Structural quality question

[CHANGER4647]

I'll try this again, general question without regard to legalities and liabilities. I've had Jeeps as old as a 1946 CJ2a and my newest one was a 1997 Wrangler. Currently I own a 1958 CJ5. I'm thinking about buying a new Wrangler. I'm not a fan of the whole "sport cage" thing but I understand it is engineered into the design. My question pertains to the rest of the Jeep. Aside from the airbags and belts, in a t-bone situation (without rollover), has the Jeep body and frame structure been constant, improved, or decreased? Does that cage provide any extra strength at the point of impact? Has the addition of the cage allowed for a decrease in weight/integrity for the frame and body?

Sponsored

 

[Vatdevil]

 

[Dan M.]

from what I've seen they hold up relatively well in accidents. for sure better than your 58 CJ would.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

I'll try this again, general question without regard to legalities and liabilities. I've had Jeeps as old as a 1946 CJ2a and my newest one was a 1997 Wrangler. Currently I own a 1958 CJ5. I'm thinking about buying a new Wrangler. I'm not a fan of the whole "sport cage" thing but I understand it is engineered into the design. My question pertains to the rest of the Jeep. Aside from the airbags and belts, in a t-bone situation (without rollover), has the Jeep body and frame structure been constant, improved, or decreased? Does that cage provide any extra strength at the point of impact? Has the addition of the cage allowed for a decrease in weight/integrity for the frame and body?

I think you should ask @Tredsdert and this thread can become the second coming of his now closed thread.

 

[OminousSkitter]

Just being an armchair engineer here, but watching that video, it looks like the B pillar is absorbing some of the impact and keeping the side intact and away from the passenger dummies.

 

[gato]

I'm not exactly sure what the OP is trying to get at. In general every generation of a vehicle has gotten much safer, and the structure much stiffer - which also helps with suspension/steering effectiveness.

The JL specifically has a lot more high strength and ultra high strength steel in key parts of the vehicle structure. It also has a fully boxed frame. (see pictures below).

So, yes, the JL is immensely safer than 1990s Jeeps. And that is before all the advances in traction control, ABS, blind spot monitoring, curtain/seat airbags, front collision detection, etc.

If you care about safety, don't mess with the safety structure or gear of the JL - I.e. keep the sawzall away from the Jeep.

 

[kah.mun.rah]

Nor sure about the sides but I have real-life experience that these are absolute tanks when hit in the back or front.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

The roll cage is essentially the A, B and C pillars of the Wrangler. Neither the windshield frame, or the top provides any kind of structural strength to pass any of the NHTSA or IIHS safety ratings.

I was an accident/crash crash detective investigator and reconstructed crash scenes in a prior lifetime. That having been said, many of us grew up driving or riding in vehicles that would be considered death traps today. If you own the Wrangler outright, you can do what you want to it. But you would never be able to trade it, or get much for it if you sold it. Also if you were in a crash, and a passenger was injured, that would be on you, as any insurance company would see an easy way out of paying the claim. As an investigator, I would absolutely annotate on a report a serious modification such as that to be a contributing factor in a serious injury or death.

Some here have removed cages and put in an aftermarket one, or have modified the existing one. With it gone though, I would expect the body to be unacceptably flexible, the doors to be constantly rubbing, and the hardtop to to creak and crack, if you chose to keep them.

 

[gato]

The roll cage is essentially the A, B and C pillars of the Wrangler. Neither the windshield frame, or the top provides any kind of structural strength to pass any of the NHTSA or IIHS safety ratings.

While I agree with pretty much all your said, connecting the A pillars and connecting the B pillars and connecting the C pillars are 3 high strength steel beams which are part of the roof structure and occupant safety cell.

 

[flyer92]

Like you, I've driven all manner of Jeeps for decades, including MB, M38, CJ-3, CJ-5, TJ, and now the JL. As others have stated, vehicle safety typically improves over the years, and I'm sure you remember the CJ-5/7 rollover segment on 60 Minutes, which gave way to the CJ-8 and beyond. Although I prefer the simplicity and all steel construction of CJs, the unsightly roll cage does provide some additional protection, and it has improved since the YJs and TJs of the 1990s. So to answer your question...yes, the body and frame configuration of the JL is much better than any CJ. However, nothing is absolute and it certainly doesn't mean the JL is built like a tank. It's just better than previous Wrangler models.

