By on February 26, 2020

Poised deliver a super-sized sport utility vehicle to a brand that doesn’t have anything in its lineup to compete with the likes of the Chevy Suburban, Ford Expedition or their more-premium alternatives, Jeep’s returning Grand Wagoneer is probably about a year from entering production. Eager to check on Jeep’s progress, our sister site AutoGuide spoke with brand head Jim Morrison this week.

Most of the interview centered around the new Gladiator Mojave and how important it was not to taint the Jeep brand by forgetting what it’s supposed to represent — getting groovy off the pavement. Morrison also touched on the Wagoneer, however, hinting that we’ll get our first official taste very soon. 

The model is expected to go on sale in 2021 (possibly early 2022), with public debuts occurring this year.

“I think one of the things we like about the Jeep brand is that we pay attention to what our customers are saying,” Morrison told AutoGuide. “They’ve said they wanted a pickup truck? We’ve given the Gladiator. They’ve said they wanted a Wrangler with a diesel? We’ve given them EcoDiesel. So obviously we pay attention to them and close attention to what our customers are looking for. It makes a lot of sense to be next out of the chute with the Grand Wagoneer, but more on that soon.”

With room for at least seven, the returning Wagoneer and uplevel Grand Wagoneer will be the largest products in Jeep’s current lineup. The manufacturer has previously confirmed the existence of hybrid variants; Morrison hinted Wagoneer will have an electrified powertrain offered as an option — probably after it has been on sale for a while and potentially using the brand’s new “4xe” badging. While this might upset purists, shared bones with the Ram 1500 means body-on-frame construction and healthy off-road chops. No reason to panic.

Most powertrains should be familiar to Ram owners. While Jeep has yet to confirm everything offered with the Wagoneer, anything that fits into the pickup should be fair game — ditto for the 48-volt, mild-hybrid system that’s available on the 3.6-liter six-cylinder and 5.7-liter V8. As with all Jeep models, accessories will carry an elevated level of importance. Expect an impressively lengthy list in the Jeep Performance Parts catalog.

[Images: Jeep]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

85 Comments on “Jeep’s Grand Wagoneer Fast Approaching...”


  • avatar
    Hummer


    “I think one of the things we like about the Jeep brand is that we pay attention to what our customers are saying,” ”

    So what your saying is this WILL have solid axles and not be yet another dud product in the Jeep lineup.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I get why you won’t care for it, but if the current Grand Cherokee doesn’t have solid axles at either end (and doesn’t suffer for sales), and the Grand Wagoneer’s future competition is moving away from them, don’t get your hopes up.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Grand Cherokee was never designed to go off-road or be the King Jeep.
        The Wagoneer was always the top of the line, it’s sets the standard for the brand, if it cannot off-road and comes out with some generic independent suspension setup front/rear it would really stand to hurt the Jeep brand. There’s a lot of people excited to finally get an off-road capable SUV that are going to keep their money if Jeep screws this up. I can’t blame them FCA has done good with the Wrangler and Gladiator but it has really sullied the brand name with the rest of the products.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “Grand Cherokee was never designed to go off-road”

          You’re misinformed. I’ve taken WK2 Grand Cherokees down trails 99.9% of SUV owners will never go on overland trips with Jeep clubs. They’re extremely capable. If you need more, the Wrangler Rubicon exists but has significant on-road tradeoffs.

          • 0 avatar
            rpol35

            I would have to agree with you. My 2012, basic-as-they-come with Quadratrac I and that’s about it, has never let me down off-road. And I imagine that it has gone a lot more places than most WK2s have, as in those that prefer just boulevard cruising.

