Enough engine talk - Will the J70 be body on frame? Will it have solid front and rear axles?

[258_T18A]

STLA Large is their new BEV-native platform for full size vehicles. Used on the new Wagoneer S. It's unibody.

STLA Frame is their new BEV-native platform for trucks. Used on the new electric Ram 1500 and upcoming Ramcharger. It's body on frame.

Which one will the J70 Wrangler get?

Then there's suspension. Other than the Ram HD and Ford Super Duty, the Wrangler is the only vehicle left with a solid front axle. Bronco went IFS. G-Wagen went to IFS in 2018 when the 2nd generation was released. The old style Land Rover Defender still sold in some markets was discontinued in 2016. The Toyota Land Cruiser (in markets where the old version was still sold) switched in 2008. Most 1/2 ton pickups switched in the early 2000s.

Will the J70 get IFS? Possibly IRS too?

The Recon is confirmed to be STLA Large (unibody) and have 4 wheel independent suspension. So maybe to differentiate the Wrangler, it will be STLA Frame and at least have a solid rear axle?

Sponsored

 

[CopperMtnGuy]

Better have solid axles, won't be a real wrangler without them. Only reason I didn't get a Defender.

 

[alphawolff]

Better have solid axles, won't be a real wrangler without them. Only reason I didn't get a Defender.

They'll probably go the Ford route with how they split the Bronco up. Two totally different models share the name. One just happens to be a total shit box (sport) and the other is an actual wrangler contender.

 

[Powelligator]

Keep an eye on what nuggets of information come out of Dana Corporation. They have the most to lose if FCA/Stellantis stops buying thousands of front axle assemblies from them. Suppliers of large components usually sign long lead contracts more than a year in advance of delivery so if Dana hints of a slowdown, there's a clue.

Now, if the J70 is indeed going to roll out the doors with IFS there will be huge backlash from the Jeep Faithful. One possible thing they could do to head off the criticism would be to build the J70 in the Toledo South complex, where the Gladiator is built today. Then continue to build a de-contented but completely capable Willys / Rubicon JL on the current Toledo North assembly line, thus throwing a bone to the faithful while building up trail cred with the new platform.

 

[Powelligator]

One more thing - keep an eye on the concept vehicles that show up at Easter Jeep Safari in April. If anything shows up with IFS, well, there's another clue.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

Jeep (to include Stellantis) is already mired in financial and organizational trouble. It wouldn't surprise me to see the current JL run for a few more years.

Changing the formula of the Wrangler from body on frame, solid axles, removable top and doors, would be a major blunder in my opinion. I believe the Recon is expected to be a test of a new formula to gauge public reaction. As it stands now, no one is waiting in line to buy one.

 

[BuyHold]

If Jeep wants to have an IFS Bronco competitor, they should revamp the Cherokee for that. There is so much underutilized value in that emblem.

If Stellantis migrates Wrangler (or its successor) away from SFA+SRA and body on frame then they lost the Jeep brand.

 

[258_T18A]

The other thing I worry about is it will be limited to a SOT setup, maybe with an optional targa type panel, and they do away with traditional hard tops and soft tops.

 

[WI_Sarge]

The jeep website (usa) still has the 2024 model for building… could you still order a 2024? Seems odd.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

The jeep website (usa) still has the 2024 model for building… could you still order a 2024? Seems odd.

That option on the site is designed for the customer to build what they want, then see where it is in stock. If you notice, it will see if there are any matches, then it will give you close matches. It's not a true build, then order design. As long as there are significant stockpiles of 2024s out there, there will be a build and price for them, probably until 2026s are available for order.

 

[INCRHULK]

I think the best of both worlds would be to offer a choice between an IFS model and a live axel model. I don’t know how easy to engineer that would be.

Alternatively, back when the JK was being designed, Jeep had developed and patented a IFS set up that gave you the traditional advantages in stability that comes with ISF and the advantages a solid axel provides for articulation and clearance.

This kept the pumpkin at an unaltered clearance, despite how the wheels were articulated. They decided against it because of potential backlash from “purists”.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

Let's not forget that complexity is detrimental to reliability and ease of service, not to mention expensive. Many of the concept vehicles and their suspensions are not viable for real world use or production. Certain aspects do make it though.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to have more and more complexity added to a vehicle with each subsequent model. Look how difficult it is to get a late model vehicle serviced or repaired in the last decade. Automotive publication journalists love added complications, for no other reason than a love for complexity.

Some of that innovation has made for better cars, and some of that complexity does no good whatsoever for the majority of drivers. There is a tipping point that it seems has been passed. A modern, late model vehicle can be nearly, if not completely bricked by one single malfunction of software.

 

[guarnibl]

I think they'll go IFS -- most people that buy the Wrangler do not wheel it. They're eliminating a large buyer pool when they stick to solid front axle due to the steering feel/road manners. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they'll go IFS and then build us an "LJ" (2 door) wheel base version with solid axles front/rear for purists. I.e., 4 door = IFS, 2 door gets it's wheelbase extended and becomes the off roader. I think that would be the right move if they wanted to approach IFS. 4-door was never a purist Jeep to begin with anyway.

 

[azjl#3]

Let's not forget that complexity is detrimental to reliability and ease of service, not to mention expensive. Many of the concept vehicles and their suspensions are not viable for real world use or production. Certain aspects do make it though.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to have more and more complexity added to a vehicle with each subsequent model. Look how difficult it is to get a late model vehicle serviced or repaired in the last decade. Automotive publication journalists love added complications, for no other reason than a love for complexity.

Some of that innovation has made for better cars, and some of that complexity does no good whatsoever for the majority of drivers. There is a tipping point that it seems has been passed. A modern, late model vehicle can be nearly, if not completely bricked by one single malfunction of software.

I want the complexity of a rock, also known as a Geo Tracker, but they didn’t make money with that thing either.

 

[swampflyer]

I think they'll go IFS -- most people that buy the Wrangler do not wheel it. They're eliminating a large buyer pool when they stick to solid front axle due to the steering feel/road manners. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they'll go IFS and then build us an "LJ" (2 door) wheel base version with solid axles front/rear for purists. I.e., 4 door = IFS, 2 door gets it's wheelbase extended and becomes the off roader. I think that would be the right move if they wanted to approach IFS. 4-door was never a purist Jeep to begin with anyway.

What’s wrong with the wheel base?

Sponsored