Opinions Wanted

[Steve Pellock]

This is a re-skinned Dodge Power Wagon. The Power Wagon currently utilizes Jeep technology in it's transfer case, sway bar disconnect and suspension.
Is it time for a Cummins powered Jeep pick-up?



Let me know your thoughts, Chrysler is listening...

Me likey

[Chewie]

I'm all for a smaller truck with a diesel, be it Dodge or Jeep. I have had a Dakota in one form or another since 89 and I really like that size. I owned a D50 for a while and still have a Comanche.
I've been thinking about putting a Mercedes diesel in the little Jeep. I drive a long ways to work and back and could use the fuel economy.
I wouldn't mind seeing an Xcab shortbed with the small diesel and a stout front end that will survive a deer collision.

[Joe Flo]

Norm,

I hope you are feeling better.

As others have mentioned, I don't see the point of having a Jeep truck very similar to the Dodge. If Jeep built a pickup the size of a Dakota with a 4cyl or V-6 diesel I would buy it. Most of us drive our trucks to work, weave through traffic jams (well at least here in NJ) and need to park them on the street or parking lots. The reality is they spend more time doing domestic chores than off roading. My wife HATES driving my full size 4x4 pickup because it sits too high. I drove a 92 4x4 Dakota LE for 15 years. It was great truck and my wife liked it too. Yes, it was on its knees when you put about 900+ pounds in the back but how often do you do that? If you need to tow or haul heavy stuff, the full size Dodge already fills this need.

Joe

PS I had a 45 Willys MB Jeep when I was 15 years old. My friend had a 49 CJ2A. We had a blast driving through the woods with them.

[NNICKB]

What he said.

I spent a great deal of my misspent youth at the wheel of a CJ-3A, in the deep dark woods of North Central Pa. Check it out on the map. It doesn't get any better than that.

The other day, I parked my XJ Cherokee next to a new Dodge Ram 1500, crew cab, 6 foot bed. The Dodge looked huge, way wider, and also taller. A great vehicle for its purpose, but not a Jeep.

[greg rider]

The problems with the Dakota are several, however I do agree upon the size issue. That is why the Jeep Truck concept is utilizing a shortened Dodge frame with a 6.5' bed.
The Dakota is IFS, and automatic non-starter for Jeepers.
The Dakota has a terrible "break-over" angle and front and rear overhang and approach and departure angles make is not suitable for off road use.
The Grand Cherokee is a unibody with IFS both front and rear. That means no payload ability and no off road capability. Daimler has driven a stake through the heart of Grand Cherokee.
The WDX type Power Wagon Concept was actually on a much LARGER platform than the Ram, not the Dakota. It was huge!
Also the Jeep Rescue Concept was built upon a Ram platform and it was also huge.
For comparison, MoparTina is 5'9"

I remember the old J series pickups and they were not off road warriors. They used a spring under axle setup that sat these trucks very low for a 4x4. That coupled with a long bed and they had horrible approach/departure angles as well. The cabs were a tad bit smaller than the big 3 trucks. I still think that the Dakota would be a better platform. I don't think that the front IFS would shy away buyers as many people look for that due to ride quality. Ford and GM both went to IFS fullsize fronts in the 80's. The sharp lines on the body would really blend with the utility look of a jeep truck. The front sheet metal could be reworked and put Wrangler looking grill and fenders on and it could have good potential. It would fit the bill for everything they are looking for; 4x4, V8, manual tranny option, full frame, towing ability, small enough to garage, instant visual recognition as a Jeep, etc. If someone could photoshop those ideas, I think it would look good. I still think the full size would not sell many units. I don't see many of the Sterling/Dodge 3500-4500-5500 trucks on the road.

[MoparNorm]

Just a few points to ponder:

The concept is designed to appeal to Jeepers, not Dodge owners looking for something smaller. All of the data I have acquired shows that IFS is a non starter for most Jeepers. Also the VCI* rating of the Dakota is extremely poor. The Dakota just doesn't stack up off road.

For the record, I had several FSJ Jeeps and they were indeed good off road performers, yes they had limitations due to approach and departure angles, but so did every truck of that Era, look at the rear overhang on 61-65 Sweptline Power Wagons, it's about 3 miles from the rear bumper to the rear axle....= )
Spring over, or spring under, does not change the distance from the axle, or differential, to the ground, it only changes the height of the body. It doesn't matter if the body is 4 inches higher if the drivetrain components are still down low and hanging you up.

The 3500-4500-5500 Cab Chassis lead that industry segment in sales, outselling both Ford and GM.


*VCI= vehicle cone index, is used by Jeep Engineers to determine the off road capability of vehicles, based upon traction, soil to wheel pressure afforded by the suspension system and many other factors.

[MasterYota]

For the record, I had several FSJ Jeeps and they were indeed good off road performers, yes they had limitations due to approach and departure angles, but so did every truck of that Era, look at the rear overhang on 61-65 Sweptline Power Wagons, it's about 3 miles from the rear bumper to the rear axle....= )
Spring over, or spring under, does not change the distance from the axle, or differential, to the ground, it only changes the height of the body. It doesn't matter if the body is 4 inches higher if the drivetrain components are still down low and hanging you up.

