By on March 6, 2014

Jeep-Renegade-18

Though the Jeep Renegade already bowed at the 2014 Geneva Auto Show, the off-road brand has plans for not only a fullsize SUV similar to the discontinued Commander, but an A segment SUV slotted beneath the Renegade, as well.

Auto Express reports the A segment vehicle could possibly be underpinned by the next-generation Fiat 500, though would face greater engineering challenges than those faced by the Renegade — built upon Fiat’s “small-wide” archecture underpinning the upcoming 500X — to make it Rubicon-ready, as Jeep boss Mike Manley explained:

We couldn’t make an SUV off of “small wide” as you can’t get the ground clearance. It was completely changed by Jeep engineers so now it’s “small wide 4×4″ architecture.

The A segment Jeep could also aid in bringing the brand into compliance with increasing CO2 emissions standards, though the improvement drive — much like the vehicle itself — will be a long, hard road to hew:

There’s relentless pressure to reduce CO2 and there’s much more for us to do. We’re trying to stay away from complexity and improvements are slowly coming.

Meanwhile, Manley’s focus is toward the Grand Wagoneer, which will slot above the Grand Cherokee. The fullsize SUV will boast room for seven and “be bigger than the old Commander” made between 2006 and 2010.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

101 Comments on “Smaller Jeep To Slot Beneath Renegade...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    I bet the crowd went wild after they saw the amazing feat of scaling down that steep 1 degree hill, accomplished by the renegade in that picture.
    /sarcasm /ignore pieced thoughts

    In all seriousness, please don’t disappoint and throw another jeep name under the bus. Grand Wagoneer BoF or bust.

    Edit: Rubicon ready, what does that even mean anymore? Have these people even tested this notion that any of these CuVs could accomplish the rubicon? Moab? At what cost?

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Hummer,
      The original 1963 Wagoneer wasn’t BoF. It was unibody. Look it up.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Yes and which one is remembered?

        The original fiesta was considered an econobox.
        Fiats first attempt in America ended with only one widespread thought “fix it again tony”

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          What exactly do you “remember?” The unibody Wagoneer came out in 1963 and stayed in production until 1991. It was replaced by the Grand Cherokee which was also unibody and sold alongside the Cherokee (unibody).
          Other than the Wrangler Unlimited, Jeep hasn’t sold a BoF wagon since the Kennedy administration. They were all unibody, and real Jeep fans loved them all.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            http://www.ifsja.org/forums/vb/showthread.php?t=59765

            Picture Body off frame

            And another wagoneer
            http://www.ifsja.org/forums/vb/showthread.php?t=128932

            Or do you need more proof?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            And here is a 63, I’m pretty sure you can see a frame in the engine picture.

            http://www.fsjnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=538&sid=9e41571181ee2648033e69d727b9b302&start=20

            And finally, here is a 1964 wagoneer full restored underbody frame shot.

            http://7112.autowebshowcase.com/mobile/vehicle/13108706

            This is twice you’ve said this, I let it go first, but here are 4 examples of different years showing a Body on Frame Wagoneer.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Hummer,

            You need to look at the frame from any BoF car/truck/pickup and spot the huge difference.
            That “frame” has no cross-members: one at each end, and linking the suspension mounting points. Compare that to a real BoF truck that have cross-bracing and you will understand where Jeep engineers put the torsional strength.

            Before you object: I already know that the unibody only goes to the firewall. GM used a similar design with the Nova/Seville. They would have gone all the way to the front if they had faster computers. No longer an issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Are you serious?
            Now we’re into defining what a frame actually is?

            look at these

            http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/cummins-grand-wagoneer-build-1487726/

            and if that don’t convince you, here is a drawing
            http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/wagoneer.html

            And finally a youtube video showing the wagoneer with the front axle attached to the frame
            “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyuLLf9R_fU”

            Remove quotes from youtube link

            Honestly the Wagoneers frame looks extremely rigid for when it was built. Two of those links are with people asking how to secure the wagoneer when they remove it from the frame to not cause it to deform. Doesn’t sound like a very rigid body at all.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            This is getting painful to watch.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Hummer,

            A 1963 unibody isn’t as good as a 2014 unibody (no kidding!), but that Wagoneer was the first big unibody SUV, so let’s give Jeep credit where it’s due.

