4xe Gladiator Hybrid (PHEV) Confirmed by Jeep CEO for 2025! ⚡️

[ttn333]

How big is that battery under the seat? I wonder if they will opt for a bed mounted battery at the cost of bed space instead considering the heavier weight and more power needed in the Gladiator compared to the JL.




Yeah but one really cannot claim that much 'renewable' energy because to be truthful a person really needs to look at the big picture. In other words, where did those 'renewables' come from? Such as wind turbines. What materials are needed in their manufacturer, transport, install, maintenance - it all matters. Where is the electricity from that powers the computers for the engineers to do their designing? What about office spaces, commenting employees, etc... Looking at something at the end point is really a bad idea because depending on variables, a person can make any pile of poo look like a diamond with enough processes down the line. Saying California's energy is not from greenhouse gasses is flat out wrong if you look into the details deep enough. What if, just saying if because I dont know, the energy needed to create said 'renewable' energy devices was significantly worse than the amount of energy it would ever create in its lifetime... Case in point, the Berkley pit in Butte. It's bad, real bad. But if someone way down stream in Noxon did a water sample they might say something like "well now all that billions of dollars worth of water treatment is doing great, theres next to no sign of contamination here", but you see the fallacy in that, and would you want to be drinking that water despite the 'numbers' being just fine? I doubt it. There are also equal problems caused by all these 'renewable' sources that are simply out of sight out of mind. Kinda like diamond mines in Russia, oh and this super large one in Canada. At the end of the day, the only true method to reduce consumption and pollution is to just have/use/do less. Because 250 years from now someone might say something like, "man, I wish those idiots in 2020 realized that 500 billion wind turbines would screw up the worlds wind patterns and now our weather is all sorts of jacked...."

I mean sure, maybe Ca has it right, but without perspective on a larger scale (which nobody truly has a handle on) you don't know what you don't know, and all that 'renewable' energy could be far far worse than the alternative.

See this line of popular argument quite often and it really doesn't make sense. You are just conflating the reduction of polution and zero polution. They are not the same thing. End result is you are reducing polution with renewables. Its a poor argument to say, 'well, since you can't get 100% reduction so it's not worth it'. When in fact the technology is just going to get better, ie more efficient and lower cost. And we have seen what coal mine pollution is like for rivers and air quality.

Sponsored

 

[homerun]

 

[ShadowsPapa]

NPR - the most trusted name in news.

 

[BAT]

Won't Matter as it will still be to rich for my blood

 

[chorky]

See this line of popular argument quite often and it really doesn't make sense. You are just conflating the reduction of polution and zero polution. They are not the same thing. End result is you are reducing polution with renewables. Its a poor argument to say, 'well, since you can't get 100% reduction so it's not worth it'. When in fact the technology is just going to get better, ie more efficient and lower cost. And we have seen what coal mine pollution is like for rivers and air quality.

Nowhere in my argument did I say it is not worth it. Did I say that somewhere?

I did say that without numbers and a true handle on the entirety of the situation it cannot be truthfully claimed to be without a doubt 'better'. I also said the only way to truly stop or reduce polution is to stop consuming/using so much. Kinda hard to argue against that. If the world stopped tomorrow, would there be man made pollution? I suppose from of gassing of things..... Choosing to ignore the entirety of a carbon footprint created for any item, which most companies lead you to believe, just because it is ‘green’ is purposeful ignorance. Technology improves, yes. But to what degree of damage and rare earth material consumption? And will our development of new technology that causes less damage than is required for its creation and use continue on a net positive projection? Maybe....maybe not. We have also seen what damage solar farms do to desert ecosystems as well as their total use in materials and energy for creation when a dust storm destroys them. Just the same with an oil taker spilling in the ocean. Is it as bad as an oil tanker spill? Mmmmm probably not, but then again we didn't know the full extent of damage of those oil tanker spills until some 20 years past the event... There are already studies showing environmental damage to keystone species like bald eagles, desert sage grouse, I think I even saw something about a lizard somewhere. So are these damages somehow quantifiable as less bad than the alternative? Or are we just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Numbers, statistics, facts, studies are needed to answer these questions.