    • 0 avatar

      looking thru the forum posts on this most people seem to care alot more about how it compares against an escalade then if it has solid axles. I know there are Jeep fans that care but this vehicle doesn’t need them for it’s core buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        So your saying this will sell to posers that have no use for the actual vehicle but rather want to project an image in a useless vehicle that can’t cash the check it’s writing?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          A Grand Wagoneer will automatically be seen as a poser vehicle not because of its lack of off-road prowess but lack of credibility in the prestige land-yacht segment. No one who buys vehicles in that segment is going to care about articulation.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            “A Grand Wagoneer will automatically be seen as a poser vehicle not because of its lack of off-road prowess but lack of credibility in the prestige land-yacht segment. No one who buys vehicles in that segment is going to care about articulation.”

            Our buddy lives in his own little reality, thinking that solid axles makes the difference between success and failure. Jeep has proven that wrong with the Grand Cherokee, which is full independent suspension and still sells like crazy. The Grand Wagoneer will be a winner simply because it will attract people who would love to have a bigger Grand Cherokee.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “The Grand Wagoneer will be a winner simply because it will attract people who would love to have a bigger Grand Cherokee.”

            Yup, that sums it up nicely.

            And Jeep will sell every single one they make regardless of its celestial price.

            That’s the way it was with the past Grand Wagoneer, and will be again.

          • 0 avatar

            Judging by the fact that all the wealthy suburbs here in CT are littered with Grand Cherokees I would say they have no reputation problem. Plenty of people that wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ford or Chevy have no issue with buying a jeep.

        • 0 avatar
          conundrum

          You and your stick axles. What a hoot! The niche man who insists niche, and poor niche at that, should be spread to the great unsuspecting public as standard? What, the average dolt who buys a Grand Cherokee thinks they’re going to offroad it over giant rocks where the articulation might help? Right.

          You’re just the truck side of the people who want a brown six peed manual diesel wagon, and cannot understand why they’re not offered.

          And one day, you’ll work out that your and you’re are not the same word.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ What, the average dolt who buys a Grand Cherokee thinks they’re going to offroad it over giant rocks where the articulation might help? Right.”

            Precisely no one, because like the other minivans in Jeeps portfolio it has no off-road capability but is rather a place holder for the one (now 2) vehicles in the brand with any off-road capability. By definition of building the largest, most prestigious Jeep, it need function as the brand suggests it should.

            Nothing I’m saying is complicated, you should get out in the real world sometime and explore.

        • 0 avatar
          Whatnext

          Um yeah, since most SUVs are bought by useless posers already why would it be any different?

      • 0 avatar
        White Shadow

        “looking thru the forum posts on this most people seem to care alot more about how it compares against an escalade then if it has solid axles.”

        Exactly. Nobody cares about solid axles. And there’s the Wrangler for people who care, but those aren’t the same people who will buy a bigger Jeep vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        So there’s an off-road core, and an Escalade competitor core? I wonder which one is bigger, not to mention which one will pay for the extra luxe “appointments”?

    • 0 avatar
      White Shadow

      LOL, nobody (except maybe Luddites) wants solid axles. I think someone is out of touch with reality. This isn’t 1980. Jeep people interested in a Grand Wagoneer want a comfortable cruiser that will still have decent capability off-road. And that’s exactly what Jeep will give us. Think Grand Cherokee in a plus size. You know, the same Grand Cherokee that completed the Rubicon Trail in stock form with virtually no damage. I thought I’d mention that before the ignorant comment coming about the Grand Cherokee being incapable of offroading from our resident Luddite Hummer fanboi.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        “ LOL, nobody (except maybe Luddites) wants solid axles.”

        Oh sorry I must have forgot that the two top selling vehicles in America don’t have solid axles… oh wait. Nevermind your just a moron.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          You’re before that gets out

        • 0 avatar
          White Shadow

          Apples and oranges, you mental midget. Try comparing vehicles in the same segment and then maybe I’d actually think you have a brain. The IRS Grand Cherokee far outsells the solid rear axle 4Runner. Sorry, you lose.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “The IRS Grand Cherokee far outsells the solid rear axle “

            Calls me mental midget, proceeds to make such an argument himself..