            Pretty high-tech stuff for the time, and still considered cutting-edge at the end of the decade when the Range Rover came out.

            I totally understand that “BoF” is your mantra. I’ve got no problem with that. I thought you might be interested in knowing a bit of the history. At the time, that Jeep design was considered a big improvements, like a 707 vs. a DC-7. Compare to a Suburban, PowerWagon or Travelall.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The SJ was not a unibody vehicle. It had a separate body and frame. The body was barely strong enough to be self-supporting when separated from the full frame that carried the engine and all suspension pick up points. That is all.

          • 0 avatar

            >Now we’re into defining what a frame actually is?

            The point of “BoF” is a frame strong enough to support any abuses by itself without scaffolding.

            > The body was barely strong enough to be self-supporting when separated from the full frame that carried the engine and all suspension pick up points. That is all.

            This should be simple enough logic to those aware of how car chassis work (note not everyone does):
            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/03/smaller-jeep-to-slot-beneath-renegade/#comment-2911457

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t know about the Wagoneer, but when I wrote about the XJ Cherokee, a lot of sources referred to it as Jeep’s first unibody vehicle. If you look at a cutaway drawing, though, it appears to be a BOF design because the frame rails for the unibody are strong enough that they were able to make a pickup out of it by just adding some X-bracing to those frame rails and mounting a bed.

        My definition of BOF would mean that fasteners, rather than welds, connect the body to frame members.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          Kaiser-Jeep/Willys pioneered the building of unibody Jeeps to which they welded longitudinal rails for needed rigidity. The rails are not a complete frame, lacking the cross members needed to keep the rails together.

          The unibody isn’t bolted onto a complete frame, the rails are welded onto the unibody, and only the axles keep the rails together otherwise. It’s easy to mistake the complete assembly as BOF, but once you realize the rails are part of the unibody, not a separate frame assembly, you can’t call it a true BOF.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          “My definition of BOF would mean that fasteners, rather than welds, connect the body to frame members.”

          That would be how I defined BoF.
          The wagoneer is 100% traditional BoF setup according to the 5 links I posted.

          He seriously caused me to question what I knew, had to do a little research.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Hummer,

            I have no problem with you having your own definition of body on frame. As Lorenzo said, Kaiser-Jeep did pioneering work. You can’t argue with the results.
            My kids won’t eat liver, but they love pate.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            No need to continue patronizing me.

            I’m sure you saw CJinSD’s comment.

          • 0 avatar

            > I’m sure you saw CJinSD’s comment.

            Unfortunately everyone did.

            Truly the champions of missing the point.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Please enlighten me.

          • 0 avatar

            A body on frame implies a fully drivable car without said body. Jeeps of that era apparently use the skin (ie body) in addition to the frame members to create the resultant rigid chassis structure.

            What you’ve been looking for in “BoF” isn’t an actual traditional frame, but perhaps easier disassembly or just more discrete sub-structures in the design in general.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I fully understand that he believes it is a partial BoF similar in design to the Grand Cherokee of the 90s. However I just posted 5 links that give me 99% confidence that the wagoneer is a traditional FULL LENGTH BoF vehicle and not a half way deal. There’s nothing abnormal about the frame pictures I found, they have the traditional body perches as to be expected. The BOF design is where the wagoneer gets 100% of its rigidity, without the ladder frame the body is easily distorted.

            I don’t understand what your saying I’m missing,

            If you have evidence to the contrary proving the wagoneer isn’t a traditional BoF please post it up.

          • 0 avatar

            This is what’s inside the XJ, generally considered by designers to be unibody:

            https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/602199_529771247045859_1215268044_n.jpg

            > without the ladder frame the body is easily distorted.

            Again, they compliment each other for strength. They are two parts of a whole each too weak to sustain the vehicle by themselves, but together like the wonder twins or some kind of voltron figure their powers combine to combat the roughest of terrain as one.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            That is a Cherokee with the wagoneer package. The actual wagoneer was a fullsize SUV built from 63-91

            I’ve been under a 99 with a similar setup to what you pictured, the frame in the front isn’t directly connected to the rear.
            ie a rolling assembly void of th body isn possible, the examples I posted show a rolling frame.