Again, my argument is not that wind or solar is bad. Heck I just purchased a battery powered lawnmower and trimmer because it's super quiet, and super convenient and I don't have to worry about gas, oil, spark plugs....saves me a ton of time, headache and noise. But does that make it automatically better? I suppose it depends on what the metrics are for comparison, but not really, not unless there is quantifiable numbers that can compare the gross total output of pollutants and consumption of materials for an operational period of - how long is the average lifespan of a lawnmower......? Maybe my battery powered lawn mower will last 25 years on the same batteries. Heck I still have my Dewalt 18v tool system that has been running fine for 15 years, except for the last 2 years now that the original batteries are dying.... My initial argument is, one cannot be honest with themselves and say wind and/or solar is completely renewable when the resources needed and used to put that infrastructure in place is not 100% renewable. Or what about many of the solar panels and components made in China or any other country. Did you know on average a container ship burns about 80,000 gallons of diesel a day? Or maybe less that was a number from 10 years ago. I believe the average time at sea is about 20 days.... So that goes for any item coming via sea from another country. All of these things are things to consider. I doubt any studies currently available will include and factor the emissions made by other countries during manufacturer of items or the totality of all pollution expelled by designing, shipping, installing, maintaining, etc. any given power option.

The details matter. But most companies would have everyone believe that the only thing that matters is the end result and difference between cost/emissions of stinky diesel vs 'green' solar. But thats just a big fat lie. Only until the numbers and statistics are realized and discussed can anyone truly say with 100% certainty that one is better than the other. Until then, it's just a matter of what the cocacola man wanted to put on sale at the vending machine that day.

Ok let's take this sentence, because it's really good and really important: "End result is you are reducing polution with renewables." Well, first, are we truthfully replacing polutition options with renewable options? Eh.... maybe? Depends on the time scale one is talking about. How long will a battery last before it needs replacing? How long is the service life of a high quality solar panel, or wind turbine - they all have life spans. So this statement is also misleading. What is the definition of renewable? Fully renewable never again needing replacing ever? That's what I think of when I hear renewable. Otherwise, is it truly renewable? Or is its service life just significantly extended with a significantly reduced pollution output? Or, maybe, in a perfect world, that turbine powers the manufacturer plant that builds turbines.. Now that would be pretty darn slick. But - I dont know of any studies that produce those numbers in order to properly compare.

So, I'll compare, and I'll bet that it takes a whole lot more money and resources to get coal and natural gas to where it's needed than to put up wind turbines. In our case - those turbines don't even have to cross state lines. And the only risk to life is to the men and women who put them together.
It must be cheaper - as our electric costs have remained stable for many years. In fact, the conversions from coal and gas have helped make it so.
Having been directly involved with the men and women in the natural gas industry, and all that it takes to get it out and to the consumer, and having had acres of farm ground ruined for years by those pipelines, I'll take that challenge as to the costs - money, lives and environmental.

You can make bets all you want, so can I. But until hard core research is done, and objective statistics are ran with real world numbers over a period of time betting means jack squat, although I would agree that in some cases in certain areas, it is less impactful to install said turbine - however that still does not discuss the overall impact in time and space in order to compare. Just because it is cheaper for you does not mean it is in fact cheaper. Good 'ol gov subsidizes a TON of stuff, and 'green' energy is one of them. Forking out billions. That might mean, in some ways, cheaper energy costs for you, but for others it might be the opposite, or it might mean the cost gets spread among the population in the form of taxes, in which case, is it really cheaper? No. Here is a great example. In attempt to be 'green' the FS recently came down with a mandate that every vehicle will have a GPS recording device installed. It was said this is to better understand driving matrics so that the WO can have a better handle on vehicle use and needs. Side note it was also said that it is 'not' a tracking device and will not come back against anyone. Funny that someone who was speeding suddenly had an email a few days later... Anywho, those GPS recorders also tapped into the vehicle PCM and other systems to monitor fuel consumption, idle time, oil life, CEL, etc... It cost about 1500 bucks per vehicle for them to get installed. Thus far nearly a dozen of our trucks, at one location alone, had to have batteries replaced twice now due to these recorders drawing excessive power. So - where is the savings? Maybe in time? But each vehicle has a service life. Something around 5 years 60K miles or something like that. So will the cost in monies and batteries of these installed devices actually make a difference for the 5 years of service life of said vehicle before it gets replaced? Maybe, but doubtful. And further, in those events, it is nearly impossible to tell with certainty the true cost to taxpayers. Now, make no mistake here I am not saying anything for or against that situation, but it is in fact a situation. So, one has to look at the numbers. I'm sure there is some type of study out there somewhere. I just don't have the energy to spare to research that on my off time. As for environmental costs. We don't know the true cost just yet of 'green' energy. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it is worse. Only time will tell that game, and that is only if data is collected and compared. But look how coal turned out for us - and back in the day, that was once thought to never cause any problem. You dont know what you don't know and none of us can truly tell in the future what the consequence or benefit might be. Maybe we will end up consuming all those rare earth materials and be in a bind some day in the future when our entire lives have been switched over to solar but then have no rare earth materials to mine. Maybe by then we will be living on Mars. Who knows.

