JAY
Staff member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Threads
- 484
- Messages
- 966
- Reaction score
- 2,706
- Location
- Jeep Gladiator Forum
- Vehicle(s)
- JT
- Build Thread
- Link
- Occupation
- Admin
Reliability has been overblown for a long time. There is this implication that other vehicles constantly break down and that the toyota will get you in and out. That was true in the 80's and 90's and to a lesser extent the early 00's, but the reality is that very few cars of the last 10 years have major reliability issues. Are toyotas more reliable? Maybe, but if 3-4 out of 100 breaks down after 100K miles instead of 6-8 out of 100 they can claim twice the reliability of the other brands but neither brand has a reliabilty issue.I am a long time Toyota guy, but I think the so called reliability is going to start to go down with the next gen tundra and Tacoma.
People also seem to falsely equate "reliability" with "what level of abuse and neglect can this vehicle sustain." Durability is what comes from the factory, and reliability has more to do with how it's maintained.Reliability has been overblown for a long time. There is this implication that other vehicles constantly break down and that the toyota will get you in and out. That was true in the 80's and 90's and to a lesser extent the early 00's, but the reality is that very few cars of the last 10 years have major reliability issues. Are toyotas more reliable? Maybe, but if 3-4 out of 100 breaks down after 100K miles instead of 6-8 out of 100 they can claim twice the reliability of the other brands but neither brand has a reliabilty issue.
A 4xe JT would only be a truck look wise. Other than that it will be pretty useless. I can't imagine how much more f a hit the battery weight will do to capabilities. Also where are they going to fit it? Without a big redesign I don't see it happening or it will be the ultimate poser truck.Looks like the Gladiator will soon offer a 4XE to compete with this. Jeep has seen the popularity of the platform on the Wrangler and will want a piece of this pie for sure.
Under the rear seat/infront of the bed, right side of the frame opposite the fuel tank, there is plenty of space for the relatively small battery, it will probably need to be package different than the wranglers but these cells are small and can be made in to many shapes.A 4xe JT would only be a truck look wise. Other than that it will be pretty useless. I can't imagine how much more f a hit the battery weight will do to capabilities. Also where are they going to fit it? Without a big redesign I don't see it happening or it will be the ultimate poser truck.
There are a number of factors that involve worst case scenario events that contribute to de-rating payload. The JT is narrower and very likely has a higher center of gravity which would make it more prone to roll over. AT/MT tires impact stability at speed.Under the rear seat/infront of the bed, right side of the frame opposite the fuel tank, there is plenty of space for the relatively small battery, it will probably need to be package different than the wranglers but these cells are small and can be made in to many shapes.
Weight wise they need to eat 6-800lbs which would mean swapping out the knuckles to steel and potentially gusseting the frame a bit to increase gvwr from 6250 to 7000lbs and there would be 0 hit to rated capabilities. Dont need bigger brakes because of the electric motors producing tons of brake force, powertrain produces plenty of power to move the extra mass, and the new grille should flow a hell of a lot more cooling.
It would take design effort and then all the testing they do for a normal vehicle, but its only slightly more work than it would be to throw in a hurricane or hemi.
Edit: I had to look it up as the real question is why is our gvwr so damn low compared to ram 1500? Our wheel base is within 6" of their crew cab short bed trucks, and our track width on the rubicons is the same with our curb weights being nearly identical as well. Seems like alot of this is to keep it positioned against mid size trucks, but the gladiator is the size of a 1/2 ton 12 years ago and just barely midsize by today's trucks.
I think the last reason is the correct one. We aren't actually narrower as the track width is the same(frame narrower yes but not track width), we aren't taller, and the max tow is also not on at/mt tires. Heat definitely could be an issue, but I have a feeling that the payload was kept low because its already knocking on full size territory.There are a number of factors that involve worst case scenario events that contribute to de-rating payload. The JT is narrower and very likely has a higher center of gravity which would make it more prone to roll over. AT/MT tires impact stability at speed.
I'm sure there are a list of engineering reasons but the gist comes down to vehicle dynamics in edge case safety. When spec'd with the V6, the 1500 is also going to have a better coefficient of drag which translates into reduced engine demand / heat. We know with certainty that packaging the JT involved some clever cooling compromises to meet towing standards and very likely max payload.
GM might also by trying to keep the JT from poaching RAM sales.
Valid reasons even if we don't like them.