            Take a look at this
            http://www.ifsja.org/forums/vb/showthread.php?t=128932

            This is the wagoneer off the fullsize

            The frame you posted is for this vehicle, basically a Cherokee with wood trimming…
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JeepWagoneerXJ.jpg

            And finally the wagoneer that was described ie 63-91 here is a picture of the vehicle to compare to the above
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Wagoneer_(SJ)

          • 0 avatar

            Christ this must be what raising a toddler is like. The XJ was shown to demonstrate that using your technique above, even what is more readily marketed as “unibody” can be shown to “have a frame”. ergo, just because something “has a frame-like thing” doesn’t mean it constitutes the full strength of the vehicle by itself.

          • 0 avatar
            mjz

            The chances of the new (Grand) Wagoneer having BoF is about as good as my winning the Powerball next week. The new Wagoneer will be a “Jeep” version of the Durango. This is 2014, not 1964. Gotta move with the times.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Well that’s nice and all but the original argument was that the original wagoneer had the partial frame setup, and additionally had been that way since 63. Obviously you were still going full guns at that. While the setup obviously has worked in other applications it was never put into test in the full size wagoneer.
            The Cherokees first year was 84, which is 21 years later than being argued.

            The reason for the partial frame setup was to accommodate the solid axles, being as neither of these jeeps have solid axles the likelihood of a similar design is practically zilch. The platform both of these new vehicles are built on were designed for road going cars, their original purpose was never going offroad.

          • 0 avatar

            > I’ve been under a 99 with a similar setup to what you pictured, the frame in the front isn’t directly connected to the rear.

            Look what I found.:

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/look-what-i-found-no-thats-not-a-jeep-cherokee-wrong-tribe/

            Except Ronnie wasn’t quite right per posts above.

          • 0 avatar

            > Well that’s nice and all but the original argument was that the original wagoneer had the partial frame setup, and additionally had been that way since 63. Obviously you were still going full guns at that.

            No, *your* original argument was “because it has something like a frame, it must be body on frame”. If you can’t see how the XJ example punctures this, then unfortunately the basic reasoning required to complete this exercise is simply beyond you. Sorry.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            It is astounding how little some people that spend time on automotive sites actually know about automobiles. Any BoF vehicle will gain strength from having its body attached to its frame. Any vehicle that has a full length frame separable from its body is of body on frame construction. That’s exactly what body on frame means. While a unibody car can have a subframe or two to facilitate assembly or to isolate the body from suspension or engine related vibrations, if the frame connects the front and rear suspensions independent of the body,it constitutes a full frame.

          • 0 avatar

            > While a unibody car can have a subframe or two to facilitate assembly or to isolate the body from suspension or engine related vibrations, if the frame connects the front and rear suspensions independent of the body,it constitutes a full frame.

            Better start revising history on all those Jeep forums that the XJ is actually body-on-frame.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            So what I’m finding is you started arguing about something I said to heavy, then about half way through completely changed your argument.

            So can we agree-

            The 1963-1991 A.D. Jeep Wagoneer full size sport utility vehicle was built on a ladder frame and had no structural integrity seperate of the frame

            The Cherokee introduced in 1984 had a uniframe with solid traditional sections at the front and rear.
            The Cherokee had a trim package that denoted it as wagoneer.
            The Cherokee has a body that has structural integrity seperate of the frame sections and is made even stronger as it consists of two frames together.
            The partial frame is considered a suitable setup offroad as used in the Cherokee.

            What other point are you trying to make?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            At no point did I start an argument on jeeps introduction of a unibody setup on the wagoneer in 63.
            That was 100% heavy handle.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Who refers to XJs as BoF?
            I’ve never once heard someone say that the XJ was BoF, I’ve always heard it as unibody. Because it is in fact unibody, without question. The XJ was sold and marketed as uniframe and one of the first thing that comes up in a search is the wiki link with unibody in the description.

          • 0 avatar

            > The 1963-1991 A.D. Jeep Wagoneer full size sport utility vehicle was built on a ladder frame and had no structural integrity seperate of the frame

            > The Cherokee introduced in 1984 had a uniframe with solid traditional sections at the front and rear.