Point is. Details matter.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Maybe we will end up consuming all those rare earth materials and be in a bind some day in the future when our entire lives have been switched over to solar but then have no rare earth materials to mine.

We're already moving away from them. The biggest use is in the permanent magnets used in the motors. Tesla has a magnet that doesn't use 'em.
It's another area where we learn as we go forward, but if we never go forward, even in baby steps, we'll not learn until it's beyond too late. At this point, we're learning before it's too late.
If you don't try something, you can't know costs and can't develop and improve. We'd still be on horses or using steam for driving our cars.
I look at SpaceX - how many failures have they experienced - and yet with each successive try, it gets better and better. It we stuck with the old ways - we'd not have internet in a lot of places. (Iowa is so rooted in the old ways we are one of the most expensive states in the country for internet - and have some of the WORST internet in the country - a state that used to look forward now refuses to)

 

[ArchEtech]

There is no net zero. There is always a cost somewhere, often at the expense and f someone else. There is a reason coal is still used. It’s cheap and it has lots of embodied energy, same with natural gas. We aren’t even close to being off fossil fuels. Not even 100 years close. Much of the world still burns stuff for heat. That not changing in our lifetimes.

Solar panels and EV are worthless in remote undeveloped areas which make up a lot of our world. That’s not changing in 100 years. China is still what 60% or more coal powered and with India crates kore air pollution that the rest of the world combined, somewhere I read that. The point is we can put up as many wind turbines as we want, if we really were 20 years from mad max levels of dystopia, we aren’t stopping the train.

That doesn’t mean we don’t try some things, I like EV. Where I live 60% of the grid in on wind. It’s not free though, there is a cost of land, dead birds, landfills of old turbine etc. it helps keep energy costs down. I’d love to have a solar on my roof with some battery backup but is still pretty $$$. What I don’t like are mandates that not motivated by reality, or taking into account all of the other costs. That conversation would get way too COC risky.

I’ll be happy for a 4xe gladiator option with some instant lower end toque and better gas mileage. I would hope they solved the longer distance MPG issue though. A system like the Ramcharger would be perfect in the gladiator, but I don’t think that will happen. I am interested in that truck as well!

 

[Alc]

I was reading a recent article in Car and Driver talking about EV batteries. They discuss how you shouldn’t fully charge it to 100% or discharge below 10% which immediately affects range. Then they talk about the 6% battery depletion in the first year (after that it flattens out to much less than that for the lifetime of the battery). Without getting into to whole “what a crock of sh!t” I figured I would ask if anyone has some experience on the PHEV front. Do these batteries have the same issue? Especially since they are often used solidly in the lower 3% after that 20-30 electric range. Thanks for the education.

 

[BH1973]

I've owned a Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid and now own a 2024 Toyota RAV4 Prime and 2022 Jeep 4xe. I picked up the Jeep last week with 3000 miles for $35k - seemed like a good deal. I can tell you right now that the Toyota implementation of PHEV tech is far superior to Chrysler/Jeep. Not only do you get 40-45 miles consistently, it's just much smoother when in hybrid mode. I find the Jeep 4xe to be an especially busy hybrid system - jerky and noisy.

I expect Jeep will just slap the same PHEV set up it has in the 4xe or the Pacifica (hopefully the Pacifica) in the Gladiator 4xe. That will be the cheap and easy way to go that will maximize their margin. But it will be a missed opportunity. Having owned three PHEVs, I can tell you that 40-50 miles of all-electric range is really the sweet spot for these vehicles. That's what makes it more or less an EV for daily driving. The Pacifica (which started falling apart at 47k miles actually) averaged 21-25 in real world world driving, the Jeep only 17-22.

Anyway, I'm sure the 4xe model will still give a big boost to lagging Gladiator sales.

Jeep CEO Antonio Filosa has just confirmed the 2025 Jeep Gladiator 4xe hybrid (PHEV)!

In a post on Linkedin, Filosa revealed this by saying "Next year, we’ll extend that freedom of choice even further with a Gladiator 4xe option."

