Is the Gladiator at risk for cancellation?

[ecidiego]

Gladiator is fine just need a decent engine. I have the diesel and love it. Just not sure how long it will last

For some reason I am fine with the 3.6. I don't tow, though. Hauls plenty of ass in the desert.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 57233]

I’m in the financial business and we have the same group who make the same predictions constantly and eventually they are always right. But if you followed their advise the whole time you’d be broke and they’d have your money.

That's why they say "If financial advisors were actually good at it, they wouldn't need your money"

 

[DanW]

The 4xE will revive it and it will sell very well. Wait and see. Most Wranglers now are 4xE.

 

[ZoMojave]

The demand for mid-size trucks is at an all time high... but that doesn't explain why the JT languishes on lots across the country. (I think Jeep missed the buck on demand and over priced what it had, a colossal blunder by all accounts).

Thank you for the most profound comment in 130 posts. I couldn't agree more. ?

 

[DARK SIDE]

I hope they don't cancel but who knows. The thing that I find odd is how people think the Gladiator is sooooo expensive compared to a Tacoma, frontier or a Ranger, but lets think about what a Gladiator is. These Jeep trucks are performance inspired offroad machines. They have extremely capable diffs and suspension designs, and they climb! Some think that 50-60K is too much for a truck but that is where trucks are now. I used to have a Nissan Frontier and the New ones are over 50K now. All of the Gladiator peeps on here know what their trucks can do, so I don't even get why Tacomas are even in the conversation....

 

[BourbonRunner]

That must be why AMC made only unibody cars for 30 years and took Jeep that direction with Cherokee and Grand Cherokee - because it's so much more expensive.
**snip**

Odd that a company always operating on a shoe string took the more expensive approach to auto manufacturing.

Although I'll never doubt your expertise on all things AMC, I will posit this: In the era of early unibodies (pre 1990 for this purpose) engineering a very crash safe unibody was more complicated and expensive than body on frame, and remained that way until robotic welding components became prevalent. The Eagle would have had most of its R&D (from a crash testing perspective) spread out over the Concord, right?

Let's start a pool, or maybe two:
In the next 10 months, how many more "the Gladiator is doomed" threads will there be
and
how long or how many pages before this one gets boring and people jump to another to continue the arm-chair speculation and economic predictions, and explain how they'd take FCA forward to massive sales increases.

I never knew there were so many market and financial experts in the world! Impressive!
To look here, I wonder why FCA hasn't contacted a few and offered the position of CEO.


Said mostly in jest - or was it?

Going with every 2 weeks for a new one to pop up.

The real bet is whether it will keep going like this or get turned into an argument about EVs. Then the action is how long it will take to turn political and then how long after it takes to get nuked.

 

[smlobx]

I haven’t read all 10 pages but IMHO here’s where Jeep step on its wiener…?

1. Jeep had the largest price increases in the last 3 years compared to any other manufacturer. They got greedy.

2. They sat on their corporate haunches while the rest of the mid size truck market innovated. The new Chevy/GMC trucks are nice and the new Taco will suck any potential buyers into the Toyota fold.

3. Expanding on point 2, Jeep failed to fix the solid axle wandering issue (my F-350 with a Dana 80 front end rides way better than my Glad). The engine is a dog and has been from day one, yet they have spent $0.00 in engine development of the Gladiator/Wrangler. We know for a fact that Jeep is the money maker for Stelantis yet they refused to spend some of that capital on improvements. They just send the money back to Europe….

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Actually, unibody was cheaper - a lot - to produce.
AMC had already been using some pretty advanced methods - for their time - but the others caught up and passed them in later years.

unibody is actually safer, and a lot cheaper to produce. That's how AMC did it on a shoestring.

And

Another agreeing with my training from years ago (I learned some of this having worked in an AMC shop, some in college -

Again, body on frame is more expensive to manufacture.

There's a trade-off - body on frame is easier to modify to get a different "model" in many cases. But that only makes it cheaper in the case of "we need to make another distinct model" circumstances.
Or is it?
The Javelin and AMX were based on the American platform. Changes were made, but it wasn't very expensive to do in that case.
It's a lot easier to get a unibody through crash testing so once you have the expertise, it's nothing to make a few changes to pass the next test. Eagle, although based on Concord, required some structural changes and the weight of the different drivetrain mattered there - MASS.

So body on frame is only cheaper if you are changing to a different model - if you can re-use the existing ladder/frame. Otherwise, it's cheaper to build a unibody vehicle by a large margin. Also easier to get through crash testing in a way - because the whole body is a protective structure.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

3. Expanding on point 2, Jeep failed to fix the solid axle wandering issue (my F-350 with a Dana 80 front end rides way better than my Glad). The engine is a dog and has been from day one, yet they have spent $0.00 in engine development of the Gladiator/Wrangler. We know for a fact that Jeep is the money maker for Stelantis yet they refused to spend some of that capital on improvements. They just send the money back to Europe….

What wandering problem? There is no inherent solid axle wandering problem. Go back to the ZJ and WJ - solid axle, drove and rode like cars.
It's not inherent to the solid axle design because there's no geometrical reason for it.
It's only when people play with parts where this should be happening.
For the Gladiator - it was initially an issue with the steering gear.
But with the proper settings, there's not a reason in the world for a solid axle vehicle to wander vs. IFS.