            Let me try to break down the reasoning here as simple as possible:

            1. A diagram/pics of the XJ chassis (ie not BoF) shows a frame: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/602199_529771247045859_1215268044_n.jpg

            2. A diagram/pics of the Wagoneer shows a not dissimilar frame: http://wagoneers.com/FSJ/tech/BODY/1974-FRAME/1974-SJ-Cherokee-Wagoneer-frame-diagram-2-300dpi.png

            3. Therefore, more of #2 as you’ve been going on about cannot reliably demonstrate BoF; because if it can, it also means the XJ must be BoF (which it is not).

            You see how the great difficulty here of explaining the simplest of thinking can dissuade others from venturing into even moderate complexity.

          • 0 avatar

            > Who refers to XJs as BoF?

            People like CJinSD apparently.

            Look, clearly there’s some grey area of what can or can’t be marketed as “unibody”, and there’s no bright-line test either way.

            Determining the facts of the matter likely requires some investigation beyond the superficial materials into actual structure strengths, and personally I don’t really care enough about this to do real work. All I’m pointing out is that your evidence above is largely unconvincing for reasons already explained very carefully.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            For goodness sake dude.

            Does the XJs frame have crossmembers other than at the ends?
            Can you remove the XJs body by unscrewing mounting bolts to have a complete rolling frame with front and rear diffs as well as the engine transfer case and transmission all connected to the frame?

            Both are no.

            I’m out for the night.

          • 0 avatar

            > Does the XJs frame have crossmembers other than at the ends?

            Sure looks like it has stuff going across by the diagrams.

            > Can you remove the XJs body by unscrewing mounting bolts to have a complete

            From earlier:

            me>What you’ve been looking for…perhaps easier disassembly or just more discrete sub-structures in the design in general.

            Sigh.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f11/full-body-removal-1200571/

            So what do we know? The XJ was the first unibody attempt by Jeep, making the SJ of twenty years earlier…

            The SJ had a removable frame. The XJ had a body reinforced by integral stiffening beams. The XJ’s body cannot be removed from a frame, because the frame is part of the body. It is a unibody…

            The best thing I can say about agenthex is that he isn’t reproducing.

          • 0 avatar

            > The XJ’s body cannot be removed from a frame, because the frame is part of the body. It is a unibody…

            I might be biased, but between the two of you, you’d definitely take that aforementioned championship.

            > The best thing I can say about agenthex is that he isn’t reproducing.

            Haha, pure trash.
            http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/10/31/9105/9154

            “This is a defining white-trash characteristic. They talk chastity and breed bastards. They have no thought for the future. Their lives are shaped by what happens to them.”
            “Some people are naturally virtuous, in the classical American sense. These virtuous people generally marry late, and after careful thought. ”

            This would make for a wicked burn but unfortunately the words are probably too big for that crowd to grasp.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Sorry little buddy, but that is still the best thing I can say about you. That you often try to discuss fairly nuanced topics but can’t comprehend two common vehicle constructions reveals you to be out of your depth.

          • 0 avatar

            > That you often try to discuss fairly nuanced topics but can’t comprehend two common vehicle constructions reveals you to be out of your depth.

            That’s interesting coming from someone anyone’s yet to see convey any nuance at any depth. Now’s your opportunity to disprove this; don’t waste it on mouthing off.

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/03/smaller-jeep-to-slot-beneath-renegade/#comment-2918858

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            The XJ Cherokee is a unitary constructed vehicle with a unitary full length chassis.

            It isn’t a separate ladder frame. To be BOF you must have a sperate ladder frame chassis.

            Not rocket science.

        • 0 avatar
          motormouth

          I respectfully disagree. According the the def I’ve worked with, BoF has a two- or three-beam set up running from back to bulkhead or back to engine cradle, with crossmembers at key junctures. It matters not how the tophat is fastened to this structure. A unibody vehicle has no such front-rear frame, as the floorpan sections (usaully three, sometimes two), sides and roof create both the body and and the support structure, onto which the closures are hung.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @motormouth
            Unibody means unibody. One piece.

          • 0 avatar

            > @motormouth Unibody means unibody. One piece.

            Wow, this guy finally figured it out for us, and it was so simple-minded all along. Let’s get cracking on the elusive ray-gun. Anybody got a ray and a gun?

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Just the other day I encountered a 1 degree wood plank hill, and could barely manage it.

    • 0 avatar
      myheadhertz

      “…scaling down that steep 1 degree hill…”

      Probably Photoshopped.

