in sections instead of all at once.

Kind of disappointing on the T-tops and hardtop in back, if true. I guess that's government safety regulations for you....