 

[legacy_etu]

I was reading a recent article in Car and Driver talking about EV batteries. They discuss how you shouldn’t fully charge it to 100% or discharge below 10% which immediately affects range. Then they talk about the 6% battery depletion in the first year (after that it flattens out to much less than that for the lifetime of the battery). Without getting into to whole “what a crock of sh!t” I figured I would ask if anyone has some experience on the PHEV front. Do these batteries have the same issue? Especially since they are often used solidly in the lower 3% after that 20-30 electric range. Thanks for the education.

From my understanding (and I’m no expert) this depends on the makeup of the battery chemistry. LFP batteries have no problem charging to %100 repeatedly but have other drawbacks .

 

[RubiNewbCB]

Nowhere in my argument did I say it is not worth it. Did I say that somewhere?

I did say that without numbers and a true handle on the entirety of the situation it cannot be truthfully claimed to be without a doubt 'better'. I also said the only way to truly stop or reduce polution is to stop consuming/using so much. Kinda hard to argue against that. If the world stopped tomorrow, would there be man made pollution? I suppose from of gassing of things..... Choosing to ignore the entirety of a carbon footprint created for any item, which most companies lead you to believe, just because it is ‘green’ is purposeful ignorance. Technology improves, yes. But to what degree of damage and rare earth material consumption? And will our development of new technology that causes less damage than is required for its creation and use continue on a net positive projection? Maybe....maybe not. We have also seen what damage solar farms do to desert ecosystems as well as their total use in materials and energy for creation when a dust storm destroys them. Just the same with an oil taker spilling in the ocean. Is it as bad as an oil tanker spill? Mmmmm probably not, but then again we didn't know the full extent of damage of those oil tanker spills until some 20 years past the event... There are already studies showing environmental damage to keystone species like bald eagles, desert sage grouse, I think I even saw something about a lizard somewhere. So are these damages somehow quantifiable as less bad than the alternative? Or are we just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Numbers, statistics, facts, studies are needed to answer these questions.

Again, my argument is not that wind or solar is bad. Heck I just purchased a battery powered lawnmower and trimmer because it's super quiet, and super convenient and I don't have to worry about gas, oil, spark plugs....saves me a ton of time, headache and noise. But does that make it automatically better? I suppose it depends on what the metrics are for comparison, but not really, not unless there is quantifiable numbers that can compare the gross total output of pollutants and consumption of materials for an operational period of - how long is the average lifespan of a lawnmower......? Maybe my battery powered lawn mower will last 25 years on the same batteries. Heck I still have my Dewalt 18v tool system that has been running fine for 15 years, except for the last 2 years now that the original batteries are dying.... My initial argument is, one cannot be honest with themselves and say wind and/or solar is completely renewable when the resources needed and used to put that infrastructure in place is not 100% renewable. Or what about many of the solar panels and components made in China or any other country. Did you know on average a container ship burns about 80,000 gallons of diesel a day? Or maybe less that was a number from 10 years ago. I believe the average time at sea is about 20 days.... So that goes for any item coming via sea from another country. All of these things are things to consider. I doubt any studies currently available will include and factor the emissions made by other countries during manufacturer of items or the totality of all pollution expelled by designing, shipping, installing, maintaining, etc. any given power option.

The details matter. But most companies would have everyone believe that the only thing that matters is the end result and difference between cost/emissions of stinky diesel vs 'green' solar. But thats just a big fat lie. Only until the numbers and statistics are realized and discussed can anyone truly say with 100% certainty that one is better than the other. Until then, it's just a matter of what the cocacola man wanted to put on sale at the vending machine that day.

Ok let's take this sentence, because it's really good and really important: "End result is you are reducing polution with renewables." Well, first, are we truthfully replacing polutition options with renewable options? Eh.... maybe? Depends on the time scale one is talking about. How long will a battery last before it needs replacing? How long is the service life of a high quality solar panel, or wind turbine - they all have life spans. So this statement is also misleading. What is the definition of renewable? Fully renewable never again needing replacing ever? That's what I think of when I hear renewable. Otherwise, is it truly renewable? Or is its service life just significantly extended with a significantly reduced pollution output? Or, maybe, in a perfect world, that turbine powers the manufacturer plant that builds turbines.. Now that would be pretty darn slick. But - I dont know of any studies that produce those numbers in order to properly compare.





