2019 Jeep Gladiator

Really? I've owned my 96 XJ now for a year and ~20k, 3 trips across the country fully loaded.  My dad and several friends of mine have owned PUs/Tacos/4Runners(1/2/3gen). I don't understand why anybody would have bought a 4Runner over the XJ. Everything about it is better except the quality of the plastics, but it's a practical wagon, so who cares? The engine pulls stronger, the trans shifts better, the 4wd is simple and bulletproof, shift on the fly 4wd at 45mph is so much nicer than stopping and getting out to lock hubs, and I get the same fuel economy as my dad's 22RE PU did, 22hwy.  Plus you'd pay a substantial Toyo tax, both when they were new and still today. The only similar era Toyo that I've driven or ridden in that compares is an FJ60, but the fuel economy removes any want.

Appleseed said:

ShawnG said:

That is a Scrambler. A Gladiator is a full-size, I know, I owned one.

 

This is like Ford calling the new SUV a Bronco. Broncos had two doors. Always. The new thing they're making is an Expedition.

Remember when Chargers, even FWD, were 2 doors?

A four door Charger is a Dart or a Coronet.

Put me down for less doors and more bed please. A truck with a bed less than 8' long is useless. I know, I currently own one.

The two jeeps I have owned have been opposite ends of the spectrum. My 1967 Gladiator was great at being a truck and completely reliable, probably because it had a Buick engine, Dana axles and transfer case, a Warner transmission and was built by Kaiser. My 1989 Comanche was total and complete garbage, probably because it had an AMC engine, AMC rear axle, Peugeot transmission and was built in the dying year of AMC, probably by a bunch of employees who couldn't give a damn.

"Engine pulls stronger". Man, that 4Runner must have been a weak little thing. Must have been the 3.0. My 90 XJ is no rocket ship, it can get outdragged by eveything and it makes 18 mpg.

It's not like any other crew cab truck. Stick axles, double manual, roof comes off, freaking windshield still folds. It's a weird long Jeep, but it's a lot more jeep than regular truck. 

Congratulations Jeep on inventing the Land Rover Defender 130 

buzzboy said:

Really? I've owned my 96 XJ now for a year and ~20k, 3 trips across the country fully loaded.  My dad and several friends of mine have owned PUs/Tacos/4Runners(1/2/3gen). I don't understand why anybody would have bought a 4Runner over the XJ. Everything about it is better except the quality of the plastics, but it's a practical wagon, so who cares? The engine pulls stronger, the trans shifts better, the 4wd is simple and bulletproof, shift on the fly 4wd at 45mph is so much nicer than stopping and getting out to lock hubs, and I get the same fuel economy as my dad's 22RE PU did, 22hwy.  Plus you'd pay a substantial Toyo tax, both when they were new and still today. The only similar era Toyo that I've driven or ridden in that compares is an FJ60, but the fuel economy removes any want.

In short, because my 4Runner was a 4th gen. I couldn't very well compare it to "the next Jeep' since there really wasn't a true replacement for the XJ. I suppose the 4th gen 4Runner could be compared to a GC, but not really a worthwhile discussion. I kind of forgot how old the XJ actually was compared to the 4Runner I got, so maybe not a great argument ;)

Keith Tanner said:

"Engine pulls stronger". Man, that 4Runner must have been a weak little thing. Must have been the 3.0. My 90 XJ is no rocket ship, it can get outdragged by eveything and it makes 18 mpg.

I you have a '90 XJ, you probably have the dreadful Renix engine management. Mine always started and ran, but it had all kinds of wired ghosts in it.....random ultra-high idle, random ultra-low idle. I spent months chasing symptoms and eventually gave up. The HO 4.0 in later XJs was a pretty substantial improvement and most certainlhy pulled stronger than the anemic 4-banger in the 4Runner........ 

bigdaddylee82 said:

lol, fact. except the internet one woudl have bigger tires and a roof rack too.

irish44j said:

Keith Tanner said:

"Engine pulls stronger". Man, that 4Runner must have been a weak little thing. Must have been the 3.0. My 90 XJ is no rocket ship, it can get outdragged by eveything and it makes 18 mpg.

I you have a '90 XJ, you probably have the dreadful Renix engine management. Mine always started and ran, but it had all kinds of wired ghosts in it.....random ultra-high idle, random ultra-low idle. I spent months chasing symptoms and eventually gave up. The HO 4.0 in later XJs was a pretty substantial improvement and most certainlhy pulled stronger than the anemic 4-banger in the 4Runner........ 

True,  my early xj was renix and man what a pain.  My 99 is much better,  just a night and day difference.  I’m a big 4x4 fan in general,  so my apologies if it looked like I was trying to turn this into a Toyota vs. Jeep pissing match.  I like both and own both,  so that was definitely not my intent.

In reply to irish44j :

Done! LOL

I briefly owned a 91 XJ 2wd 5 speed. With it being a 2 door and 2wd, it never felt underpowered to me. Sadly, I didn't look too hard for rust since it looked nice at the dealer. That was a mistake.

​​​​​​

That's my foot under there LOL

I've been following the Jeep truck since 2005 when they teased everyone with that sweet concept truck.

Some of the early renders showed a 2 door variant but it was just a render. Will FCA produce a 2 door? Maybe? I'm sure they feel kinda cautious like they did when they released the 4 door Unlimited in 2007. Those things sold like gangbusters. They outsell the 2 door Jeeps something like 3 to 1.