    • 0 avatar
      Carfan94

      The Grand Wagoneer is going to be built on a unibody platform whether you want it to be or not. The people that are going buy it aren’t going to care about what platform it’s built on.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Of course they’re not, everyone that wants a BoF jeep will move to the wrangler which means less profits for Jeep. Everyone that wants a jeep for its capabilities wouldn’t buy a unibody fullsize to begin with.

        Your argument is circular.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Most people don’t specifically care if a light duty vehicle has a separate frame or not. In fact, next to no-one cares. The few people that do seem to exaggerate the reasoning behind why they think it’s important.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I care, and I’m surely my the only one.

            The only reason for uniframe is cost savings. Uniframes are hell to repair in a wreck and are rarely the same after a major wreck. Uniframes leave no room for future changes because they’re practically disposable vehicles. Rust repair is also hell, if a spring perch for the front suspension breaks through, what are you going to do? Uniframes complicate a ton of repairs. And repairs are common when someone offroads a lot no matter the vehicle. Uniframe requires a much larger(thicker) impact zone to appropriately absorb impact energy.

            And offroad
            There are these things, called rockslides that are bolted into traditional frames to protect the rockers. Only now the entire undercarriage is at the same risk, and there is nothing to bolt protection too. uniframes also don’t allow enough needed angles offroad. Your not going anywhere without damage as long as you have such terrible approach and departure angles on both of these jeeps.

            A uniframe cannot take the repeated torture of a modern hydro formed BOF.

            ***
            Cannot install larger tires because the components are made to be fusible to cause component failure over ripping apart the body. (ie aside from obvious limitations with space to put tires, the vehicle has to have fuses to prevent damage to the uniframe.) Unless the half shafts are severely weakened there is just way too much potential to cause damage. Having wheels spinning then dropping onto a hard surface? No Būeno.
            **This part is a theory**

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            I know all the theory, I’ve done lots of collision work including replacing entire bent frames from underneath vehicles.

            The thing is, it’s still generally cost prohibitive and rare that it would be done. We rebuilt equally as many unibody vehicles with similar grades of damage.

            A unibody vehicle with the appropriate structural reinforcements can be equally torsionally strong as a vehicle with a separate frame, so there really is no need.

            Ladder frames are great for heavy load bearing and force distribution, but it just isn’t needed in light duty applications.

            As for modifications, there are plenty of aftermarket companies that are happy to offer lift kits and big tire mods for unibody SUVs out there. They aren’t even particularly expensive.

          • 0 avatar

            > A unibody vehicle with the appropriate structural reinforcements can be equally torsionally strong as a vehicle with a separate frame, so there really is no need.

            For the same weight, a monocoque will almost by definition be stronger. Ironically it’s not “torsional strength” but rather longer-term resilience that’s more useful in hardcore off-road. It’s easier to make a simpler thing resilient, but there’s good reasons why consumers don’t want simple anymore.

            > Ladder frames are great for heavy load bearing and force distribution, but it just isn’t needed in light duty applications.

            The only reason why it’s better for certain specific tasks is that a heavy load at point X is first order related to material girth near that point. Monocoques work by dissipating loads through the skin instead of brute-force, but there’s a limit to what can be done for pointed loads (like a trailer hitch). Therefore if the specific need calls for those loads at certain locations (like along the bed), it’s a better compromise to just use the simpler design.

    • 0 avatar

      To answer the question, yes, all those CUVs were actually tested on Rubicon and earn that badge. Do keep in mind what a dedicated driver brings to the table. I would probably not be able to take that trail in my own Rubi even.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    Will it be small enough to hang from a Cobalt’s keyring?

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    A sub-Renegade sized Jeep? The already sell them:

    http://www.walmart.com/ip/Power-Wheels-Barbie-Jammin-Jeep-12-Volt-Battery-Powered-Ride-on/15819260

  • avatar
    dwford

    Bicycle?

  • avatar
    mjz

    Bet it will be a Jeep version of the 4×4 FIAT Panda.

  • avatar

    Pretty good news! VW is readying a 4×4 based on the Up and being that in most of the world (including W. Europe), the small “SUV” is the fastest growing segment, taking a piece of that pie would enable the company to keep on investing in segments that interest me more.