Also disagree that the engine is a dog - maybe to those used to a V8 or a diesel - but it's really solid and strong compared to a lot of similar sized engines. It tows fine, plenty of power for most.
This is going to be what you are used to or expect. Very subjective topic. Jeeps aren't race vehicles.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Howard Turtle - test engineer -
When Nash-Kelvinator CEO George Mason decided to introduce the new unibody Nash 600 for 1941, he ordered extensive testing to make sure the new car would hold up in a collision. Budd Company engineer Ted Ulrich, who was developing the design in conjunction with Nash engineers, had assured him that the new unibody design offered superior safety compared to old-fashioned, body-on-frame cars, but Mason wanted proof. So, during its development, dozens of Nash 600 mules were crashed in a variety of ways to demonstrate how well they stood up and to bring out any weaknesses that needed fixing prior to production.
The testing procedure was simple, if unimaginative. Nash's loyal crew of professional test drivers simply drove cars into solid brick or concrete walls at predetermined speeds. They wore crash helmets, and often rudimentary seatbelts, but otherwise were unprotected. It wasn't long before wear and tear on the drivers became unacceptable; if you've ever been in a serious collision, you have some idea of how the jarring and sudden stops affect your body. Now, imagine being involved in collisions several times a day for weeks on end.

The solution was obvious—get the driver out of the car. So, Nash engineers devised a system whereby drivers put the test cars on wheeled dollies running on a track and pulled them (using another vehicle) into walls. The two vehicles ran side by side, connected by a boom with a release lanyard. The crew member drove the pulling car and empty test car combo up to about 30 or 40 mph, then tugged the lanyard to disconnect so that the test car traveled by itself into the crash barrier. Afterwards, body engineers studied the effects of the crash to determine if any segments of the structure needed beefing up.

This system worked pretty well but, of course, it required a driver and two cars, and the closing speed was not always accurate due to the timing of when the tow car driver released the lanyard. After a few years of using this method, American Motors' engineers came up with a way to save the cost of the driver and tow car while ensuring more accurate crash speeds: they attached a chain to the front of the test car and pulled it towards the crash barrier with a gasoline engine (mounted behind the structure) that spooled in the chain. A hole was cut into the barrier for the chain to run through. It was a big improvement over the previous methods and company engineers used this approach for a long time.

Naturally, the engineers wanted to make sure their unibody-construction method was safe in rollover crashes as well. The initial approach was to take the necessary test cars to the proving grounds, which was a very hilly area, and select a suitably steep hill. They would park the car sideways, and then five or six engineers would grab it by one side, pick it up, and roll it down the hill. One of the biggest threats they checked for, recalled Turtle, was fuel leaks, because in a serious crash they could cause a deadly fire.

Bill Reddig, when he was assistant director of Nash Styling, told me that Nash designers made sure to beef up the A, B, and C pillars on Nash cars to provide extra protection in rollover crashes. He also took pride in the greater thickness of Nash body sills and rocker panels and the carefully designed crumple zones front and rear, which helped to absorb impacts before they reached the passenger compartment. Crumple zones have been a feature of all cars for years now, but Nash was the first American automaker to include them in the basic design of production cars

AMC - the pioneer of unibody and crash testing and crumple zones.

 

[Geoarch]

Didn't someone on the forum say that they read the new contract terms that results in the Gladiator pretty much being guaranteed until 2028?

Yes, and a PHEV in 2025. That seems like an investment to me.

 

[smlobx]

What wandering problem? There is no inherent solid axle wandering problem. Go back to the ZJ and WJ - solid axle, drove and rode like cars.
It's not inherent to the solid axle design because there's no geometrical reason for it.
It's only when people play with parts where this should be happening.
For the Gladiator - it was initially an issue with the steering gear.
But with the proper settings, there's not a reason in the world for a solid axle vehicle to wander vs. IFS.

Also disagree that the engine is a dog - maybe to those used to a V8 or a diesel - but it's really solid and strong compared to a lot of similar sized engines. It tows fine, plenty of power for most.
This is going to be what you are used to or expect. Very subjective topic. Jeeps aren't race vehicles.

SP there are literally hundreds of posts on this forum about the steering wandering… Mine still wanders (albeit not as much as before the steering gear switch out).

Power is subjective I agree but if you look back at what Jeep has offered in the past it’s been everything from 4 cylinders to V-8’s. Going to one anemic engine which is what the Pentastar is was a bad decision by the bean counters. Just look at what Toyota and GM are offering now. We are on the bottom…and yet they expect us to pay a premium for that…hmmm

 

[salvino]

That's why they say "If financial advisors were actually good at it, they wouldn't need your money"

Just to be clear, I didn't say all financial advisor were like that. There are some though who pretend they can predict markets future performance. Those of us who do put our clients first make no such pretentious.

 

[aldo98229]

I haven’t read all 10 pages but IMHO here’s where Jeep step on its wiener…?

1. Jeep had the largest price increases in the last 3 years compared to any other manufacturer. They got greedy.

2. They sat on their corporate haunches while the rest of the mid size truck market innovated. The new Chevy/GMC trucks are nice and the new Taco will suck any potential buyers into the Toyota fold.

3. Expanding on point 2, Jeep failed to fix the solid axle wandering issue (my F-350 with a Dana 80 front end rides way better than my Glad). The engine is a dog and has been from day one, yet they have spent $0.00 in engine development of the Gladiator/Wrangler. We know for a fact that Jeep is the money maker for Stelantis yet they refused to spend some of that capital on improvements. They just send the money back to Europe….

^^^ this!

 

[ShadowsPapa]

SP there are literally hundreds of posts on this forum about the steering wandering… Mine still wanders (albeit not as much as before the steering gear switch out).

I know that and understand that. However, it's not inherent with the solid axle. If yours wanders, then it's not the norm as the majority do not. Even a local service advisor said "they should not do that" when I took mine in for the steering gear fix - and it was a fix (after the second one)
My 2020 did not wander, my 2022 does not wander, our JLU does not wander.
Grand Cherokees did not have a wander issue - it's not inherent to solid axle.

Sponsored