            That’s cool, do you know the Toyota Camry also outsells the 4Runner? Your doing exactly what you claimed I was doing, your comparing a crossover to an SUV, the current GC is not an off-road vehicle, it’s a crossover with a very limited amount of aftermarket and outside of dropping $40,000 to completely modify the already unsuitable platform to make it off-road capable, it cannot do what the 4Runner does.

            You couldn’t tell the difference between a crossover and an SUV if they plowed into your ignorant arse.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            “Calls me mental midget, proceeds to make such an argument himself..”

            Wrong. You lose again. The 4Runner and the Grand Cherokee are cross shopped because they are competitor vehicles. Both SUVs, both midsize, both similar price. Get your head out of you butt, buddy. Camry is apples and oranges. The stupidity here is astounding.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ The 4Runner and the Grand Cherokee are cross shopped because they are competitor vehicles.”

            Do you get off on being wrong?

            These are two separate vehicle types one is an SUV one is a Crossover. They have two different purposes. One started life as a Mercedes crossover platform, the other a Land Cruiser Prado. I can’t imagine walking around as smug as you are actually believing you have an IQ above 50.

          • 0 avatar

            The first time SUV was used as a term was in the 80’s and it was commonly applied to the XJ cherokee in fact lots of books and articles contend the XJ is the prototypical SUV. While lots of people have decided a frame is required for an SUV most seem to make an exception for the things like the XJ and GC. It’s further confused by that fact the chassis is not shared with any cars only SUV’s with varying degrees of offroadability.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            “These are two separate vehicle types one is an SUV one is a Crossover. They have two different purposes.”

            No, they really aren’t. Like I said, they are the same size,same price SUVs and many people cross shop them. I’ve own multiple of both vehicles. They are far more the same than they are different. Let’s examine: RWD based. 4wd with 2-speed transfer case. Terrain response. V6 engine (although the GC also has a V8 and a diesel).

            Yup, you’re still wrong. These two vehicles are competitors. They are squarely in the midsize segment without many other competitors that have the hardware I mentioned.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “No, they really aren’t. Like I said, they are the same size,same price SUVs and many people cross shop them. I’ve own multiple of both vehicles. They are far more the same than they are different. Let’s examine: RWD based. 4wd with 2-speed transfer case. Terrain response. V6 engine (although the GC also has a V8 and a diesel).“

            Toyota made a 4×4 Tercel wagon with the exact same specs, and guess what? They’re much more similar to the car based GC. There’s no similarities between the GC and the 4R unless you squint really hard.
            As I have said, no one looking to go off-road and do activities off-road is looking at a GC, it’s strictly bought for the image associated with the Cherokee from the 90s when it had solid axles. The GC has proven to be sterile, incapable of being modified in the ways necessary to facilitate off-roading outside of a closed course set up by FCA.

            The GC does not have the chassis integrity required to support a tire size capable of making it through the majority of off-road situations, it does not have the integrity to be used in situations that require a ladder frame, being yanked out of a mud hole would be plenty enough to rip away the weak unibody.

            It’s simply facts vs fiction, one of these vehicles can be modified to go off-road, the other is incapable of out performing its factory spec settings – something no capable off-roader is bound by. Pretending the GC has the off-road capability of the XJ is falling for marketing speak. Anyone that has worked in a large corporation can tell you marketing will sell a product anyway possible even if it cannot live up to the designs specifications. It’s up to the consumer to do their homework and make a decision based off of that.

