2016 wrangler independent suspension?! - Page 3 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > General Discussion > 2016 wrangler independent suspension?!

Introducing MONSTALINER™ UV Permanent DIY Roll On Bed LineRubicon Express Suspensions from CCOR 706-207-4140Smittybilt Hard Tops @ Oconee Off-Road! 706-534-9955

Reply
Unread 11-04-2013, 06:13 AM   #31
SoK66
Registered User
2009 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by trw
seriously getting sick of hearing this every. single. time. Jeep works on a new Wrangler, it never happens. There's more info out there suggesting otherwise anyway. First off, Jeep already stated JK production was extended to 2018, why the hell is this still saying 2016? that right there removes all credibility from this STORY. The engineers have gone on record saying the Wrangler will always have solid axles and Marchionne himself even highlighted how precious the Wrangler is in every way possible. One story without even so much as a viable quote and everyone cries bloody murder...... Jeep has indeed diluted the rest, but in order to improve overall efficiency, the product line can afford one to remain as it is (aka Wrangler)...
This story came from an interview with Jeep brand honcho Michael Manley, published in Automotive News last week. Manley specifically discussed the 2016, not 2018 Wrangler. He claimed the many issues related to weight reduction, MPG standards that are coming means they'll have to consider all options. This has blindsided the 4x4 press, because there had been a previous statement that JK would stay in production as configured (i.e., solid axles) through the 2018 model year. (See the lastest 4 Wheel Drive & Sport Utility intro by Phil Howell.) Think about the "2018" Corporate statement for a second. That would mean a JK production run of 11 model years, almost 12 calendar years. That's virtually unheard of in this era. Those of us who've worked for auto manufacturers took that earlier statement with a bit of skepticism. I felt it was more a way to get the JK successor, and the potential suspension controversy off the table for a little while so they could deal with the decidedly negative reception they were getting to the spec of the 2014 Cherokee. (Moab reveal of the "Cherokee" was virtually 100% negative and the booing hasn't stopped.) Manley is, in my view anyway, bringing it up again because, as some of us suspected, the JK successor will be here in '16 and it's either going to be IFS or fully independent. If 2016 is trully the launch year for JK's successor, the suspension design decision was made a long time ago and they've just been pulling our collective chains.

Car manufacturers work to the bottom line, often with detached management that could care less what the knowledgeable buyer wants. In fact, the executives are often comtemptuous of their own buyers, convinced they have no clue what's under the paint. The consensus in some quarters is that Jeep's Fiat management is going to "badge engineer" as many Fiat platforms as possible into "Jeeps" . Thus comes the "Cherokee", which is based upon a European Alfa Romeo, also used for the Dodge Dart. Jumping ahead to JK successor, some wags feel Fiat wants to leverage the full independent of Grand Cherokee in the JK redesign. Pretty good argument for that. Costs have been amortized, there are huge weight savings, and big gains in highway ride & handling are possible. Read the negatives in Consumer Reports regarding JK and you'll have a good idea what gets discussed in the JK successor product development meetings. If the JK successor makes it across a gravel parking lot in Bloomfield Hills without spilling Sergio's latte, hey, its a go.

Me? I think at a minimum IFS is a slam dunk, and Fiat will have to feel the sting of buyers departing for Toyota, Ford, etc. to get the point. However, if all that's at risk is your fun weekends in Moab, or some small potatoes aftermarket vendors like PSC, hey, game on. (25 years working for a couple manufacturers makes one look at these things with a cynical eye!)

__________________
Owns two Jeeps. Driver has no money.
SoK66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 06:16 AM   #32
SoK66
Registered User
2009 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by COLOUXJ
You do know its highly likely that the cherokee was in works far before Fiat bought Jeep. It takes longer than a year and a half to design a "new" vehicle like that.
Cherokee is on a European Alfa Romeo platform. Decision on it was made right after Fiat bought Chrysler in '09.
__________________
Owns two Jeeps. Driver has no money.
SoK66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 07:48 AM   #33
bobjp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,349
I work in automotive, and you should see the things we do to cut weight. Aluminum this, electronic that. There are huge investments being made for seemingly small weight savings. Making things out of aluminum and electronics certainly isn't the cheapest route.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next Wrangler came with IFS, but there's nothing definitive at this point. One guys said it's a possibility. That's all.

If IFS does happen, hopefully Jeep will have more than the convertible top to separate it from the FJ.

