While You Were Sleeping: Jeep GC Pickup Render, Brilliance V3 Debut and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (Or a Lack Thereof)

@Hummer, It isn't a unitary constructed vehicle. The Grand Cherokee is. If you look at the rendering, it clearly shows a separate bed. To have this, at a minimum you will require a half chassis, similar to how the Commodore and Falcon 1 ton utes are manufactured.

@Big Al from Oz Read up on the Comanche, it is a unibody pickup with a separate removable bed. As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion the GM and Dodge vans that were used to make class C motorhomes and "high cube" vans were unibody. On second thought since you seem to be google impaired and have to have people provide you links here you go. http://s23.photobucket.com/user/themadhatter1964/media/image_zps0e329415.jpg.html That is all stamped sheet metal and for the most part it is the same as used on the SUV version except for the X style cross member and the top for the hat on the rails. And http://anti-rice.com/smf/index.php?topic=266.0 Scroll down to near the bottom of the page for a good look at how the sheet metal frame rails tie into the cab portion

@Scoutdude, If the bed from the Commanche is removable, it would have a half chassis as a minimum. The front/cab of the Commanche sat on a Cherokee chassis and the rear/bed sat on a much larger hollow section. Uniframe, which differs from older style vehicles from the 50s and 60s. The back bone of AMCs Uniframe was what is termed a hat section frame member. When fitted/welded to the vehicle it acted as a hollow section chassis rail. The Commanche's rear half of the frame was much deeper than what other comparable pickup had at the time. A problem from the use of a hat section chassis was corrosion. Jeep galvanised their Jeeps to reduce the onset of corrosion for this reason.

@Big Al from Oz You ask for links and I provide them for you but apparently you can't be troubled to actually look at them. Of course that shouldn't surprise me. Try again and you'll see a Comanche without a bed. The Comanche rails are not much different from those used under the Cherokee of the same vintage. They are not deeper than what other small pickups used at the time nor are they deeper than used on the Cherokee. The main difference is the length and that they have the points to weld in the X member. This type of construction is not new the Dodge Van and Chevy van used the same type of construction for their cutaway versions, ie a cab and chassis w/o rear bulkhead back in the 70's. Chrysler did tie the rails together with a full length ribbed sheet metal section instead of adding additional cross members. The Promaster, Sprinter and Transit use the same style of unibody construction on their cutaway and C&C

@Scoutdude, Find me a small pickup of the Commanche era that had a chassis as deep as this. http://smg.photobucket.com/user/87Warrior/media/MJ/P1010171.jpg.html

@Big Al from Oz That is the picture I sent you to go see and yeah the perspective makes it look deep but it really isn't as deep as the photo looks. Though I have no idea what that has to do with your misguided attempts to claim that it isn't a unibody, especially since that photo clearly shows how it integrates to the floor pan of the cab. Fact is they made a pickup out of their unibody SUV in the past and if they wanted to they could certainly do it again. It would be a smarter move than the GM twins though that really only means that it would loose less money which of course is why they won't build it. The Explorer Sport Trac is a good example of how unsuccessful such a vehicle would be. It is sad because the Sport Trac was a good vehicle. Heck I'd even consider one of them with the V8 and a hard cover and good seals on the gate to make the bed usable as a trunk.

@Scoutdude: I don't plan to get into your argument about unibody vs BoF pickup trucks at this time; however, your comment about the Explorer Sport Track is, in my opinion, in error. It failed not because it was unibody, but because the bed on it was anything BUT usable even for atypical DIY purposes and didn't offer any means of extending the load floor into the passenger cabin--which is one reason why the Avalanche lasted as long as it did by comparison. A load bed less than four feet long is almost worthless for carrying anything bigger than a lawn mower and not even some of those would ride that bed easily. It was an attempt to emulate the Avalanche while cheaping out on the one capability it really needed.

@Vulpine - Just stop already. You're a "lifestyle" truck guy, got it? You don't need a truck for work or constant hauling. A 4 ft bed is overkill for your occasional trucking "needs". 6 ft with the tailgate down. 10 ft tables are no problem twice a year. The extra few inch beds the Crew Cab Tacoma, Frontier, S10, Colorado, etc, offered were hardly a radical improvement. 6 ft beds didn't hit the midsize pickup market until the very end of the Sport Trac's life span. The Sport Trac priced itself out of the market with no basic strippers or regular/extra cab Sport Tracs. Just XLT and Limited.

@ Vulpine I never said that the Sport Trac was a unibody truck it was good old fashioned BOF. I was just making the comparison of another pickup that was derived from a SUV, rather than the previous norm of the SUV being derived from a pickup. Yes the original Explorer was derived from the Ranger but the final BOF version that had a Sport Trac version was on its own platform. It also is the closest thing in concept to this rendering of a GC based pickup, tiny bed and all. No it didn't sell very well and that has less to do with the size of the bed and more to do with the fact that small pickups were a dying breed by the time they made it to market. Personally with the need for a 3rd row mostly gone from my lifestyle the Sport Trac with a weatherproof locking bed would be an acceptable replacement for a Panther to me. @ Denver Mike, I agree that Ford limited the sales of the Sport Trac by not having a stripper model. However that was stratgecially done just as it was that it was an Explorer instead of a Ranger Crew Cab. The writing was already on the wall that the small truck buyer was shifting to the cheapskate and fleet buyer. So they called it an Explorer to capitalize on its success and to charge a higher price and then to further chase the cheapskates and fleets away they did not offer a rubber mat vinyl interior version.