            Both traditional unibody and traditional independent suspension are individually hindrances to off-roading, combined it’s a train wreck that belongs on paved roads only. There is no shortage of proof with simple google searches.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            Wrong again, Humboy. The Tercel (how old are you? LOLOL) is in no way comparable to a Grand Cherokee. I won’t argue logic and/or facts with you because you’re clearly incapable of doing that. Just be clear that the Grand Cherokee comes with virtually everything you can find on a 4Runner, minus the solid rear axle. But the Jeep has more ground clearance than any stock 4Runner, so there’s that. And newsflash for you: the vast majority of Grand Cherokees and 4Runners are street driven and never go off-road. Stop pretending otherwise. Hell, even most new Wranglers are mostly street driven. But the Wrangler IS THE choice for most who want to offroad an new 4×4. Yes, I have a 4×4 Jeep called a GC Trailhawk and yes it does go off-road, but most people with similar Grand Cherokees or 4Runners never leave pavement. That’s a fact. But hey, if you want to run the Rubicon Trail, take solace in knowing that you can do it in a bone stock Grand Cherokee Trailhawk.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Technically, don’t they have both? Last time I checked no half ton pickup has a solid axle out front and I believe they are in fact, the best selling vehicles in the country (and world)

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Yeah damn Luddites and whatnot. Except what’s to differentiate from the AWD Expedition or Tahoe physically? Never mind the Defender and G Wagon segment.

        Escalade? Nah thanks.

        The stick front axle would be a sales gimmick mostly, at least for original owners. But a stick axle is much easier to lift (drop actually) and put lumpy M/T 35 inch tires under. Or 37s with reservoir shocks?

        Not that that’s what I’d do, but what better way to one-up the other purpose-built off road, Paris to Dakar mommy poser mobiles at the preschool drive-thru?

        A stick front axle on coils, tall profile tires, and possibly air-ride, wouldn’t be so bad actually. And for the cred you’s get, it sounds like it’s worth the pain.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        “LOL, nobody (except maybe Luddites) wants solid axles. I think someone is out of touch with reality.”

        You know the old saying, you can lead a horse to water……..

        No one that buys a FS SUV these days cares about off-road prowess. No one! They’re too expensive for that. The off-road toys get put in a v-nose enclosed trailer or toy hauler hooked to the back. That’s REALITY!

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “They’re too expensive for that.”

          I’m guessing a very, very low percentage of Camaros and Corvettes go on a road course, (and they can be quite expensive too). Yet, GM is fitting *every* C8 with dry sump lubrication and the Camaro offers several flavors of 1LE.

          I don’t get why SUVs buyers are so willing to give up performance.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            But you can still buy a Wrangler, a 4Runner, G Wagon or a Land Cruiser if you want off-road performance and are willing to make the tradeoffs.

            Most buyers of daily driven family vehicles value on road ride comfort and fuel economy more than off road prowess. It’s different than something like dry sump that only costs money and has no downside in normal driving.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Most buyers of daily driven family vehicles”

            Should Defenders and Grand Wagoneers be in that category? And if you say “yes, of course, that’s what sells” then how does anything more niche exist in the first place?

            I’m not saying the GW should be a Unimog but the desire for it to be more Land Cruiser/G-class and less Durango Brougham doesn’t seem unreasonable.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            The niche ones exist because they are descended from military hardware or legendary off roaders of decades past. These tend to have kept their off road chops, at least compared to the rest of the segment. They also sell much worse.

            Range Rover, G Class, Land Cruiser, Wrangler, Hummer (when it existed).

            The truck based direct competition for this vehicle has trended the other way. I can’t help but think that if the exact same thing was sold as a Ram vs being sold as a Jeep, no one except Hummer would see a problem with an on road focus.

            We also don’t actually know anything about this vehicle other than its based off a Ram chassis. For all we know, Jeep will sell a Rubicon trim with solid axles and shame the Land Cruiser.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “or legendary off roaders of decades past.”

            Isn’t that what the GW and Defender are?

            “if the exact same thing was sold as a Ram vs being sold as a Jeep, no one except Hummer would see a problem with an on road focus.”

            As the founder of this website would tell you “branding matters”.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            Defender yes, and I think the decisions made with that vehicle were foolish. LR/RR already had enough on road focused vehicles that they didn’t need to waste a good name on one more.

            The Grand Wagoneer I never saw with a history of being a desert runner or a rock crawler. Much more of a Suburban type vehicle that’s capable of reaching a remote cabin in the woods or handling a foot of snow on the highway while hauling the whole family in relative comfort. In other words, exactly what this new GW will be capable of.

          • 0 avatar

            Well to some extent it’s like adding cup holders or AC to a sports car it just makes them better for what they are actually used for while only giving up a little in performance. Yes you can take it to far but in reality they are doing what the market asks. Which is make a tough looking truck with some offroad chops that drives like a luxury car. The land cruiser has had IFS for the past 2 generations for the same reason. I used to belong to an offroad club and still keep up with a bunch of the old members. Lots of them still have trail rigs and also have Suburbans and Expedtions and hell even F-150’s that never go offroad. But the haul the family and tow the trail rig while maintaing some offroad cred. That’s all they care about.

          • 0 avatar

            So the Defender is interesting. Based on offroad testing of other LR’s with the same basic chassis, they can be really good offroad. Based on some Australian test I have seem they are remarkably similar to a LC offroad but reliability and complexity cause issues.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            From what I can tell the Defender is just a Discovery with different sheetmetal, the “off-road” package stuff standard (in exchange for cheaper engines), and loaded with a bunch of goofy gimmicks to make the DeMuro types swoon.

            I’m sure it will be “fine” off-road, but I think something wearing a Defender badge should be more hardcore. Like the equivalent to a ZL1 1LE or a GT3 RS. Especially when you consider that LR already offers many comfort/family oriented SUVs/CUVs.

          • 0 avatar
            Maymar

            The branding on the original Wagoneer was roughly that of a family car that could go anywhere, nothing so niche or hardcore that the Grand Cherokee isn’t already capable of (also, apparently IFS was available for a couple years).

          • 0 avatar

            I kind of agree with you on the Defender but it’s a bit more complicated. I think the big reason the new defender is the way it is, is that JLR wanted to use an existing platform. In this case D7 that was used by the Range rover and Discovery. This platform has been around a long time and is actually really good offroad. But it’s not simple like an old defender.
            To relate to sports cars people were saying they wanted a viper, old school mechanicals etc (stick axles coil suspension v6 or v8). What LR made was more akin to a modern car like a hybrid NSX (full independent suspension with electronic controls and fully electronic differential locking and wheel spin management) Something that is technically superior (at least on paper) but doesn’t evoke the same emotions. It’s kind of like saying I want to make a 10 cyl sports car with RWD and no electronic nannies vs building a car just to meet a time at a race track or in this case down a trail.

            Basically the new Defender gets you down the same trail as a stock Wrangler or LC, but unlike those is basically impossible to modify to make more offroad specific, and also will likely have long term repair issue the other won’t. But it will also ride and handle way better on the road.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Yet, GM is fitting *every* C8 with dry sump lubrication”

            hardly evidence of anything other than they’d have to move the engine higher to fit in a wet sump.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Land Cruisers have been IFS since the 100 series in 1998. The 105 Soldiered on overseas, but it was an 80 chassis with a 100 body. Currently, all of the big cruisers are IFS. The 70 series I believe is still SFA, but not here. It is basically a jeep for people who depend on their rig to actually not break.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      This is going to be based on a Ram 1500. That means it won’t have a solid front axle. A solid rear axle is more likely, but I wouldn’t be shocked if they pulled a GM and found a way to reengineer their truck frame to accommodate IRS. The buyer base for this will want a usable 3rd row and big cargo capacity a lot more than it will want the last few pounds of towing capacity and a bit more articulation.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        A “platform” can go both ways. The Ram 1500 and Ram 2500+ share a platform as do the F-150 and F-250+.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          There is just no way they would ever use a solid axle from a 3/4 ton truck in an SUV that will be competing with smooth-riding vehicles like Range Rovers and GLS-Classes.

          This isn’t going to be the ultimate off-road vehicle. That’s the Wrangler. This is going to be a luxury SUV just like all the others, maybe with a few extra degrees of approach angle for “Trail Rated”-ness.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Of course you’re right, and the truck is already there to basically badge engineer, and besides a Wagoneer, likely spread to a Tahoe/Expedition direct competitor from Dodge, Ram, Chrysler or all three.

            It’s stuff that should’ve been done decades ago, but Dana still does a 1/2 ton front axle, in case Fiat feels adventurous.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “A “platform” can go both ways. The Ram 1500 and Ram 2500+ share a platform as do the F-150 and F-250+.”

          “share a platform”

          WTF?

          Sharing a ***CAB*** is not sharing a platform. There was a time when there wasn’t much difference between a 1/2 ton truck and a HD. Ford has gone back to sharing a cab but the rest of the truck is different.

          When it comes to pickups, the Frame/chassis is the platform.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Are the frames interchangeable between the base/base F-150 and Raptor? They’re wildly different, except you could physically and easily convert a 2020 F-150 to a 3/4 ton, even if capacity-wise, not legally so.

            A “platform” has little to do with the “frames” used, and everything to do with the engineered spatial orientation/location of the shared steering, braking, fuel tank cell, fuel lines, engines/drivetrains, wiring looms, and a whole lot more.

            The engineering/assembly costs savings is a huge part of why the two truck lines converged.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      yeah, because death wobble will be such an appealing feature to high-end Jeep owners.

  • avatar
    CaddyDaddy

    I don’t see the appeal for these things. The 360s would always breadcrumb a trail of 10w 40 out the rear main, the QuadraTrack AWD system with the controller in the glove compartment would always eat its own clutch plates alive and the Quadra – Bog Carb was a fickle animal that would never stay in tune. …..and the rust and the build quality.

  • avatar
    Zoomers_StandingOnGenius_Shoulders

    This thing has more hype fatigue than the new Broncos.
    I guess it should do better than the Commander did, right???

    • 0 avatar
      White Shadow

      The Grand Cherokee killed the Commander. Jeep should have upsized the Commander instead of making it a squared-off Grand Cherokee. The two vehicles were just too similar. They tried to differentiate the Commander by offering it with a third row, but it was really just another midsize SUV without any real size advantage, which meant a cramped third row.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    If they build something that actually drives and handles as nice as a ‘Burb or ‘Hoe and the other GM derivatives they may actually sell a few to people other than current Jeep owners.

    Still they’ll be nothing more than a very small player in a market that continues year after year to be dominated by General Motors.

  • avatar
    ajla

    A reason to be glad I’m into sporty cars instead of SUVs. If FCA brought out a Challenger Hellcat with SXT performance because “that’s all people need”, 98% of the comments would be brutal. But, Jeep and Land Rover build $70K+ butch MPVs and it seems like its all good for people that buy in this segment.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      It’s more like why FCA says the road course handling of the Challenger is “good enough” and doesn’t make a lightweighted 1LE style version. Because the people that buy that car value straight line acceleration over handling, as long as the latter is reasonable.

      The people buying in the $70K+ SUV segment overwhelmingly vote for on road manners over off road capability, so that’s what’s provided. How many Land Cruisers are sold vs. Escalades at a similar price?

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I think a better analogue here would be an SRT-built 300. Yes, the letter cars were serious performers in the 50’s, but I’d never expect to see a stripped interior track special 300 with kidney-pulverizing suspension.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Like I wrote up thread, I’m not expecting Jeep to build a half-track or anything. But I do think the GW should be more like a Land Cruiser.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So solid rear axle with front IFS? That is what every US Land Cruiser has run since like 1998 and what the big 200 series rigs run all the world over today. As this is slated to share the Ram 1500 chassis I see this as the likely outcome.

  • avatar
    NoID

    For people lambasting Jeep for watering down the brand with unibody CUVs and independently-sprung SUVs: Every Jeep doesn’t have to compete with every other Jeep to be top off-roader. Every Jeep needs to compete with every other vehicle IN ITS INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT to be top off-roader, and up to this point they’ve done a fantastic job of that. I have every expectation that the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer will continue that trajectory.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “every other vehicle IN ITS INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT. I have every expectation that the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer will continue that trajectory”

      The Land Cruiser is in this segment. Is it going to be better than that off-road? Or is FCA just going to make it more capable than a Navigator and call it a day?

