Is the Gladiator at risk for cancellation?

[JamesWyatt]

Gee, mine have always been pretty much spot-on from the factory. Every one of them, all of our Grand Cherokees, my Gladiators, my Chevy.......... my Ford.
I've used GPS in them over the years and the GPS was right with the speedometer in each.
I have yet to have a vehicle where the factory setting didn't match my Garmin. (yeah, I still use my phone or that old Garmin now and then because sometimes the Jeep NAV isn't correct in where to go)
I watch stuff like that- it's how I'm wired- attention to detail to extremes and unable to prevent input even input I really don't want.

Why would they set it low - that would give you miles on your warranty. Seems counter productive. If the speedometer is slow - then the odometer will be counting fewer miles. Also - mile-marker checks are a tell.
One thing I've found on both of my JT Overland is that the big fat digital numbers in the middle are 100% correct (even when new) but the analog needle tends to read 1 to 2 mph faster, depending on how fast you are going. Weird - digital says I'm right at 60 and yet the dial my wife sees says 61-62.

Good to know, I never tested mine before upgrading to 35s. Our Mini is 2mph slow on the digital speedometer, and I’ve had other vehicles like that. Then I guess by upgrading to 35s (and adjusting the tire size in the computer accordingly), it put the stock 4:10 gears in a sweeter spot for my use, namely not having to kick down as aggressively when going up steep inclines at altitude. Or maybe it was just less rolling resistance with the KO2s over the stock Falkens.

Sponsored

 

[redriderjf87]

They don't run 70 mph in the tests.

Exactly. Same for 75. The fact that they don't test at those speeds is part of my point. The EPA's limited testing isn't optimized for city driving, or for highway driving at 70 or 75 mph.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.

Mine rarely sees 8th - the system knows what's best in most cases. I can't shift manually and get better mpg here. I tried - and decided to let it shift and saw a bit better averages with it deciding based on torque loading and so on.

Exactly. You're geared too tall for your driving conditions. 8 useable gears would be more efficient than 7.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.

I've found that I run great in 8th in much of KS and FL and watch the mpg climb vs other states. It runs the engine in a very efficient band, good power for keeping speed on the flats.

Depending on how fast you want to run. The EPA testing shouldn't be so limited to only reflect driving in Kansas.

Again, mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.

So your 'results' differ from mine

Actually no, it sounds like both our gearing is too tall.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.

and of course will differ from the testing they care about.

Exactly my point. EPA testing should actually match averaged real life conditions for consumers. Most people don't live in Kansas.

Again, mpg wouldn't go "out the window" with shorter gears.

Really we can say - it doesn't matter what YOU see personally in your limited experiences

I'm still right. Mpg would not "go out the window" with a shorter gear.

because you don't match the testing at all, or what others, like myself see.

My driving conditions don't need to match yours.

The EPA testing apparently doesn't match any of our driving conditions, if they're saying 3.73 gives the best city/hwy combined mpg.


In summary, my original quoted point:

EPA mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears, unless the EPA testing doesn't reflect real life driving conditions for customers.

 

[BearFootSam]

Gee, mine have always been pretty much spot-on from the factory. Every one of them, all of our Grand Cherokees, my Gladiators, my Chevy.......... my Ford.
I've used GPS in them over the years and the GPS was right with the speedometer in each.
I have yet to have a vehicle where the factory setting didn't match my Garmin. (yeah, I still use my phone or that old Garmin now and then because sometimes the Jeep NAV isn't correct in where to go)
I watch stuff like that- it's how I'm wired- attention to detail to extremes and unable to prevent input even input I really don't want.

Why would they set it low - that would give you miles on your warranty. Seems counter productive. If the speedometer is slow - then the odometer will be counting fewer miles. Also - mile-marker checks are a tell.
One thing I've found on both of my JT Overland is that the big fat digital numbers in the middle are 100% correct (even when new) but the analog needle tends to read 1 to 2 mph faster, depending on how fast you are going. Weird - digital says I'm right at 60 and yet the dial my wife sees says 61-62.

The speedometer needle is proud of the gauge face so depending upon seat height, body size, there will be some parallax effect due to the sight angle that will change your impression of the reading by 1-2mph. Of course the digital speedometer isn't subject to this 'flaw'. Still though, 90% of the time unless I drive in Canada and want Km/h, I rely on the gauge. Good enough for government work as they say.

