A New, Smaller Ram Pickup Will Emerge From Ohio's Jeep Wrangler Plant: Report

by Steph Willems

Published: September 17th, 2018

a new smaller ram pickup will emerge from ohio s jeep wrangler plant report

If true, it’s news that should bring a smile to a certain American president’s face. Fiat Chrysler’s Toledo Assembly Complex, home to the current Jeep Wrangler JL and its upcoming long-wheelbase pickup variant, will become the assembly site of a new, midsize Ram pickup, a report claims.

The new Ram model, which apparently eschews unibody construction in favor of rugged (and traditional) body-on-frame architecture, doesn’t have a name, but at least it now has a tentative home.

Automotive News claims supplier sources point to Toledo as the birthplace of the new Ram, which some Ram diehards feel simply must carry the Dakota name. After retooling the Toledo North plant for production of the current-generation Wrangler JL, FCA pulled the plug on production of the older Wrangler KJ in April of this year. The retooling of the Toledo South plant for JL pickup production is nearly complete.

However, as Automotive News points out, the expected volume of Wrangler pickups is nowhere near the output of Wrangler JKs, leaving plenty of unused capacity. Given the product shuffling seen over the past couple of years, FCA’s potential choices for a production site are extremely limited. Toledo has the space, and the ability to handle body-on-frame products. A shoe-in, it seems.

CEO Mike Manley, then head of FCA’s Jeep and Ram brands, didn’t give many details on the new model after its announcement in the automaker’s five-year product plan in June. The vehicle will be mid-sized, he said, and will appear before 2022. Supplier sources claim the model’s on track for a 2020 launch as a 2021 model year vehicle.

At the time of the plan’s unveiling, David Elshoff, head of Ram brand communications, confirmed to TTAC that FCA intends to bring the midsize truck to America. The new model will replace the body-on-frame Fiat Fullback in overseas markets, he said, adding that the Mitsubishi Triton/L200-based pickup apparently produced “inconsequential” sales.

While it may not have been the automaker’s chief motivation for the new baby Ram, Ford’s looming entry into the North American midsize pickup market would have left FCA as the only “trucky” OEM without a product in the segment.

[Image: RL GNZLZ/ Flickr ( CC BY-SA 2.0)]

#Fca #FiatChryslerAutomobiles #FutureVehicles #MidsizeTrucks #ProductPlanning #Ram #Trucks

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 20 comments

Johnster on Sep 17, 2018

It's about time. This sounds great, and no, it doesn't need a V8 and it doesn't need a Hemi. I suppose that the sad and underwhelming Tigershark 2.4 will be the base engine. On the other hand, the 3.6 Liter Pentastar V6 and the 3.0 Liter EcoDiesel V6 would be great as optional engines.

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- Ajla on Sep 17, 2018
  
  The original Dakota didn't "need" any V8s either but it still offered them. A 5.7L Dakota would give the truck a unique selling point in its class and the "Hemi" branding under the FCA umbrella is nearly as strong as the "Ecoboost" branding for Ford. I'm sure they can also offer the Pentastar or Ecodiesel for people into that sort of thing.
  
  Like
- Vulpine on Sep 17, 2018
  
  I don't know why everyone is so down on the Tigershark; it's really a good engine, when tied to the 9-speed automatic. I have no complaints about it whatever, though I admit I very probably drive it differently from most of you. Highway mileage, city mileage, I have never experienced the issues so many reviewers complain about. Of course, I'm also willing to tip the shifter into 'manual' mode, too.
  
  Like
- Drzhivago138 on Sep 23, 2018
  
  @ajla Aside from the Shelby model, the *original* original Dakota offered no V8s until the 1991 facelift extended the hood. In 1987, its shtick was not "small pickup with a V8," but rather "small pickup with a 4 x 8' bed." In terms of both displacement and power, its engines were roughly on par with those of the Ranger and S-10 before the V8.
  
  Like
Here4aSammich on Sep 17, 2018

“FCA pulled the plug on production of the older Wrangler KJ in April of this year. The retooling of the Toledo South plant for JL pickup production is nearly complete.” Apparently there are no adults fact checking the interns... The old Wrangler was the JK, not the KJ.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Oberkanone 1973 - 1979 F series instrument type display would be interesting. https://www.holley.com/products/gauges_and_gauge_accessories/gauge_sets/parts/FT73B?utm_term=&utm_campaign=Google+Shopping+-+Classic+Instruments+-+Non-Brand&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&hsa_acc=7848552874&hsa_cam=17860023743&hsa_grp=140304643838&hsa_ad=612697866608&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=pla-1885377986567&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwrIixBhBbEiwACEqDJVB75pIQvC2MPO6ZdubtnK7CULlmdlj4TjJaDljTCSi-g-lgRZm_FBoCrjEQAvD_BwE
TCowner Need to have 77-79 Lincoln Town Car sideways thermometer speedo!
Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I'd rather they have the old sweep gauges, the hhuuggee left to right speedometer from the 40's and 50's where the needle went from lefty to right like in my 1969 Nova
Buickman I like it!
JMII Hyundai Santa Cruz, which doesn't do "truck" things as well as the Maverick does.How so? I see this repeated often with no reference to exactly what it does better.As a Santa Cruz owner the only things the Mav does better is price on lower trims and fuel economy with the hybrid. The Mav's bed is a bit bigger but only when the SC has the roll-top bed cover, without this they are the same size. The Mav has an off road package and a towing package the SC lacks but these are just some parts differences. And even with the tow package the Hyundai is rated to tow 1,000lbs more then the Ford. The SC now has XRT trim that beefs up the looks if your into the off-roader vibe. As both vehicles are soft-roaders neither are rock crawling just because of some extra bits Ford tacked on.I'm still loving my SC (at 9k in mileage). I don't see any advantages to the Ford when you are looking at the medium to top end trims of both vehicles. If you want to save money and gas then the Ford becomes the right choice. You will get a cheaper interior but many are fine with this, especially if don't like the all touch controls on the SC. However this has been changed in the '25 models in which buttons and knobs have returned.