It matters alot when I get the front diff over a rut only to jam the rocker panel into the ground. Front and rear departure angle and breakover angle rely alot on how far the body is from the ground. An extra 4" of lift at the body via the suspension design can make, or break your attempt at crossing something as simple as a ditch.

Lets move up one decade into the 70's, and you'll note that virtually all trucks sat higher than a J-Truck. A Ford high-boy will fit 35's on it stock with no mods to the suspension or body. For the same offroad prowess, the Jtruck needs a spring over just to get into the ball park. Dodge and Chevy trucks also sat higher. The only benifit of the lower jeep was it was easier to get in an out of.

The only way to raise the diff up off the ground is bigger tires. The only way to get bigger tires was big fenderwells (like the M715) or to have a suspension thats easy to lift (which spring under wasn't when compared to spring over).

Sure the Jtruck could be hailed as decent offroad - but it was at the back of the pack, and the bottom of the pile compared to everything else.

[MoparNorm]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however that's all it is,... your opinion, with no basis in engineering facts.
The two stock J trucks in this photo spent a fair amount of time pulling out the Power Wagon in this photo.

Granted that the more clearance you have, the less you encounter obstacles, however spring over or spring under has little to do with it.
I have 29" to the rockers of my spring under CJ...

[greg rider]

Just a few points to ponder:


The 3500-4500-5500 Cab Chassis lead that industry segment in sales, outselling both Ford and GM.


.

I agree, as a Dodge, not a Sterling.

[MoparNorm]

I agree, as a Dodge, not a Sterling.

Daimler closed Sterling over 18 months ago, so you won't see too many of them.

[MasterYota]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however that's all it is,... your opinion, with no basis in engineering facts.
The two stock J trucks in this photo spent a fair amount of time pulling out the Power Wagon in this photo.

Granted that the more clearance you have, the less you encounter obstacles, however spring over or spring under has little to do with it.
I have 29" to the rockers of my spring under CJ...

Now now Norman, don't be testy... When you ask for opinions you get them wether you agree with them or not. My opinion is usually based in reality, which trumps engineering facts. Engineering facts usually work best on paper. They don't always translate so well to the real world. But your entiled to think whatever you want.

Here is fact. More stuff hanging off the bottom of the axle is just trail fodder to get hung up on. Sprung under setups have three low-hanging points of contact, both spring packs, and the diff. Spring over setups have only one point of contact, the bottom of the diff. The chances of getting hung up on the trail with a SUA are 3:1 more so than a SOA. Thats a fact, no matter what engineering knowledge you use to spin it around.
Couple that to a low slung body, and a very long wheelbase, with lots of overhang, and your right at the back of the pack, bottom of the pile again, usually right beside, or just ahead of, the sprung under IH scout based trucks.

Perhaps the owner of the powerwagon in the picture was a lousy driver. Perhaps the Jeeps had powerlocks in the diffs and the 'wagon was open. Perhaps the jeeps had better tires, or packed less weight. Being as you haven't provided those engineering facts, I'll just have to take your opinion, and thats all that it is, at face value.

As for your sprung under cj having 29" of ground clearance at the rocker, I fail to see how its clearance has any relationship to a stock J truck, which dosen't have anywhere close to that amount of clearance, as posed in this current discussion.

I have 31" to the rocker on my Toyota. So what?

[OLD DODGE]

Now now Norman, don't be testy...

Perhaps the owner of the powerwagon in the picture was a lousy driver.

He'll be testy after reading that line.

[NNICKB]

Well, I see this thread is taking a "testy" turn so I will return to try and defend some of my favorite vehicles.

There are those in the 4WD community who measure a vehicle's worth by things like tire size, departure angles, wheelbase, and ground clearance, the latter of which varies widely by the point on the vehicle that you are measuring. All of these are, of course, important, especially if you are into single-purpose, boulder climbing, offroading.

There is a similar mindset that can be found in the "on-road" performance car community, in particular, those who feel the only measure of an automobile's value is how well it does in quarter mile drag racing. This leads to ridiculous statements such as "My Buick will beat your Hemi providing we both keep the stock exhaust manifolds," or some such thing.

As I've said before on this forum, I live in a four season climate, with deep forests, and very little flat terrain. Click this link:

http://www.visittiogapa.com/

I have driven the J-trucks and Wagoneers for over 30 years. I like them because they are comfortable, good handling, and dependable, both on-road and off, rain, shine or snow. No other vehicles of their time can make this claim. They have good clearance, are narrow enough to fit between trees and brush, and, get this, they have a low enough center of gravity that you don't have your heart in your throat when you traverse one of those narrow logging trails that crosses a steep hill sideways. Yeah, we have those jacked up boulder busters around here...most of the ones I've seen were either sitting on one of their side doors, or maybe the roof.

The J-vehicles do not have the ruggedness or load capacity of my Power Wagon, but then, neither does my wife's Audi. They are very good for their intended purpose, and that is probably the best thing that can be said about any vehicle.

[712edf]

For what its worth I prefer spring over axle set-ups.

Bucky

[Joe Flo]

I agree with NNICKB. You need to be able to drive this proposed truck on the road. If you're seriously into off-roading, you are going to modify the truck anyway.

North Central PA looks alot like Putnam County, NY where I had my 45 MB Jeep.