Sahara Lee

Recent rumors of the next generation Wrangler purport moving away from live front axle and body-on-frame in order to reduce weight to get better fuel economy. To anyone in the military during the Vietnam era this is nothing new for jeeps, it is only new for Jeep.

Let me explain: The M151 (aka MUTT) was designed by Ford as a replacement for the M38 and was produced by Ford, Kaiser and AM General from 1959 until 1982. That's longer than all previous jeeps combined. (Not counting Civilian Jeep - CJ).

In fact, although the M151A2 was replaced by the HUMVEE, some of these light and compact jeeps are still in use today by special forces because they can be transported by helicopter.

Ford's "better idea" was to have a 4 wheel independent suspension and a unibody (or monocoque) chassis. This lowered the total weight (but especially unsprung weight), lowered the center of gravity, increased ground clearance and increased interior volume. What a concept!

Unfortunately, the devil is in the details and a rear suspension design flaw made them easily flipped during high speed turns. This was corrected in later models but the military would not take the chance of surplusing them to the civilian market so most were destroyed when decommissioned.

Personally, I would like to see Fiat sell Jeep to Ford or at least learn from what Ford did with the M151 and incorporate some of those features in the new design. Either way, I prefer to see VERTICAL slots up front.

The pedia:
M151 MUTT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comfortable?:
OverAxle 4x4: M151 MUTT, the most comfotable Jeep

Chassis pictures:
G838 Owner's Club • View topic - M151 Jeep chassis pictures

Pictures of M151A1 at Lake Mirror Classic in Lakeland, Florida

jk_sea

The discomfort about Jeep's future for me is in how its ruggedness, simplicity, and offroad capabilities could be softened to meet the increasing demand for better fuel economy, federal safety regulations, and to meet increased profitability for its corporate maker.

In general, this means becoming lighter, rounder, cheaper to manufacture, less capable offroad, less build configuration, but more frivilous features.

As we've seen with some favorite vehicles of eons past like the Ford Bronco, Explorer, S10 Blazer, Dodge Durango, some models have been axed entirely, and if they still exist today, it's only in name. The vehicles themselves are bulbous pigs built for the road with no offroad capability, whatsoever. Solid axles have gone the way of independent suspension, longitudinal mounted engines have gone transverse to save weight and power loss, part time transfer cases have succumed to viscous-coupling AWD systems, steel bumpers have gone the way of impact bars shielded with massive amounts of plastic to redirect air in the interest of fuel economy. Manual transmissions have disappeared almost entirely.

All the while, the corporate makers tell us this is "better". Better fuel economy, more power, more seats, more features, more comfort, more technology, more technology that drives the car for you and takes away from the art of driving, etc. The modern iterations of these vehicles are okay at everything but excellent at nothing, other than pleasing accountants and corporate executives who created generic pancakes of truck/SUVs on a car chassis, all in the name of meeting the needs of of people who participated in some psychological consumer study, who know nothing about automobiles anyway. The marketing teams never point back to the previous model and say "but that one was built stronger and had better capability offroad." Instead they point to the nicer interiors, and pre-programmed "4wd" mode buttons where the transfer case lever used to be.

I think this is why we hate the idea of the Wrangler moving away from solid axles and part time 4wd, or even supplanting a 6-cylinder for a "more powerful" 4-cylinder, or trading body-on-frame technology for unibody construction. We don't want corporate monkeys to mess with what works, with what we know, with our beliefs about freedom and how we use land on God's green earth. Give us a vehicle that performs, not makes excuses and/or tradeoffs.

This is what Fiat/Jeep has done with the Cherokee and I don't think any of us are impressed, in concept anyway. I think it has a test of time ahead of it and I'm hungry to see comparisons and hard data to see if it is indeed more brute, better built, and more capable than its simple, almost agricultural, predecessor, the XJ.