@Big Al from Oz I wasn't talking to you, Denver, so your comment is definitely not appreciated. However, since you brought it up... More than 75% of pickup truck owners of ANY size in the US are "lifestyle" owners, most of them used more for towing a boat on the weekends or a camper trailer two or three times a year. In between times they're used to carry DIY things, if anything at all, which negates your attempt to denigrate me. No, a four-foot bed is NOT overkill for my needs, especially when there's no such thing as a two-foot tailgate on a factory-built truck; those are custom, aftermarket rigs usually incorporating a lift just to get those heavier loads into the too-high bed in the first place. And by no means would a load of eight-foot event tables ride securely in such a short bed even with its fifteen-inch tailgate down as that's still far too close to their center of gravity to eliminate any chance of tipping out. Such a load would need to be secured by at least two different tie downs AND be flagged as they would extend more than two feet behind the vehicle itself (depending on state anything more than 12" or so requires flagging). You also constantly harp on the crew cab trucks which while I admit are popular, simply are overkill in my case, the balance of extended cab with the bed given even that little bit of extra length suits my purposes far, far better without having the truck get overly long. A standard cab meets my minimum needs, but I prefer having enough room behind the seat to put something bigger than a rifle back there. Bowling balls are nine inches in diameter and I'd really rather carry them inside the cab rather than rolling/sliding free in the bed where they're exposed to direct sun and cold and almost invariably crack in extreme temperature changes. The Sport Trac's life span, by the way, was very, VERY short. Shorter even than the Avalanche. I've seen a grand total of two different Sport Trac Explorers since they were launched, one in a very truck-centric rural region and one almost a thousand miles southwest of that. Even those two confirmed that they were simply too much AND too little for my wants and needs--too much cab and too little bed, despite being smaller than a full-sized truck which is far too much cab, but at least a usable bed size if you discount its other disproportionate dimensions. I might have been more interested if I could have found an extended-cab Ranger when I absolutely needed a truck for those longer loads. No, the Sport Trac didn't price itself out of the market, the more conventional crew-cab trucks simply took its market away by offering a longer, more usable bed.

@Scoutdude: I clearly stated I was not entering the unibody vs bof argument--I simply don't care. What I said is that the Sport Trac had a critical flaw which is what led to its ultimate demise and that was its too-short bed.

@Vulpine - Please stop. You're embarrassing the rest of us lifestyle pickup guys and some gals. You have no clue of the basics and there should be tie-downs left loose in your bed at all times, no exceptions. Not to split hairs but a Sport Trac tailgate is still a 2 ft extension with the gap from the hinges. And a load with just a third hanging over is in no way close to tipping out. You remind me of dudes that put a towel to protect the tailgate protector from material. But I've yet to see anyone flag anything less than 4 or 5 ft past the tailgate.

@Scoutdude - The XL Sport Trac with vinyl everywhere, would've been mine, if Ford had made it. The stripper trucks are an unbelievable value, but not so much for the OEM, and especially not midsize. They gotta love the cheapskates and fleet though. It was like taking candy from a baby when the stripper regular cab midsizers were snatched away.

@Big Al from Oz The Sport Trac's bed was not significantly shorter than that of the GM small crew cabs which were 4.5'. The Sport Trac's bed would actually suffice for a lot of what I use a pickup for. I have two pickups and the small one, a Scout II with cab top which has a 5' bed is the one I use the most. It carries the lawn mower, weed eater, appliances, paint sprayer, engines, transmission and when I need a small amount of bulk materials it does that too. So a Sport Trac would cover the same uses for me as my current small pickup. The Avalanche was introduced for the normal 2002 model year while the Sport Trac was introduced in Jan 2000 as a 2001 model year. So the Sport Trac was sold for 11 years while the Avalanche was sold for 12 years being produced for the 2002-2013 model years. The only reason that the Sport Trac was discontinued when it was because the Explorer got an early redesign to the Taurus platform in response to the most recent energy crisis/recession. The Sport Trac sold pretty well around here and I still see them all the time. In fact when it was introduced it immediately ran up a 3 month waiting list. However its sales did fall off just like all the small pickups and mid size SUVs did around the same time.

@Scoutdude, The Sport Trac was quite a poor example of "Board Room" decisions. The Sport Trac isn't in the same league as the new US Colorado. You old school guys need to move beyond the glory days of the 50s and 60s and look at the here and now. Some of your comments seem quite unbelievable. The new gen midsizers like the Colorado and Canyon can and will perform what 85% of what current pickups are used for in the US. Advance the world has changed, you must change with it. Even full size pickups have changed, but their changes seem to be better from your perspective. Go out and drive a new gen midsizer. Or better still leave the apron strings you cling to in the US or Canada and tour the world. This will open your eyes and give you some insight and wisdom you current don't possess.

Big Al from Oz - it's just a photoshop rendering from an internet geek not an actual FCA project. Currently all FCA projects are directed towards merging with a company with money ;)