You can make bets all you want, so can I. But until hard core research is done, and objective statistics are ran with real world numbers over a period of time betting means jack squat, although I would agree that in some cases in certain areas, it is less impactful to install said turbine - however that still does not discuss the overall impact in time and space in order to compare. Just because it is cheaper for you does not mean it is in fact cheaper. Good 'ol gov subsidizes a TON of stuff, and 'green' energy is one of them. Forking out billions. That might mean, in some ways, cheaper energy costs for you, but for others it might be the opposite, or it might mean the cost gets spread among the population in the form of taxes, in which case, is it really cheaper? No. Here is a great example. In attempt to be 'green' the FS recently came down with a mandate that every vehicle will have a GPS recording device installed. It was said this is to better understand driving matrics so that the WO can have a better handle on vehicle use and needs. Side note it was also said that it is 'not' a tracking device and will not come back against anyone. Funny that someone who was speeding suddenly had an email a few days later... Anywho, those GPS recorders also tapped into the vehicle PCM and other systems to monitor fuel consumption, idle time, oil life, CEL, etc... It cost about 1500 bucks per vehicle for them to get installed. Thus far nearly a dozen of our trucks, at one location alone, had to have batteries replaced twice now due to these recorders drawing excessive power. So - where is the savings? Maybe in time? But each vehicle has a service life. Something around 5 years 60K miles or something like that. So will the cost in monies and batteries of these installed devices actually make a difference for the 5 years of service life of said vehicle before it gets replaced? Maybe, but doubtful. And further, in those events, it is nearly impossible to tell with certainty the true cost to taxpayers. Now, make no mistake here I am not saying anything for or against that situation, but it is in fact a situation. So, one has to look at the numbers. I'm sure there is some type of study out there somewhere. I just don't have the energy to spare to research that on my off time. As for environmental costs. We don't know the true cost just yet of 'green' energy. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it is worse. Only time will tell that game, and that is only if data is collected and compared. But look how coal turned out for us - and back in the day, that was once thought to never cause any problem. You dont know what you don't know and none of us can truly tell in the future what the consequence or benefit might be. Maybe we will end up consuming all those rare earth materials and be in a bind some day in the future when our entire lives have been switched over to solar but then have no rare earth materials to mine. Maybe by then we will be living on Mars. Who knows.

Point is. Details matter.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I was reading a recent article in Car and Driver talking about EV batteries. They discuss how you shouldn’t fully charge it to 100% or discharge below 10% which immediately affects range. Then they talk about the 6% battery depletion in the first year (after that it flattens out to much less than that for the lifetime of the battery). Without getting into to whole “what a crock of sh!t” I figured I would ask if anyone has some experience on the PHEV front. Do these batteries have the same issue? Especially since they are often used solidly in the lower 3% after that 20-30 electric range. Thanks for the education.

Jeep manages charging and when it says "less than 1%" there's really about 10.
They keep that as a buffer for hybrid use. It won't let you run it dry. Also, 100% isn't truly. They don't let you mess up. They manage maximum rate, how full it can get and how low it goes, in part by showing you consumer numbers, not reality.

 

[Alc]

I had to laugh when I saw this article about PHEVs and the positives and negatives of this design and use of technology. I felt like someone read my mind on questions.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a60731731/plug-in-hybrid-explainer/

I was surprised at how many PHEVs are actually out there and wonder if the EV range on those vehicles is accurate. For example the wrangler 4xe is at 26miles. Funny enough I then found 2 articles in this month’s Panamera magazine also talking about EVs and batteries and the green of them. The new updated American miles per day is 37miles. Also, despite wild exaggerations it takes 840lbs of ore to produce 17.6lbs of lithium (enough for 1 Tesla battery). But what is crazy is it takes 4 Billion gallons of water per year to run that mine in Nevada and is apparently wreaking havoc on water tables and water resources. Again, I didn’t know that.

lastly, on EVs the reduction of usability for the battery in cold weather ranges from 16% (Audi eTron)-64% (VW ID4)…unfortunately they didn’t give a temperature for these results.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

For example the wrangler 4xe is at 26miles.

Ours has dropped a tad in the last 15 months. It says 26-27 upon starting off and it used to do that easily. Now it's more like 25 in reality. Still good, though.

 

[Dave-in-RI]

Good overview of how the new Ramcharger PHEV (distinct from the new Ram Rev full EV) uses the V6 to charge the batteries, not to power the wheels in any direct way. This is how the Chevy Volt always worked, and is much simpler a system than other PHEV where you switch drive power from electric to gas and/or back again. Can take a good battery pack, a basic engine designed for charging vs say towing, and slap ‘em together. All electric range goes from 145 miles (stated) to nearly 700. And you have the benefit of electric motor simplicity for driving, plus towing 14,000 pounds.

If this was in the Gladiator, I’d throw the money down for new.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/first-look-2025-ram-1500-ramcharger.html

Sponsored