Interview with head of Jeep design

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: Heh Heh, I don't really care if he's refering to the lug nuts on the "Current" Wrangler--

I think he is refering to the body on JKs not the frame of a JK.


I dont have enough experiance with WJs to know how they hold up over time.

I'd just like to know what part of the "Current" Wrangler is a Joke and to whom !

:costumed-smiley-007:wings: JIMBO

 

[Mbogo]

While it may be true that the newer Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles are holding up better to off-road pounding than any XJ Cherokee design, I imagine it would be exceedingly difficult to build a unibody off road vehicle in roadster form. The roadster version of unibody sports cars are almost always heavier than their hardtop counterparts, often by a significant margin. Further, these convertibles very often, but not aways, exhibit greater levels of cowl shake, vague steering feel, and NVH compared to the hardtop versions. It should also be noted that the suspension design and intended purpose of these drop-top sports cars favor LESS wheel travel than a typical sedan, not to mention an off-road vehicle. The question is: can a roadster Jeep brand vehicle with a unibody design remain rigid enough and durable enough off road without the weight penalty that would negate all of the benefits of going to unibody in the first place? And if not, would a dedicated tin top be in keeping with the true "Jeep identity"?

 

[reece146]

Drive an S2000. Topless and good rigidity are not mutually exclusive.

Take the roof off a JK. Slam the rear doors and watch the rear quarter of the tub flop around.

 

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: Defective constructionmaintenance/modifications--

Drive an S2000. Topless and good rigidity are not mutually exclusive.

Take the roof off a JK. Slam the rear doors and watch the rear quarter of the tub flop around.

I've had my JKUR top off/doors off, RUBICON trek and the body/frame haven't "Deflected" any/ever--solid as a rock-

Look around and smell the roses !

:costumed-smiley-007:wings: JIMBO

 

[reece146]

Defective constructionmaintenance/modifications--

On the showroom floor (literally)?

Unless people demand better the same crappy levels of quality will repeat from Chrysler.

 

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: Heh Heh, you're probably just unhappy because the JK/JKUs don't have square headlights--

On the showroom floor (literally)?

Unless people demand better the same crappy levels of quality will repeat from Chrysler.

There's no reason for you and I to continue this conversation-

-JIMBO

 

[Mbogo]

Drive an S2000. Topless and good rigidity are not mutually exclusive.

Uh, I'm going to ignore the obvious joke here. This is a family forum after all Please notice that I wrote that convertibles "very often, but not always" exhibit increased structural deflection. I agree that an S2000 is an amazingly solid vehicle that is just a joy to drive. I just wonder if that would still be the case if the suspension had to push around a pair of 250-pound axles and four 80-pound tires/wheels through 10 inches of wheel travel. Even though an S2000 is a well-designed, well-made, and not inexpensive car, that would still be asking a lot, I think.

 

[reece146]

Uh, I'm going to ignore the obvious joke here. This is a family forum after all Please notice that I wrote that convertibles "very often, but not always" exhibit increased structural deflection. I agree that an S2000 is an amazingly solid vehicle that is just a joy to drive. I just wonder if that would still be the case if the suspension had to push around a pair of 250-pound axles and four 80-pound tires/wheels through 10 inches of wheel travel. Even though an S2000 is a well-designed, well-made, and not inexpensive car, that would still be asking a lot, I think.

I don't see why not. A unibody has the potential to be stiffer than a box section frame and gives more latitude for control arm placement. After that bit it comes down to clearance, packaging and making sure that long enough springs and dampers to control the axle movement can be installed.

Body on frame is really just another religious, sacred cow to be BBQ'ed.

 

[jeepdreamer]

Body on frame is really just another religious, sacred cow to be BBQ'ed.

Which is why I stick to older vehicles I like. I'm out of this "debate" since I would be hard pressed to actually purchase a new vehicle of any kind. But I prefer my historically supportive versions of the Jeep platform. I use my more "modern" (ie lacking a frame) vehicles more often for DD duties since it costs a lot to protect the thing and keep it from being damaged. Not to mention that my leaf springs serve me just fine while I have to save several paychecks to get my link/coil/whatever vehicles to work off road reliably without other issues. I'm old... I know old stuff... so that's just what I prefer. *shrugs* I just hope that Jeep/Feep doesn't drag the name down to sissyville and start using IFS on its basic seller, the JK. Once they do I feel like it is stirring the coals for just that BBQ you mentioned reece.