With regard to cancellation of the Gladiator, we should all be cognizant that the fun times won't last forever. The inexorable march of progress, improved electric and hybrid vehicles, tougher emissions standards, crash + pedestrian safety standards, will eventually kill off these trucks as is.

I say 'as is' because I wouldn't discount a future gladiator, but it could be a reincarnation along the lines of the Cherokee re-make. That model tried to reincarnate some of the spirit of the original compact AWD/4WD family sports mobile. But, as I'm sure most of you would agree, the new Cherokee never lived up to the name because it arrived in a different context that precluded many of the elements that made the original so endearing.

I suspect the gladiator may suffer the same fate. Frankly it's wild that we can still buy such a truck with it's exposed hinges, front frame rails, blocky design and horrid aerodynamics. The old reliable naturally aspirated V6 will probably be replaced with something smaller and turbocharged. I could see the windshield taking on more rake and the hinges being tucked away. It will probably lose weight if a hybrid battery doesn't make up the difference. The party won't go on forever.

We also have to keep in mind the role of the gladiator/wrangler in the brand scheme. These are the halo vehicles for Jeep. Every lesser Jeep rides on the coat tails of the reputation of these old school off-roaders. The 'trail-rated' badge on a compass or cherokee for example, a bit of a joke without the context of the top tier models. Even the luxo-barge Wagoneer benefits from the association of being a Jeep, and a Jeep in most minds is a Wrangler/Gladiator. I'd suspect that if Jeep is able to keep the spirit of the truck they will, at least at a low volume, just to keep that reputation going.

Not to say this is all going away soon, it might be ten years, but I wouldn't bet on any longer than that at best. Until then, I plan to keep my JTR until the wheels fall off.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The speedometer needle is proud of the gauge face so depending upon seat height, body size, there will be some parallax effect due to the sight angle that will change your impression of the reading by 1-2mph. Of course the digital speedometer isn't subject to this 'flaw'. Still though, 90% of the time unless I drive in Canada and want Km/h, I rely on the gauge. Good enough for government work as they say.

With regard to cancellation of the Gladiator, we should all be cognizant that the fun times won't last forever. The inexorable march of progress, improved electric and hybrid vehicles, tougher emissions standards, crash + pedestrian safety standards, will eventually kill off these trucks as is.

I say 'as is' because I wouldn't discount a future gladiator, but it could be a reincarnation along the lines of the Cherokee re-make. That model tried to reincarnate some of the spirit of the original compact AWD/4WD family sports mobile. But, as I'm sure most of you would agree, the new Cherokee never lived up to the name because it arrived in a different context that precluded many of the elements that made the original so endearing.

I suspect the gladiator may suffer the same fate. Frankly it's wild that we can still buy such a truck with it's exposed hinges, front frame rails, blocky design and horrid aerodynamics. The old reliable naturally aspirated V6 will probably be replaced with something smaller and turbocharged. I could see the windshield taking on more rake and the hinges being tucked away. It will probably lose weight if a hybrid battery doesn't make up the difference. The party won't go on forever.

We also have to keep in mind the role of the gladiator/wrangler in the brand scheme. These are the halo vehicles for Jeep. Every lesser Jeep rides on the coat tails of the reputation of these old school off-roaders. The 'trail-rated' badge on a compass or cherokee for example, a bit of a joke without the context of the top tier models. Even the luxo-barge Wagoneer benefits from the association of being a Jeep, and a Jeep in most minds is a Wrangler/Gladiator. I'd suspect that if Jeep is able to keep the spirit of the truck they will, at least at a low volume, just to keep that reputation going.

Not to say this is all going away soon, it might be ten years, but I wouldn't bet on any longer than that at best. Until then, I plan to keep my JTR until the wheels fall off.

Nope.
I know all about parallax effect with "dial gauges" but that is certainly not it in this case. Further, from the passenger seat, if it was parallax, she'd see me as going under, not over.
It's not very far off the face, plus, in my case I'm looking pretty much directly at the highway speeds.
Nope, mine are just plain off. I knew how to determine if it was mal-adjusted or an effect.
Both have been off the exact same amount.

30-35 mph are almost right in front of me - and the difference can be seen even there. You'd think that looking slightly down I'd see it as 34 and not 36 mph, but it's still high. It's as if the needle was stuck on there off a little bit.
Trust me, 50+ years of driving cars and trucks, most with full gauges of all sorts, including down and to the right, I'd know if this was that.

