By on May 8, 2015

Jeep Trailhawk Truck Render

As trucks ride a heat wave of interest from consumers, I look at this Grand Cherokee render and think, “That’ll do.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

46 Comments on “While You Were Sleeping: Jeep GC Pickup Render, Brilliance V3 Debut and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (Or a Lack Thereof)...”


  • avatar
    Speed3

    Jeep GC Pickup wins the internet!

    That is the most handsome truck I have ever seen. OMG WHY DIDN’T I EVER THINK OF THIS BEFORE!!! Sergio please build now!

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    That really is an incredibly good looking truck.

  • avatar
    John R

    I’m not a truck person, but I think this is money in the bank. I wonder if FCA’s NOT making it would be considered a profit loss…

  • avatar
    its me Dave

    Gosh, who’d have thought a truck without a chrome grille the size of a two-car garage door could be good looking?

  • avatar
    GranMarkeez

    If they build it, I would buy it. In a heartbeat.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    The tires and wheels look like the ones from the Rubicon. I approve.

  • avatar
    55_wrench

    Theophilus,

    Nice work! Now could you please show us a longbed/cab and a half configuration?

    FCA should be building stamping dies NOW.

  • avatar
    jjster6

    I thought the GC was a unibody??? Looks nice, bit uni-bodies make bad trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      They have “box framed” unibodies, like the Econolines. Hence the cab/chassis vans.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The Econoline had a true separate frame from 1975 until its recent death.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          You’d think they’d lift the body off to do major work on a powerstroke, instead of fishing it straight forward with the forklift.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Actually the smart techs do remove the body, it is much quicker than tearing the front end apart to get it out that way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8g7IY_SPT8 Now on ambulances you do see some guys pull the front end apart to get the engine out because the patient care box and cab are tied together extensively but not solidly enough to remove as a unit. Support the box and the cab is left hanging and you can distort the front of the box or the cab.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Yes it is as was the original Cherokee which spawned the Comanche. All the old Chevy and Dodge vans they used to build box trucks and class C motorhomes were also unibody.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        The XJ was not the original Cherokee.

      • 0 avatar

        The original XJ Cherokee was a bit of an odd duck. I covered it in my piece on Roy Lunn, who was AMC’s head engineer then. The Cherokee was Jeep’s first unibody car and they way overengineered it. Perhaps that’s why you still see them on the road with 200K+ miles. Technically it was a unibody, but there were two frame rails that ran the length of car. It was more like a unitized body welded to a frame than a true monocoque. Anyhow, to make the Comanche, they welded an X shaped brace between those frame rails.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          There is nothing odd about the way the XJ was built it is the common way that unibody vehicles are made once again. That was the common method for larger vehicles back in the day look under a 60’s Lincoln, T bird or Mopar, Econoline, and many others. It is also exactly how the Aerostar, Astro, Dodge Van, Chevy Van were made and how the Transit, Promaster and Sprinter are made today.

          When cars got smaller they did start eliminated full length rails and just had stubs that extended under the floor pan for a bit and relied on the rocker structure between the two ends. Think Falcon or Mustang.

          However as NVH became a bigger concern the full length rails made a comeback in smaller to mid size cars. Take look under a 1st gen Taurus, or Fusion.

          There are no mainstream true monocoque cars made today, they are unitary construction, they do not have a stressed skin, they all incorporate sub structural members to carry the loads.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Honda Civic as a whole does not sell well in Australia, much better options out there

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I’m sure FCA has never asked themselves why they axed the Comanche and Dakota pickups while the Cherokee and BOF Durango they were based on are still in full production.

  • avatar
    boogieman99

    That’s a good looking truck. They they made it as a compact or mid-sized based on the Cherokee platform, they’d probably have a winner

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Jeep Trailhawk – That is one incredible rendering. Too bad it is just a fantasy.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Didn’t think it was possible to create an attractive unibody pickup, I suppose if you use the only attractive crossover as the basis, it’s completely possible.

    They won’t put it into production, and that, too many is a mistake.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @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.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        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

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @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.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            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

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @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

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ 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.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Al you are right the Sport Trac was not in the same league as the new GM mid sizers in its final iteration it was much more refined in both ride, handling and interior quality/amenities.

            Though I’m not sure what the POS Colorado has do do with the discussion of a pickup derived from a SUV which is what we were talking about.

            Personally I’m not going to buy any new pickup, unless maybe if I win the lottery. I just don’t like driving a pickup as my main mode of transport so for the amount I use one my old F350 is great for the big loads and for the smaller ones I’ve got my even older Scout.

  • avatar
    iMatt

    That reminds me, I wonder how Alex Dykes made out with his own Jeep Trailhawk project. His project required a little more imagination and guts to pull off!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    The Jeep pickup looks great. There will be problem, cost. it will be quite expensive.

    Maybe if FCA used the body style on a full chassis.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      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 ;)

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Lou,
        I realise this.

        My comment is directed at those who think it’s great because of the looks.

        FCA would be better off building the Rampage using the Wrangler chassis.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: But all I really wanted was the glass touchscreen controls – no wait that’s wrong. To really...
  • ajla: There are some classic vehicles where I think doing an EV conversion would be a questionable choice. All...
  • MRF 95 T-Bird: There’s a lot of 50’s-60’s Virgil Exner in that dashboard and steering wheel. Maybe it’s a new retro...
  • DenverMike: It’s not that VWs are “unreliable” necessarily except unscheduled service like window...
  • Lie2me: They are a $100K and above in Escalade or Denali trim, just like any truck can get to a $100K if you want it...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber