Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a25097901/jeep-gladiator-pickup-photos-wrangler-truck/

They're quoting a 7650 max tow capacity and 1500lb max payload. The bed will hold 4x8 sheets of plywood.

A Wrangler that can tow my trailer and haul my lumber? Doors and top come off, too? Sign me up!

I can't wait for this thing. The Avalanche is getting tired. Only question is if there's some magical combination of options that gets you that tow rating or if it's pretty common across the board. I'd like to have luxuries like AC and windows that go up and down.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Yup - have seen them for a year or so now, albeit in camo. Nice the camo finally can come off.

It's a Wrangler with a bed, this thing is going to print money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its looks weird from certain angle. I don't get the reason people like the wrangler period. they ride terrible and reliability is not very good. However the good thing is they hold their value so if you want to get rid of it after a couple of years you won't take a hit on the re-sale value.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
It is cool to see it come back; our neighbor in the 90's had one of the original Jeep trucks.

Don't crash it, though.

2018 Jeep Wrangler Slammed with 1-Star Safety Rating in Euro Crash Test - The Drive
Crash Test results brought to you by the same organization who have deemed the Fiat Punto as being a zero star, when the same vehicle got five stars a few years back.

The vehicle didn't suddenly become unsafe, it just doesn't drive itself and give you a blowie while preventing a collision and having a giant airbag outside for some idiot who didn't look both ways.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,609 Posts
Crash Test results brought to you by the same organization who have deemed the Fiat Punto as being a zero star, when the same vehicle got five stars a few years back.

The vehicle didn't suddenly become unsafe, it just doesn't drive itself and give you a blowie while preventing a collision and having a giant airbag outside for some idiot who didn't look both ways.
Lmao
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
The local plant manager stated at the unveiling that they expected to sell 70K units a year. My son works for Dana and has done testing and pre-production axle builds says the off road group is working on mods for the JT, as are the OEMs. Small changes required from the existing Wrangle mods. Corporate headquarters is about a mile from our home and you should see some of their show trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its looks weird from certain angle. I don't get the reason people like the wrangler period. they ride terrible and reliability is not very good. However the good thing is they hold their value so if you want to get rid of it after a couple of years you won't take a hit on the re-sale value.
It's a convertible, you can take the doors off, and it will go places literally no other car can.

This is also the first convertible pickup since the, uh, "bold" Dakota convertible they made way back when. I think the Wrangler looks a lot better with the top down and the doors off. I'm excited for some open-top and door-removed off-roading.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
It's a convertible, you can take the doors off, and it will go places literally no other car can.

This is also the first convertible pickup since the, uh, "bold" Dakota convertible they made way back when. I think the Wrangler looks a lot better with the top down and the doors off. I'm excited for some open-top and door-removed off-roading.
And the JL Wrangler, even the Rubicon, is significantly better on-road than the JK and especially Wranglers before that. And the interior is quite nice now, too. The 2.0T seems to be a sweetheart of an engine in the JL and actually gets "fuel economy" (can't get it in the JT, though). Can't wait to see the fuel economy numbers with the 3.0 EcoDiesel in both.

I do wish they had offered a bit shorter of a bed with four doors and a bit longer of a bed with two doors, to fix the proportions a little. But still, this = many sales.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,609 Posts
And the JL Wrangler, even the Rubicon, is significantly better on-road than the JK and especially Wranglers before that. And the interior is quite nice now, too. The 2.0T seems to be a sweetheart of an engine in the JL and actually gets "fuel economy" (can't get it in the JT, though). Can't wait to see the fuel economy numbers with the 3.0 EcoDiesel in both.

I do wish they had offered a bit shorter of a bed with four doors and a bit longer of a bed with two doors, to fix the proportions a little. But still, this = many sales.
Time will tell whether or not the turbo-4 is any good in the reliability department.

The Pentastar, even if it doesn't have the low end the old 4.0 I6 did, has proven to be a pretty reliable motor. The same could even be said of the underpowered 3.8 lump they shoved in them before the Pentastar came along.

Heck, my dad's stupid 3.7 is still chugging along, slurping down gas with the appetite of a V8 for I4-like power, even though we all wish it would just die. We've had no powertrain issues, but everything else is falling apart around it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
Time will tell whether or not the turbo-4 is any good in the reliability department.

The Pentastar, even if it doesn't have the low end the old 4.0 I6 did, has proven to be a pretty reliable motor. The same could even be said of the underpowered 3.8 lump they shoved in them before the Pentastar came along.

Heck, my dad's stupid 3.7 is still chugging along, slurping down gas with the appetite of a V8 for I4-like power, even though we all wish it would just die.
I think it will be good. It has been in development quite a while...and can make some absurd power...with the right tune, of course. ;)

Yep, the 3.6L Pentastar is a solid little engine, and it makes good power, and sounds pretty good with a decent exhaust (with a not-decent exhaust, it can sound like butthole).

Ahh, the 3.7L PowerTech, haha. My buddy has one in his '05 WK1 that his Aunt gave him for free because of all the problems they've had with it. I think that's the second engine and it's been resleeved at least once. When he got it, it had rod knock...and that was like...three years ago now. He tows his boat with it in the summer, and its his DD. It just keeps going.

And god yes, all the fuel economy of a V8 with the power of an inline four...wait, I believe they had that backwards...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The diesel would be the motor to get, although it won't be out for a year it sounds like.

I hate it when they get us all excited for something then don't sell it for a year. I have a short attention span :RantExplode:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
As I understand it, the JT line is still in pre-production build status. I.E. working the assembly bugs out of the new line, training the labor force, and building test vehicles. It's a completely new assembly line in the old Cherokee building(s), so they are still in the learning curve mode. Plant manager stated the JT would be available in November of next year.

BTW, Jeep has an interesting quality control method for the new Wranglers. Units that roll off of the assembly line (in north Toledo) that don't pass muster are transported to a closed air freight facility all the way across town (at the airport) for correction procedures. Then they are returned to the north Toledo shipping facility. I see pickup trucks with fifth wheel trailers hauling three Wranglers each shuttling back and forth all day long.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
It's possible, though I haven't seen anything for sure on that one. But the regular JT definitely comes out next spring.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
The Pentastar, even if it doesn't have the low end the old 4.0 I6 did, has proven to be a pretty reliable motor. The same could even be said of the underpowered 3.8 lump they shoved in them before the Pentastar came along.

My 1967 Commando had a Buick made 231 (3.8L) V6. Not as impressive as the later CJs with AMC V8 power, but it could do a brief 4 wheel burnout in the high school parking lot. (I'm glad my dad was driving it when the transmission died)
Is that the 3.8L lump you're talking about? GM made those things for a looong time.
 

·
Administrator, Resident Tater Salad
Joined
·
16,609 Posts
My 1967 Commando had a Buick made 231 (3.8L) V6. Not as impressive as the later CJs with AMC V8 power, but it could do a brief 4 wheel burnout in the high school parking lot. (I'm glad my dad was driving it when the transmission died)
Is that the 3.8L lump you're talking about? GM made those things for a looong time.
The GM 3800 was around for yearrrsss. Id forgotten they even put it in Jeeps.

But no, this was ripped straight out of the Caravan from the 1990s and tossed into a Jeep. Gutless, torqueless, and hitched to outdated automatics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_3.3_&_3.8_engine#3.8

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
The GM 3800 was around for yearrrsss. Id forgotten they even put it in Jeeps.

But no, this was ripped straight out of the Caravan from the 1990s and tossed into a Jeep. Gutless, torqueless, and hitched to outdated automatics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_3.3_&_3.8_engine#3.8

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Our old Town and Country had that motor. It had absolutely no power and got really bad gas mileage. Not to mention, the thing leaked oil everywhere by the time it hit 100k.

I just can't believe anyone thought to put that motor in the Wrangler let alone anyone buying one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,008 Posts
I just can't believe anyone thought to put that motor in the Wrangler let alone anyone buying one.
And yet...they did. Like crazy.

It's funny, they shoved that 3.8L into the Pacifica, too, when the 4.0L came out - yet it made like...35 HP less than the 3.5L that both of the Pacificas my mom had in them.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top