 

[ng1111]

Does anyone buy any regular car or truck for resale? I really don’t even think about resale for a vehicle unless I’m planning to flip one and with that it sure wouldn’t be any Jeep.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Exactly. Same for 75. The fact that they don't test at those speeds is part of my point. The EPA's limited testing isn't optimized for city driving, or for highway driving at 70 or 75 mph.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.



Exactly. You're geared too tall for your driving conditions. 8 useable gears would be more efficient than 7.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.



Depending on how fast you want to run. The EPA testing shouldn't be so limited to only reflect driving in Kansas.

Again, mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.



Actually no, it sounds like both our gearing is too tall.

Mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears.




Exactly my point. EPA testing should actually match averaged real life conditions for consumers. Most people don't live in Kansas.

Again, mpg wouldn't go "out the window" with shorter gears.




I'm still right. Mpg would not "go out the window" with a shorter gear.



My driving conditions don't need to match yours.

The EPA testing apparently doesn't match any of our driving conditions, if they're saying 3.73 gives the best city/hwy combined mpg.


In summary, my original quoted point:

EPA mpg wouldn't "go out the window" with shorter gears, unless the EPA testing doesn't reflect real life driving conditions for customers.

That's really odd because all of the people who have swapped gear sets in cars like I've had over the years, because they want more off the line, talk of lost mpg with the lower gear ratios.
Again, auto companies use higher ratios for reasons - otherwise why not have the same lower gears on all of them.

Yeah, it does change things.
8th is an OD gear - intended for flat, no wind conditions, to drop engine RPM lower to gain even more mpg.
I'm of the "so what if I don't see 8th" a lot group. Big deal. I get my best mpg when it's in 8th and the engine RPM is way down. It's RPM vs. load vs. heat and so on.

I've been involved in the auto world and towing too long to not see a clear connection.
You believe what you want, I'll go by my training and experience with swapping ratios in identical cars.

I could go on with stuff from books, studies and more......... but won't. People will have to choose what to believe - solid direct comparisons or conjecture based on???

I go by experience and direct observation, not "what I think" although what I think is tempered by experience and a degree, so I guess that may matter.

A low gear ratio is higher numerically.
3.73:1 is a higher gear ratio than 4.10:1

 

[Chadnutz]

"Just something to listen to while you're wrenching in the shop".

Yeah, that's about all these video podcasts are good for. Great if you're bored and have nothing else to listen to.

I see Gladiators everywhere every day. Maybe almost as many as Jeeps.

 

[evoarie]

Yeah, a few weeks ago I did have that Ranger Tremor package, nice it was, fast yes, probably more practical, but if you ever intended to mod it, it would cost more plenty more, not sure you can do much with that front drive unit. Anyway I do miss the engine, but would not pass up the deal for this iconic old style truck. I see my self with the grandkids modifying or restoring this JTR when the rest are driving EV's, gonna be fun. I have no intention of letting it go. Cheers.

 

[SteveSD]

Here is an interview with Jim Morrison, Head of Jeep North America by Brad Kowitz (Trailrecon). At 7:38 he gets asked about the future of the Gladiator...

 

[SteveSD]

He didn't say anything. He talked electrification which is what is killing Ford. They need to sell the gas trucks for a huge premium to subsidize the losses from the Lightning sales.

I was trying to read into the part about their plan for the gladiator for "the next few years". Having an "electrification option by 2025" doesn't sound like they plans to kill the gladiator.

 

[Geoarch]

I think driving habits come heavily into play. He may be one of those leadfoot types who hammers the throttle everywhere he goes, and does mostly in town driving.

That being said, what has always surprised me is how v6 engines, regardless of the manufacturer, seem to be quite thirsty and offer barely any mpg improvements over the v8s of today, if any, despite lower displacement.

I bought a 2003 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 brand new, and it was an underpowered dog and thirsty as heck for such a small truck. This engine is a vast improvement over that. I think I barely got 17.5 in that thing. I ended up sending it packing after 2 years.

My 2022 JTR gets around 15 in town and nearly 18 on the road if my speed is below 70. My previous 2018 Tacoma TRDPro was about the same. Better clutch though. I didn't buy my Jeep for mph, but the off-road capability.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

He didn't say anything. He talked electrification which is what is killing Ford. They need to sell the gas trucks for a huge premium to subsidize the losses from the Lightning sales.

I blame that on Ford as much as anything else...........

As far as the JT -
The only Wranglers sold in the EU are 4xes. No gassers.
If they want to keep selling Gladiator in foreign markets, at least a hybrid is a must.
EU takes their cues from some locations in the US, I guess.

Sponsored