How many times was the Hurricane posted and drooled over when the prototype came out?

http://www.jeep.com/en/autoshow/conc...les/hurricane/

You know it's full IS, right?
__________________
97 TJ sport.
bobjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 09:11 AM   #34
prjohnson
Registered User
2002 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 564
They might cut the front axle to save weight, but people will still get fatter. How much does a D30 weigh, vs. IFS? What percentage of us are over weight - by how much? That would be the best & cheapest place to start for big weight savings, but idiots don't want to hear the truth.
prjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 10:52 AM   #35
dayriesw
Web Wheeler
 
dayriesw's Avatar
2005 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 5,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder6 View Post
I want a ifs wrangler, so I can put a long travel front on it. Would be so badass

Give me a diesel aluminum bodied LWB 2 door wrangler rubicon with double wishbone IFS, solid rear and a ladder frame and I'll be happy camper.
You know that wont happen and even if it does, it wont be what you want. They will give you a ladder to get to the minivan rack and call it a day.
__________________
Impact Orange LJ - DD...sitting low, flat bottomed, fully armored and locked on 37s
dayriesw is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 11:00 AM   #36
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjohnson View Post
They might cut the front axle to save weight, but people will still get fatter. How much does a D30 weigh, vs. IFS? What percentage of us are over weight - by how much? That would be the best & cheapest place to start for big weight savings, but idiots don't want to hear the truth.
I don't know about you, but I personally weigh 150lbs. It doesn't matter what car I'm in, the thing has no idea I'm driving it. If you tried to trim 30 pounds in driver weight from me, I'd probably be dead.

Actually the biggest thing pushing weight up is safety standards. Vehicles have to be a lot stronger to survive impacts, only the heavier the vehicle is the stronger it has to be, and the stronger it is, the heavier. It's like the rocket equation for rollover safety.

With that said, my ZJ's D30 weighs a lot more than my buddy's Rodeo's IFS. The control arms are slightly heavier, but literally every other part of the system weighs less. It's definitely one place to cut weight, while improving road manners. I understand the desire to do it from an engineering standpoint.

Even still, ultimately it comes down to what the bean counters say. If marketing thinks it'll cost more to do it IFS in terms of development and lost sales, engineering will continue to use solid axles. I'd count on aluminum for the next-generation Wrangler's axles though. Hey, maybe they'll reuse the D44A for once, and if that happens, ZJ owners will finally get some aftermarket support.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 04:50 PM   #37
JeepN4KC
Keep on Jeepin on........
 
JeepN4KC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC View Post



Actually the biggest thing pushing weight up is safety standards. Vehicles have to be a lot stronger to survive impacts, only the heavier the vehicle is the stronger it has to be, and the stronger it is, the heavier. It's like the rocket equation for rollover safety.
Uuhhh.......wrong. Vehicles are considerably lighter than they have ever been. Polycarbonates, light weight bumpers, high strength light weight steel, aluminum, crumple zones, etc........all to do with creating the safest AND most (well reletively speaking) fuel efficient vehicles on the road.

You want a hunk of metal driving down the road? Look at the AMC Gremlin or Mercury Montego. Both examples of cars I grew up in as a kid over 30 years ago. They had real steel bumpers - none of this 5 mph crash tested plastic and syrofoam bs.
__________________
~Mike~

My Build Thread WK
My Other Build Thread XJ
'01 XJ with some stuff
Sept 2013 Cherokee of the Month
'07 WK with some other stuff
~RED WK CLUB #7~
'11 KK with mostly stock stuff
'06WK our first Jeep with stock stuff - totalled and gone
JeepN4KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 05:47 PM   #38
Tom95YJ
[] Eye'd Jeep Connoisseur
 
Tom95YJ's Avatar
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 8,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepN4KC
Uuhhh.......wrong. Vehicles are considerably lighter than they have ever been. Polycarbonates, light weight bumpers, high strength light weight steel, aluminum, crumple zones, etc........all to do with creating the safest AND most (well reletively speaking) fuel efficient vehicles on the road. You want a hunk of metal driving down the road? Look at the AMC Gremlin or Mercury Montego. Both examples of cars I grew up in as a kid over 30 years ago. They had real steel bumpers - none of this 5 mph crash tested plastic and syrofoam bs.
Compare the weight of a Yj and Tj. Then the weight of a TJ and a JK. You will notice a trend. Newer cars are getting bigger and heavier. A new corolla is damn near the size of a older Avalon
__________________
'89 YJ The Smurf Build Thread
'99 XJ Black Betty Build Thread
Tom95YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 06:50 PM   #39
spyder6
Got that Toyota chit
 
spyder6's Avatar
2010  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 12,041
So size = weight

Size does not = safety

You ever seen the safety cage in a smart car? **** is ridiculous.
__________________
2010 Magnetic Toyota 4Runner Trail Teams

My builds: Bruiser and The Grey

|Forge Overland| or follow us on Facebook
spyder6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 07:05 PM   #40
JeepN4KC
Keep on Jeepin on........
 