 

[Deleted User 38384]

I'll try this again, general question without regard to legalities and liabilities. I've had Jeeps as old as a 1946 CJ2a and my newest one was a 1997 Wrangler. Currently I own a 1958 CJ5. I'm thinking about buying a new Wrangler. I'm not a fan of the whole "sport cage" thing but I understand it is engineered into the design. My question pertains to the rest of the Jeep. Aside from the airbags and belts, in a t-bone situation (without rollover), has the Jeep body and frame structure been constant, improved, or decreased? Does that cage provide any extra strength at the point of impact? Has the addition of the cage allowed for a decrease in weight/integrity for the frame and body?

These sound like great questions for a Jeep engineer.

I don't know if anyone here could possibly even hope to answer this, no matter their field of expertise, without having intricate knowledge of the Wrangler itself.

Honestly, I think your best bet would be to email/contact a Jeep engineer. Beyond that, the most you'll probably get out of this forum is educated guesses at best.

Might I recommend LinkedIn. It's a great way to get connected with the specific people who hopefully can answer your questions accurately.

 

[CHANGER4647]

Hah, no doubt about that. I don't think safety was major part of the automotive lexicon back then for any brand.

I'm not exactly sure what the OP is trying to get at. In general every generation of a vehicle has gotten much safer, and the structure much stiffer - which also helps with suspension/steering effectiveness.

The JL specifically has a lot more high strength and ultra high strength steel in key parts of the vehicle structure. It also has a fully boxed frame. (see pictures below).

So, yes, the JL is immensely safer than 1990s Jeeps. And that is before all the advances in traction control, ABS, blind spot monitoring, curtain/seat airbags, front collision detection, etc.

If you care about safety, don't mess with the safety structure or gear of the JL - I.e. keep the sawzall away from the Jeep.

Great explanation, this is the kinda thing I was looking for.

 

[azjl#3]

Nor sure about the sides but I have real-life experience that these are absolute tanks when hit in the back or front.

ditto, 4 accidents, all minor in my opinion, totaled one, 10k damage 2 others, left a dent in hood of fourth who hit my spare. My total damage repair bill over 13 years? Zero. Full disclosure, i do have real steel bumpers, always, always a rub rail or better on side.

so yes, new cars will pass whatever todays impact standards are. Not to save lives, but to save costs.

 

[Deleted User 38384]

I know my $50,000 Jeep Wrangler has airbags up front, and in the front passenger seats, and that's it. However my wife's $34,000 Subaru Forester has one of the best crash ratings on the US market, including rear side airbags to protect the passengers in the back. So if your main concern is safety, I would factor in what you'll be using your Jeep for primarily and making a choice based on that usage.

I mean you can buy Rubicon for $65,000, and it's on-road prowess will be crappy when compared to other vehicles, and it's off-road prowess will be amazing compared to other vehicles.

Or for $35,000 you could buy a Subaru Forester, and it's on road prowess will be significantly better than a Rubicon.
And with the money you saved you can buy a side-by-side for $20,000 which is significantly better off-road than the Rubicon is.

Me personally, I own a Jeep Wrangler because I like tinkering with things, and the Jeep Wrangler has the most aftermarket modifications available outside of the engine bay than any other vehicle on the US market.

So if safety is your main concern, I would personally save the $10,000 and get a comfortable daily driver and then with the money I saved I would go buy a SxS.

 

[Ratbert]

Hah, no doubt about that. I don't think safety was major part of the automotive lexicon back then for any brand.

In "the good ole days" the perception was that the more solid a car was the more safe it was. It was decades before they realized (and sold the public on the idea) that the energy of the crash in those solid vehicles was being transferred into the occupants. Eventually they started designing crumple zones to dissipate a lot of that energy.

Sponsored