PBone

All speculation. Not believing anything until I see it directly said by Chrysler.

Sahara Lee

Why do we hang on to some features of the 1940's WWII design such as body on frame and solid axles and then complain about poor performance and death wobble?

Truth is, the original jeep was designed for the military in 1940 and in the 1950s the military realized the design was already dated and had Ford redesign the jeep as the M151. The M151 (MUTT) was produced from 1959 to 1982. It was only retired after the HMMWV (Humvee) came out but was still used by special forces for fast deployment as late as 1999.

The M151 had 2 things the Jeep didn't and still doesn't:
- Unitized body
- Fully independent suspension

Unfortunately, our government destroyed most MUTTs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTDtb1u08g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giqGHuWv-eM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzN8ogOtoyM

DunnyBunny

I'm kinda following what your saying. I really didn't like the body styles before the JKU and JK. Still really only like the JK lifted and modded. I do like some TJs and I really like LJs. Other than that they are just too stubby and short. Don't look beefy enough for some reason.

Omar Brannstrom

Body-on-Frame vs. Unibody Construction

"Because unibody vehicles distribute stress throughout the entire vehicle, they are thought to "wear out" and develop cracks more easily. Eventually, doors become hard to close, and body panel fitment starts to become a problem. "

From This Is What Makes A Vehicle Unstoppable Off-Road

"Toyota’s Motoharu Araya said to AutomotiveNews, the brand’s global truck and SUV executive chief engineer. “Some want to drive off-road, some want to tow with their families, and some want to commute. Towing and durability are very difficult with a monocoque vehicle.”

From egmCarTechReport: Toyota seems adamant about sticking with body-on-frame SUVs - egmCarTech

More

Body-on-Frame vs. Unibody Construction | Web2Carz

Body-on-frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Omar Brannstrom

Solid axle vs independent suspension

Wagons West :: Vehicle Dependent Travel & Adventure Gear » IFS vs. SFA Explained

Frontend Feud - IFS Vs. Solid Axle - Four Wheeler Magazine

Hilux Suspension SFA vs IFS

Not offroad vehicle, a Ford Mustang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAX0mRYeUfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAiH776Ycyk

Omar Brannstrom

Hi

I think if Wrangler gets a Unibody Construction and a independent suspension they would be probably more beffier, sturdier and bigger compared to normal vehicles. A Wrangler should be abile to bee bashing on rocks on Rubicon trail for extended times.

I know they can do it, but I think that would make the Wrangler much more expensive. But what do I know?

Mountain Man Tim

unibody would increase the price and reduce durability, IFS would also cause issues with crawling, i love my 14 jkur just as it is (now that ive trimmed it at least )

the folks that want unibody jeeps with ifs, well wrangler isnt the only make of jeep......

notnalc68

That article should be named, "How the Chrysler Corporation Finally Killed the Jeep."

I agree with the earlier post that said the soccer moms would tire of it anyway, then who is going to buy it?

tribulation138

Im hoping they do a whole bigger engine design but ill keep dreaming

SiliconTi

This thread has interesting info:

more evidence that the Wrangler may be in for a change - Page 2 - Expedition Portal

See post #32.