      • 0 avatar

        If jeep takes the ram and adds some option for locking diffs etc it very may well be capable of what a cruiser can do. A LR4 can keep up with a LC offroad pretty well despite the IRS, the bigger issue is reliability.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          I’m not a suspension engineer and I’m not necessarily “live axle of GTFO” like Mr. Hummer.

          If FCA is benchmarking the Land Cruiser’s capability for the GW then I don’t have any complaints. If they are benchmarking “better than a Navigator so it’s ‘trail-rated’ ” then I’ll whine about it.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The qualifier for trail rated is lower than GMs qualifier for Z71, which amounts to nothing more than a thin plastic “skid” plate, different rims, faded to pink shocks with poor dampening, and a sticker.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        The Land Cruiser STARTS at 85,000 dollars in the US. Furthermore it utilizes an IFS with a solid rear axle and shares significant portions of the chassis with the Sequoia/Tundra.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          We don’t know the final price of the GW, but FCA has hinted that it’ll be expensive.

          I don’t have any axle purity test, that’s Hummer’s argument. I just think this Jeep should supremely capable off-road (as in class winning) and not only a “mall crawler”.

        • 0 avatar
          newenthusiast

          “The Land Cruiser STARTS at 85,000 dollars in the US. Furthermore it utilizes an IFS with a solid rear axle and shares significant portions of the chassis with the Sequoia/Tundra.”

          It took some digging, but a web search indicates that the 1977-1984 Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer had an MSRP between $6,966 – $22,400 in 1984 depending on chosen options. (It looks like after AMC was acquired by Chrysler, the only trim available was the fully loaded version, which was always north of $30k).

          Using an online inflation calculator, those numbers translate to $29,653 – $95,355 in 2019. So yeah, even back then, the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer were priced way above anything else AMC/Chrysler sold.

          FCA has already stated that it’s going to be its flagship model, in terms of pricing. It’s entirely reasonable to presume that if they are looking at to do an “American” competitor to the Land Cruiser and the Range Rover in capability and amenities, they would also consider pricing it accordingly.

          Now, whether they can actually sell it that price? Maybe to people who are old enough remember the original fondly and have the money to do that. But for me, I’d look at a Durango GT+ or Citadel, and think…. “Is the (assumed) off road capability worth THAT much more from FCA????” (yes, they are on different platforms…but most consumers don’t care about that)

          I suspect for most people, the answer is ‘no’.

  • avatar
    la834

    What really matters isn’t whether the Grand Wagoneer will have solid axles, it’s whether it will have woodgrain paneling…

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    That brochure pic at the top of the article looks like part of a pitch for a Green Acres revival.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    I see two schools of thought here.

    1) Make it a Power Wagon with the body of an SUV.

    2) Make it a Rebel with the body of an SUV.
    2a) I guess you could do the new Rebel TRX with an SUV body.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Crumbling interstates are the new off-road.

    Bring Dwight D. Eisenhower forward in a time machine and show him around the U.S. Interstate system in 2020. Now remember that look he just gave you.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      When Eisenhower was president the top income tax bracket (over $200,000) was 91%. And there were a lot more brackets.

      So if he gave you “the look” it’s because you expect s**t for free. Taxes paid for stuff back then, somehow people think they shouldn’t pay for stuff now.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Only 47 percent or so think they shouldn’t pay for stuff. Furthermore 200 grand in Ike’s day is just about 2 million dollars today.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          Beside the point. in 1958 you’d be in the 50% bracket if you made $144k in today’s dollars. In 2019 the top bracket is 37% on $510k or more.

