2017 Wrangler to be Unibody...

[Dan Grec]

Isn't it a little late in the game for Jeep to be considering unibody vs frame? I mean, the new 2015s are already hitting the showroom floors. Do you really think Jeep is going to design, test, and manufacture an all new Wrangler in 2 years? No way. The new 2017 Wrangler has got to be further along in development than that by now. They are probably already doing field testing with camoflagued prototypes. Remember the Jeep Gladiator Pickup concept. That was release in 2005. If you look at it in hind sight you can see they knew then exactly what the 2007 Wrangler was going to be. If you look at the development lifecycle of a car it takes more than 2 years from concept to development. I would say the 2017 Wrangler is probably 75% already finished. I could understand debating aluminum or steel body panels as I expect manufacturing processes would be similar. But surely the rest of the Wrangler has been decided by now. Just keep your eyse open for prototypes.

At Overland Expo in May this year (2014) there was a talk by two Jeep Engineers who are working on the new Wrangler. I feel bad, but I forget their names.
One was higher up and hinted he reports directly to The CEO, Sergio, and the other seemed to report to the first guy and was more "hands on".

At one point one said "we're knee deep in the new Wrangler" then they talked together and said "well, maybe ankle deep right now".

They also talked a bit about the internal "new Wrangler kick-off meeting" and it didn't sound like it was all that long ago.

I suspect they're still early in the process.

-Dan

 

[David Harris]

Totally opposite opinion.... IFS, I don't like but it has come a long way but unibody would be the death of Jeep... There are a lot of very capable veh out there with IFS and solid frames. Hard core Jeepers could trash the IFS and install solid axles. You can do the same with unibodied vehs but over time the unibody will fail compaired to solid frame...

Just my 2cents...

On the other hand there are an awful lot of XJ's out there still doing their thing off road just fine, including some that are thirty years old now.

 

[Jurfie]

Bumping an old thread...update:

2017 Jeep Wrangler will keep solid axles - report - Practical Motoring
http://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-news/2017-jeep-wrangler-will-keep-solid-axles-report/

The 2017 Jeep Wrangler will be significantly more modern than it is now, but it’ll still run solid axles which should keep off-roaders happy.

ACCORDING TO FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne the next-generation Jeep Wrangler will dump the current 3.6-litre V6 and run smaller, turbocharged engines, it’ll also make greater use of lightweight materials to improve fuel efficiency.

And, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US, it’ll also feature an eight-speed transmission. But a report on Automotive News (subscription required) says the new model will have a fixed windscreen to improve aerodynamics and that it’ll retain its fixed axles.

There was a concern the Wrangler would move away from its current body-on-frame setup and run independent suspension (to save weight) like other models in the Jeep line-up. Retaining solid axles means the vehicle can be raised and run bigger tyres.

Beyond that, it’s believed the 2017 Jeep Wrangler will be slightly smaller than the current model and will possibly have a body made out of aluminium, although that remains to be seen. As moving to an aluminium body would mean the Wrangler could no longer be built at its Toledo factory and the US town, which relies on the factory for jobs, has already petitioned Jeep management over moving the Wrangler to a different facility.

 

[rlynch356]

i have no insider info etc.
my predictions..

Body on frame
Aluminium body panels (doors, hood, other bits)
high strength steel tub (lighter).
frame - possibly high strength steel as well (thinner walls i.e. lighter)
roll cage - not sure but probably smaller diameter high strength steel
fixed windscreen on steel tub
i can see IFS but not likely due to suppliers -
Turbo standard engine, Diesel optional - for 80% of the wranglers sold a 2.0 turbo is probably fine, a 2.0 4cyl
diesel for the rest of us.
8 speed auto
6 or 7 speed manual

dunno

 

[Jeep or Tacoma]

IT MEANS

That I need to buy a new Jeep right now.

 

[rlynch356]

Except for diesel - i'm glad i bought mine when i did.

maybe the "new" defender will be good - but i'm sure it will be 50k to start.. not a bad thing but for those of us wanting a..... basic truck that we can add on to/play with/occasionally beat up/not worry about - does not bode well either.

can you imagine a typical jeep buyer - with a new defender being confronted with a $300 oil change bill.