 

[Mbogo]

I'm going to agree with Jeepdreamer here. The older stuff is what I grew up wheeling and wrenching on. It's just where my comfort level is. I remember the time I was sitting at a stop in a '77 full-size Cherokee (SJ series, body on frame), and I was rear-ended by a newer Honda Accord. I wasn't even sure I felt something at first; if anything, it was a little tap. I briefly debated whether to even bother getting out and addressing the issue, but I did. And I was shocked by what I saw. The Accord had several thousand dollars worth of damage. My Jeep on the other hand had a scrape on the bumper that the insurance adjuster cut me a check for $250 to repair. I got some chrome cleaner, and the "scrape" turned out to be just some paint from the Honda. My Jeep literally didn't have a scratch on it. That's my comfort level. And that's just as well because I am slowly but surely getting priced out of the new Jeep market.

I still think that, at the very least, a roadster unibody Jeep would need to have some sort of roll cage integrated into the body structure for strength and support. Technically, I guess that would make it more of a space frame than a unibody or monocoque design. Meh. No matter--to me at least. Toyota, Land Rover, and Jeep have all gone to unibody and IFS. They all have brilliantly compensated for the articulation deficiency by ever more complex technological gee-gaws that actually work pretty well given their intended use. It's just not my thing. Soon, the only body on frame, live axle SUV left available in the US market will be the Benz G-Wagon. Talk about being priced out of the segment...:Wow1:

 

[reece146]

The reason why you didn't feel the rear end collision is because of the crumple zone built into the Accord. If it didn't crumple you likely would have gotten whiplash and who knows what would have happened to the driver of the other car. Hypothetical but what the Honda was designed to do: sacrifice itself to protect the driver(s).

Yes, a roll bar is required and woudn't be a bad thing if integrated in a decent manner.

I get the retro car thing. I've been messing around with vehicles for decades. The minimum standard for new stuff keeps moving forward regardless. Fearing change doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[biere]

Buddy of mine has a yj and I think we can buy any part needed out of a catalog. From the tub to the frame to whatever, the whole thing is offered one way or another.

I don't think they have tj frames out but I bet they are coming at some point.

A unibody with a real rollcage integrated into it to keep the convertable offering available would be plenty stiff enough for a while.

But I don't see being able to replace parts of the frame or body the way you can right now with a tj or older wrangler. I just got a tj so it is what I read up on, I don't know about the new ones very much.

Personally I think the wrangler is big enough the v8 option should be coming soon. Doubt they will offer a diesel option and I hate all the emissions on today's diesels right now as well.

I plan to just enjoy my tj with minor basic mods done to it over a bit of time. If I need something more capable I plan to just find an old wrangler of some sort and build it to fit my wants.

Body on frame makes life simpler for me when working on stuff and pulling things apart or replacing major stuff like the frame or body.

I can't work on a unibody for major parts replacements like the main part of the body or support frame.

I will read about new jeeps and what not but I kind of expect my 07 I had will be the newest one I ever own.

My 06 tj has me smiling right now and there is something to be said for being able to just bolt stuff right to the frame and know you bolted it onto something somewhat substantial.

 

[MattScott]

Some of the most rigid vehicles ever created have a unibody.

Trust me, Mr. Allen is your BIGGEST advocate when it comes to building an off-road oriented vehicle.

 

[Mbogo]

Yes, Matt, unibody can be extremely solid and perhaps even durable, but it has to be engineered and executed flawlessly. I hope Jeep is up to the task, and the bean counters stay out of the design process. And I sincerely hope what you say about Mr. Allen is true. Otherwise, what do you get when you cross a Fiat 500 with a Jeep? Something like a Jeep ECCO.

 

[jeepdreamer]

Otherwise, what do you get when you cross a Fiat 500 with a Jeep? Something like a Jeep ECCO.
View attachment 116976

a FAK-O? heehee! looks like a pregnant golf cart made out of a milk jug. Blech!