We know that alternate technology to solid axles can be tough and it has its use in military applications and elsewhere. The challenge is bringing it to the consumer market where it isn't used solely for the purpose of pleasing the EPA or cutting manufacturing costs, and where it isn't combined with electronics to produce a dumbed-down driving experience.

Whatever the next Wrangler is, the hope is that it's actually more capable than its predecessor, and just as rugged, and that it becomes just as time-tested as its JK, LJ, TJ, YJ, XJ brethren.

The JK proves to be a best-seller for Chrysler, and it still exists in a form that doesn't quite pander to the masses and is still purpose-built for offroad adventures. I hope that's a lesson learned for its corporate makers. Not everything needs to be watered-down, and dressed up.

Mark Doiron

Some of us like it rough.

Yankee

Because of federal rules, the JK is way more complicated that a true "rugged" but street legal offroad vehicle should be anyway. Emmissions, electronics, nanny systems all add complexity that makes the JK much too delicate. The auto companies then try to shave costs to increase profit (ball joints, anyone?) to make it even worse.

I think next time I will just order an aftermarket Jeep Wrangler frame and build one from the ground up with aftermarket parts. Simple small block GM 350 V-8 with throttle body fuel injection. Dana 60's and crank up windows, etc. I will have a brand new tough bare bones but streetable Wrangler that I know every bolt and wire in. I miss that.

It can all be done by catalog, and Michigan rules (or lack of) makes it easy to get a VIN. So far, at least, there are no emmission checks here.

Wranglers are going to get less rugged and more complcated each year.

Jeepstin12

The LR Defender is still made to spec and can't be brought in due to its pure utilitarian make up. I also heard alar is looking at redesign of that vehicle, just to comply with the US regulations. With technology, I'm certain they can get an IFS or IRS to mimick a solid axle. At the cost of more parts and weight of course.

Schlieko

JK_Sea says it better than I could and I agree with every word. One thing I will add...

We do a ton of climbing and hiking. Brands like North Face and others sold out to main street. Us die-hards never gave them a second chance. Columbia is trying to stage a comeback right now into the community. Eddie Bauer has their First Ascent. But most of us moved on.

I think this is happening to Jeep. They are going for the minivan crowd. I used to have a Land Rover Discovery... I looked at the L3 and said WTF. The new Cherokee has a front grille right out of Nissan's playbook. Jeep (executives) needs to be living on this forum and commenting every day. They have some of the most loyal customers on earth. Minivans, smart cars, etc come and go. We stay for a lifetime.

I have always thought Jeep should offer a "forum" special. Get a Jeep with nothing on it, no chrome trim, industrialized surfaces, no carpet... bare bones. Hell, I would probably pay a premium not to have to rip off half the stuff on the stock jeep.

northwoodsjeeper

Hear, hear.

HardRooster

The more I work on my JK and the more money I spend on it to make it as rugged as it should have been when I bought it, the more I want to do just what you suggest. Just build my own from scratch. Get an Aluminum CJ-8 body or something and build her up.

RedRockJeeper

Have a lot of miles logged in on one of those babies. In fact that is the vehicle that started my love affair with the Jeep!

Sahara Lee

Copied over from another thread:

As with the military, when the government dictates how a company is run, cost effectiveness gives way to the whims of politics. Right now car companies are struggling to meet present and future Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Although full independent suspension is more complicated, more costly and more failure prone, it is lighter than a solid axle therefore it will be in our future if the Jeep fleet is to get 54.5MPG by 2025. Assuming there is not a major revolt by voters between now and 2016, major effects of CAFE will start kicking in for 2017.

Obama Announces 54.5 mpg CAFE Standard by 2025 - Popular Mechanics

As far as fully independent suspension, that has been the military standard for jeeps (not Jeeps) since 1959.

M151 (MUTT) was produced by Ford, Kaiser and AM General from 1959 to 1982 and saw military service at least until 1999 has fully independent suspension and unibody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giqGHuWv-eM And was replaced by the AM General HMMWV which also has full independent suspension:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7zhTkVepw