Overall, I'm happy that Jeep finally released a pickup variant of the Wrangler. Is it long? Yep. Will it be expensive? Ohhh you betchya. Will I buy one? Probably not. I don't have that kind of play money. Plus, there is a lot of competition from Ford, Toyota and GM. I like my Wrangler but I wouldn't buy a new Gladiator just because I like Jeeps. The diesel should be interesting though.

irish44j said:

Keith Tanner said:

"Engine pulls stronger". Man, that 4Runner must have been a weak little thing. Must have been the 3.0. My 90 XJ is no rocket ship, it can get outdragged by eveything and it makes 18 mpg.

I you have a '90 XJ, you probably have the dreadful Renix engine management. Mine always started and ran, but it had all kinds of wired ghosts in it.....random ultra-high idle, random ultra-low idle. I spent months chasing symptoms and eventually gave up. The HO 4.0 in later XJs was a pretty substantial improvement and most certainlhy pulled stronger than the anemic 4-banger in the 4Runner........ 

I had a 1989 3.0 V6 Toyota truck. It was slow, but the XJ is slower (at least, when the Toyota had a full collection of pistons). They were on the marketplace at the same time so it's a good comparison. A 1996 XJ would have to compete with a 3.4 V6 Toyota to be equivalent, and they're rated just about the same in output as the 4.0 HO - but the Toyota is  about 2 mpg better according to Fuelly. If you want to compare it to the old 2.2 Toyota engine, then the XJ gets the 2.5. The XJ might be good at a lot of things, but it can't brag about speed or economy. I have not had any problems with the Renix management, just a poorly installed and designed TPS.

I was actually looking at the 4.0 today when I was filling up the windshield washer fluid, and thinking "I can't believe Jeep kept making a non-crossflow engine until the mid-2000s" 

I totally understand the Gladiator, because I can't stop looking at Comanches. That's because I like the size, however, which would not be the case with a Gladiator. That's at least two sizes bigger. My brother in law also has an LJ, which is the first Wrangler that's ever made me say "hmm, I could really get into that".

Like the four door Unlimited, I suspect it's going to sell well enough to make Jeep ask "why didn't we do this earlier?"

So far the two jokes I have made about it on IG are to wonder how much you would have to lift it to have the same breakover as the 2dr (i guessed 2 feet) and that it's a good thing it has a 7600lb tow capacity so that it can just barely tow their promotional materials in those Wagoneer shots. 

In reply to stanger_missle :

It's longer than the Wrangler, but in its market it's average.

Cotton said:

Jeep is still being creative.  People can bag on FCA all they want,  but they are producing some cool outside the box stuff and I’m all for that.

I think FCA creativity has helped it get a lot of customers that are not their usual demographic. Aside from gladiator, I wouldn’t ever consider a FCA product 

On nsx/s2000/Acura forums I see lots of people bought 4 door hellcats and trackhawks. It brought them lots of new customers 

agree, their creativity has kept them going 

Also since initially it will have the 3.6L pentastar, how has the 3.6P been in the wrangler ? 

Weak points? Issues to be worried about ? 

In reply to bigdaddylee82 :

Yeah, it fits in nicely with the class/competition. That's a cool graphic. Thanks 

Sorry, I should of said it's long for a Jeep haha

I'm still excited that this has finally entered the market. More competition in the midsize truck market is never a bad thing. 

In reply to mr2s2000elise :

Starting in 2012, Jeep put the 3.6L in the Wrangler.

I only have 42k miles on my '12 Wrangler, but I did have the cylinder head recall done. It was a manufacturing flaw in some of the early 3.6Ls but FCA replaced the head with an updated part.

Outside of that, my 3.6L has been flawless.

Cotton has like 144k miles on his Wrangler with a 3.6L.

Closer look from TFL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izYQ6ztcflQ

stanger_missle said:

In reply to mr2s2000elise :

Starting in 2012, Jeep put the 3.6L in the Wrangler.

I only have 42k miles on my '12 Wrangler, but I did have the cylinder head recall done. It was a manufacturing flaw in some of the early 3.6Ls but FCA replaced the head with an updated part.

Outside of that, my 3.6L has been flawless.

Cotton has like 144k miles on his Wrangler with a 3.6L.

Thank you 

if one has 144k reliable miles on the 3.6L , I will be good 

This makes more sense to me than any other truck, but then again, I'm also a 'convertible enthusiast' with a family and moderate-at-most towing needs. It's pretty much everything I thought, hoped, and expected it would be. I also love that they gave it functional touches, like the 3-position tailgate to better support 4x8 materials even with the short bed, and low bed sides to ease access into it even with the tall ride height. About the only criticism I have at this point is the lack of eTorque on the V6, even as an option. I'm sure pricing will be 'uncomfortable' as well. Hopefully the diesel will be available in the Sport or Sport S trims. If so, it would be a tough call between the manual and the diesel for me.

bigdaddylee82 said:

Somebody needs to learn to photoshop better. Why in God’s name would you put the axle all the way to the rear like that? It would still be in the same spot. I would want a standard cab long bed, but not if it looked like that.  They could build it just like how Toyota had built pickups for decades. One Chassis, Two body styles. 

The rearward axle placement is to maximize (exaggerate) rear departure angle. 

John Welsh said:

The rearward axle placement is to maximize (exaggerate) rear departure angle. 

The Wrangler axle doesn’t even sit that far back and that’s just not a proper axle placement for a pickup truck. 

I dig it. If I ever buy a truck I'm going to steel that cargo-basket-over-the-bed idea.