          Huh. So taxes were way higher in the glorious 1950s, yet people still managed to make money, create jobs, and we got infrastructure built. Not that I expect anyone to admit that, if they even have the mental capacity to understand how marginal taxation works.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I don’t care. If we are talking taking that money and spending it on infrastructure, putting someone on Mars and Math and Science education, we can talk. But by in large we aren’t. We want to do things like pay off Student loans for people who were unwilling to make the sacrafices I made to pay for it (and I just finished my Masters and am a late Gen Xer so spare me your Boomer diatribe) and give healthcare to everyone no matter if they are actually supposed to be here or not (missed that in the 50s) and otherwise fund entitlements to a bunch of people who call people like me idiots but still show up every April for a handout that they have now managed to convince themselves that I owe them. Fook off. It ain’t the 50’s on the “where to spend the money” part either so spare me your BS. I pay enough so…

            I
            Don’t
            Care

            If you are going to stick your hand farther in my pocket you could at least give me…ah never mind.

  • avatar

    The GC is an interesting vehicle. Most crossovers are so named becasue they share components with a car. The WK2 shares parts with more car like SUV’s (Durango ML), but it’s RWD and has low range which kind of seems to make it an SUV in my mind. As I recall when crossovers first came out 4wheeler magazine decided a two speed transfer case might be the best dividing line to use between the two classes.

    That said stock to stock my guess is that a GC would follow a 4runner down most trails without issue. I know you hate the Unibody thing but I had an XJ and that thing was a beast offroad. Much better traction and suspension offroad then any other 4wd I have owned.

    Now which would I rather beat offroad if I were paying for repairs as a long term owner the 4runner, but that doesn’t mean the GC isn’t capable of going offroad

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      “As I recall when crossovers first came out 4wheeler magazine decided a two speed transfer case might be the best dividing line to use between the two classes.“

      By this definition many a GMT 800, 900 Escalade with the single speed transfer case would be a crossover. No one says you can’t take a crossover out on the trail, but it will never be better off-road than when it left factory, vehicles which left factory CAFE compliant, not off-road focused no matter what brand is on its snout. You don’t see daily driver WK2 GCs driving around with 35’s or 37”s it can’t support the weight and it can’t fit without severe modification.

      All vehicles leave factory with compromises, if it doesn’t have a full ladder frame( and someone intentions it to be driven off the road) it’s not only a compromise but the limiting factor.

      You circled back around to my original point, solid axles make a huge difference if this vehicle is going to have the same credibility of the original. I don’t doubt your XJ was capable(as it had solid axles), the problem with the XJ was the cracks and rips in the unibody frame and the permanent distortion over long term use.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Conventional frames crack under severe use. Ask me about oversized tires and cracks at the steering box mount on my 80 series Land Cruiser’s fully boxed frame after hard wheeling.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I think this thread has pictures that fairly well present the differences between unibody failures vs full frame failures.

          https://www.cherokeeforum.com/f59/ever-seen-unibody-tear-198729/

          And this is what your looking at needing to off-road an XJ.

          https://www.ironrockoffroad.com/product/xj-unibody-frame-stiffeners-full-set.html

    • 0 avatar
      White Shadow

      “That said stock to stock my guess is that a GC would follow a 4runner down most trails without issue.”

      With ease. I’ve owned two 4Runners and three Grand Cherokees. My current GC is a 2019 Trailhawk that comes with QDII and it is most definitely as capable, if not more capable than a 4Runner. Yes, it has IRS, but the extra ground clearance from the adjustable air suspension gives it a huge advantage in many off-road situations.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Superdessucke: “She wasn’t driving. She wasn’t test driving. She was sitting in a car for hours watching the...
  • sgeffe: I think of BRG as a darker green as well, but this doesn’t look too bad, especially with that nice interior....
  • SaulTigh: That’s a good point. I had to replace the starter in my ’95 Sable last year and a little...
  • Flipper35: We have a smaller version of #2 be I find I am doing less oil changes at home when the dealer will do it...
  • Flipper35: I have hustled our 2000 SLT+ 2wd on the back roads pretty hard many times and it handles surprisingly...

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