JeepN4KC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom95YJ View Post
Compare the weight of a Yj and Tj. Then the weight of a TJ and a JK. You will notice a trend. Newer cars are getting bigger and heavier. A new corolla is damn near the size of a older Avalon
Here are just a few articles and studies to support what I'm talking about. All part of the CAFE regulations pointed to in a previous post. It looks like during the 80s and 90s the vehicles really shaved weight - then gained some through the 2000s - and are now poised to really slim down in order to help comply with mpg regs. Weight is the biggest contributing factor in fuel consumption. So, lighter vehicles means more miles to the tank.


http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/...earch-to-road#

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fVtP_blog.html

http://www.autosafety.org/comment-li...are-not-unsafe

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...rticle14.shtml

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville...t-federal.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...es-get-lighter

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw475.html

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE...erCarFleet.htm



However, all this being said, back on the OP's thread topic:

I sincerely hope that the Wrangler, the last true breed left to the Jeep name, wouldn't be tainted with an IFS and/or IRS set-up. Tinkering with my XJ, older vehicle issues aside, is much simpler than my WK in regards to the front suspension. Both have their pros/cons but I think the solid front is just a more simple, readily workable suspension set-up.
__________________
~Mike~

My Build Thread WK
My Other Build Thread XJ
'01 XJ with some stuff
Sept 2013 Cherokee of the Month
'07 WK with some other stuff
~RED WK CLUB #7~
'11 KK with mostly stock stuff
'06WK our first Jeep with stock stuff - totalled and gone
JeepN4KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 07:58 PM   #41
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,452
Let's do some comparing:

1998 ZJ 4x4 V8: 4100lbs
2013 WK2 4x4 V8: 5210lbs

1998 SN95 GT: 3350lbs
2013 SN197 GT: 3550lbs

1998 TJ manual: 3300lbs
2013 JK manual: 3700lbs

In actuality, cars haven't used composites and such to lose a ton of weight. In fact they've added weight in the form of high-strength steel structure, and other structural requirements, as well as general larger size (used to accommodate safety structures and devices). Just about any car made 15 years ago, compared to its current descendant, will weigh less.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 08:15 PM   #42
Tom95YJ
[] Eye'd Jeep Connoisseur
 
Tom95YJ's Avatar
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 8,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC
Let's do some comparing: 1998 ZJ 4x4 V8: 4100lbs 2013 WK2 4x4 V8: 5210lbs 1998 SN95 GT: 3350lbs 2013 SN197 GT: 3550lbs 1998 TJ manual: 3300lbs 2013 JK manual: 3700lbs In actuality, cars haven't used composites and such to lose a ton of weight. In fact they've added weight in the form of high-strength steel structure, and other structural requirements, as well as general larger size (used to accommodate safety structures and devices). Just about any car made 15 years ago, compared to its current descendant, will weigh less.
I assume the JK weight is off a 2dr
__________________
'89 YJ The Smurf Build Thread
'99 XJ Black Betty Build Thread
Tom95YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-04-2013, 09:42 PM   #43
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom95YJ View Post
I assume the JK weight is off a 2dr
It is. The 4-door is significantly heavier.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2013, 01:50 AM   #44
HOKIES2010
Web Wheeler
 
HOKIES2010's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Navarre Beach, FL
Posts: 1,727
Man I wish my JKUR weighted close to 4000lbs
__________________
HOKIES2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-05-2013, 05:02 AM   #45
spyder6
Got that Toyota chit
 
spyder6's Avatar
2010  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 12,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOKIES2010
Man I wish my JKUR weighted close to 4000lbs
Mine does
__________________
2010 Magnetic Toyota 4Runner Trail Teams

My builds: Bruiser and The Grey

|Forge Overland| or follow us on Facebook
spyder6 is offline   Reply With Quote




Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.