    • 0 avatar
      Speed3

      Smart move, especially as Jeep becomes a global brand. A Jeep Panda will resonate will in a lot of emerging markets.

      So can we expect by 2016 or 17 the Jeep lineup will be:
      Jeepster (Panda)
      Renegade
      Cherokee
      Wrangler
      Grand Cherokee
      Grand Wagoneer

      That makes it the biggest model line of any FCA brand right?

  • avatar
    frozenman

    So let me get this straight , I can only get the manual with the engine that I do not want, in a weaker off-road set up? Check that, who is running this company anyways, Europeans? :)

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      That’s the way it goes these days with most manufacturers – put the manual in the base model with the base engine. For the life of me I don’t understand why the manufacturers aren’t charging MORE for manual transmissions these days since so few people want them. It seems that the manual drivers should pay for the privilege. I for one want a manual but don’t want a base car, and it’s damn hard to find that combo.

      • 0 avatar
        mjz

        I’ve read that it costs the manufacturers a bundle to certify each engine/transmission combo for each car model. From a performance standpoint, it probably makes more sense to offer the smaller engine with the manual, and the bigger engine with the auto. Otherwise, they would have to double the number of certifications if they offered both transmissions with both engines. With 96% of cars being sold with automatic transmissions, it’s probably not cost efficient to offer all these permutations for relatively low volume on some combos.

        • 0 avatar
          Garak

          That’s pretty much it. I’m surprised they bothered to sell the manual model at all in the US – perhaps it has something to do with CAFE ratings or whatnot.

  • avatar
    Garak

    Smaller Jeep… a 2-door Wrangler perhaps?

  • avatar
    koreancowboy

    A Jeep Panda?

    I’ve got my deposit ready!

  • avatar
    rpol35

    Smaller than a Renegade? They’ll have to call it a Peep or maybe even an eep!

  • avatar
    Joe McKinney

    From 1974-1993 Chrysler built the Ram Charger which was a two-door, full-size, bof SUV based on the D100/Ram pickup platform. This model was discontinued when the Ram was redesigned for 1994. I have always wondered why Chrysler has never built a full-size, four-door SUV based on the post-1994 Ram pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      Compaq Deskpro

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dodge_Ram_Charger_2005.jpg

      This is a unicorn car for truck enthusiasts, and it was only sold in Mexico.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I saw one in Western Michigan once. It had MI plates on it too. I spotted it from behind and almost wrote it off as a Caravan because they use the same liftgate and tail lamps.

        http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2012/11/cars/2001_Dodge_Ramcharger-2.jpg

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        But really that’s not off the Ram1500 chassis, it’s on the Durango/Dakota one.

        So it’s a pretend Ram Charger, ole!

        • 0 avatar
          Wheeljack

          Nope – it’s a shortened Ram 1500 chassis. From the doors forward literally everything interchanges with the 1994-2002 Ram 1500. Not a Durango/Dakota in any way. I’ve seen them up close and personal. The minivan tailgate and taillamps look similar to the Durango which give the visual impression that these are smaller than they really are.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            That sounds like a LOT of work for a limited market car.

            But I guess they weren’t about to take away from Durango sales in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Nice.

    • 0 avatar
      Joe McKinney

      I have heard of these Mexican Ram Chargers.

      Before Ford introduced the Expedition there was a company that made four-door Bronco conversions. I have seen one of these.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheeljack

        That would be Centurion. They also made crew cab F-150s before Ford did. Believe it or not, rather than just use a complete built-up cab from an F-350 crew cab and drop it on the F-150 frame, they actually cut up the F-150 cab and cobbled it into a crew cab from a kit that Ford would sell them. The workmanship was less than stellar in the few examples I’ve seen.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Pure class.

        http://worldcarslist.com/images/ford/ford-bronco-centurion-xlt/ford-bronco-centurion-xlt-10.jpg

        But I like it.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      They’ve come close a few times. Pilette road, where the old B-vans were built, was given a whole new paint shop at the end of the B-van run for an unnamed new product that never materialized. Speculation is that it was a BOF SUV based on the then new 2002+ Ram 1500 (DR in Chrysler body-code speak).

  • avatar
    AJ

    I’d wheel it. Just expect it to have some damage to all that plastic hanging low when I return it from the test drive.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    If the Wagoneer ends up a reality, it is just going to *kill* the Durango…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States