 

[DEFENDERBEAM]

a diesel version of the same basic style as the current JK would get me to buy another one.

 

[kmlacroix]

I am old enough to remember the CJ-5. I remember the intro of the CJ-7. "They are ruining the brand". The Wrangler, "They are ruining the brand". The Cherokee, "They are ruining the brand". Stopping production of the Grand Wagoneer, "They are ruining the brand". IFS in the Grand Cherokee, "they are ruining the brand".

See the pattern? While Chrysler did not do Jeep any big favors, the "Brand" has never been stronger.

Supposedly my JGC diesel can go many of the places a new Wrangler can go.

Dropping the weight, smaller power plants and better aerodynamics will improve fuel economy. Fuel efficiency and pollution reduction is not just for the US market, more countries are forcing auto and truck manufacturers to be cleaner, safer and more efficient.

The auto industry is world wide. The US is becoming a smaller part of the whole industry, hence the worldwide platform more manufacturers are moving to.

 

[MTSN]

I am old enough to remember the CJ-5. I remember the intro of the CJ-7. "They are ruining the brand". The Wrangler, "They are ruining the brand". The Cherokee, "They are ruining the brand". Stopping production of the Grand Wagoneer, "They are ruining the brand". IFS in the Grand Cherokee, "they are ruining the brand".

See the pattern? While Chrysler did not do Jeep any big favors, the "Brand" has never been stronger.

Supposedly my JGC diesel can go many of the places a new Wrangler can go.

Dropping the weight, smaller power plants and better aerodynamics will improve fuel economy. Fuel efficiency and pollution reduction is not just for the US market, more countries are forcing auto and truck manufacturers to be cleaner, safer and more efficient.

The auto industry is world wide. The US is becoming a smaller part of the whole industry, hence the worldwide platform more manufacturers are moving to.

Jeep loyalists are among the most reluctant to see change in the brand though the majority of the changes have made the vehicles more reliable, more capable, more comfortable yet retain about 90% of the DNA they had 40 years ago. I used to have a CJ5 (also CJ7, YJ, 4 XJs, a ZJ and now a JKUR) with front and rear spools, tiny soft doors, a sheet of aluminum riveted to the roll bar for a roof, no power steering, no power brakes, no working heater, crappy carb, 3 speed manual, etc., and I tell you what when I drove a 2012+ JKUR I couldn't help but giggle to think I could now have even more capability, power and reliability with the ability to still pull off the doors and roof (and fold the windshield down) and have selectable lockers front and rear with a 4 to 1 tcase and not even get out of the Jeep to disconnect the sway bar (like the CJ5 could flex anyways lol). The fact that we even have the option in today's safety climate to buy something from the factory with a full warranty that has live locking axles and 32" mud terrains with removable doors is pretty astounding if you ask me. I'm very thankful that Jeep believed enough in this segment to keep it alive, because I can definitely recall the days when people thought CAFE standards and NHTSA would render Jeeps and muscle cars extinct. I can't help but think the incredible resale value confirms there are a lot of people who agree and are enthusiastic about the brand.

 

[RoyJ]

Absolutely nothing wrong with a unibody if designed properly. In fact, they can be made stronger than body on frame for everything except concentrated loading (very heavy tow hitch).

Case in point, if we compare the torsional rigidity of an old Durango vs a WK2 Grand Cherokee, it's embarrasing:

- Durango 6800 nm/deg
- WK2 23000 nm/deg

Just about all the stiffest chassis are dominated by crossovers:

BMW X5 29,400 Buick Enclave 25,900 Land Rover Freelander 2 28,000 Mazda CX-5 27,000 VW Touareg 36,900

Since a Wrangler is unlikely to have a highly concentrated frame load (compared to say, a Ram 3500), a unibody is perfect. If they can increase the torsional rigidity, then there will be less squeeks and groans under max articulation. Not to mention easier to tune the suspension for better road manners. This is why German SUVs like the Touared have a "band vault" like solid feel.

http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/