Next-Gen Jeep Wrangler Stays ‘True to its Current Form’

Next-Gen Jeep Wrangler Stays ‘True to its Current Form’

The next-generation Jeep Wrangler redesign won’t be too radical. 

A dealer who was shown the new Wrangler at a recent conference in Las Vegas told Automotive News that the new Wrangler “stays pretty true to its current form.” The gathering of dealers was also shown a new Grand Wagoneer luxury SUV that is capable of seating eight.

New aluminum body parts are slated to be used when the new Wrangler arrives to help it save weight, but it should keep its body-on-frame construction along with its solid axles.

SEE ALSO: Jeep Wrangler Popemobile Being Used for US Tour

Another dealer who attended the meeting revealed that FCA says the new Wrangler will be capable of 30 mpg. That is likely due to the addition of a diesel engine, which has been an option on the European Wrangler for a long time. There is also a rumor that a small turbocharged engine is set to join the lineup, another engine that would improved the Wrangler’s fuel economy.

The new Wrangler is expected to be a 2018 model.

[Source: Automotive News & Allpar]

Discuss this story at our Jeep Wrangler Forum

  • Jonny_Vancouver

    It’s taking long enough for a diesel version to become available in North America.

  • craigcole

    Well of course the Wrangler will remain true to form, they’re not going to kill their golden goose. This vehicle is too iconic to screw around with.

  • Vape Escape

    Most new gasoline engines can run on 100% methanol which is cheaper to produce than gasoline and burns much, much cleaner.

    But extracting a very dirty fuel from the Earth is seen as preferable to extracting very clean fuel from a wide variety of crops and plant life in a sustainable and renewable manner.

    And of course diesel engines can run on bio-fuels made from crops like hemp. In fact, they were designed to run on bio-fuels, not fossil fuels.

  • danwat1234

    Also rumors of a hybrid drivetrain.

  • Aaron C

    I’m getting pretty tired of manufacturers advertising mpg rates that only apply to around 5% of model sales. Assuming the diesel will have a $2-4K premium over the gasoline engine, the percentage might be higher only due to the pent-up demand for a diesel Wrangler, at least in the States. Still, I’d love to see what they expect the gasoline engine to get.

    I have always thought there should be two Wranglers — a body-on-frame classic Wrangler with solid axles for the purists, and a “new” unibody Wrangler with a similar boxy look, fully-independent suspension, high ground clearance, and the same hardtop/softtop options. It would be for those of us who only go offroad 5% of the time, but still love the flexibility and security of a go-anywhere vehicle and use it as a highway commuter. Really, there’s no other vehicle I’d rather drive, but I would love a little more MPG and some better on-road manners, and I’d be willing to sacrifice just a little off-road drivability for that. I think there are probably 50% or more of current Wrangler owners in the same boat. It would help get Jeep’s fleet MPG up as well and probably help ease the workflow in Toledo (assuming the next Jeep is built there).

  • Todd Medlock

    “dirty fuel from the Earth is seen as
    preferable…”Of course there is that nasty problem of farmers preferring
    to produce a high priced (in demand) crop. (Those greedy
    farmers: LMAO) Farmland is a limited resource. If you
    are growing a plant to produce methanol, you probably aren’t growing an
    edible crop in the same place (unless the price of food
    skyrockets). What does that do to the price of
    FOOD? Ayup, well if those pesky people can’t afford the
    price they will just have to starve so others can drive. Hummm: I
    can’t see why that might not
    be “preferable”… Why don’t they just order the
    farmers to grow what is needed? LMAO. As I have always
    said: If you think something is easy, you probably have not
    considered all the variables.

  • snotbuckets

    I used to think that way, too. but then I researched a bit deeper. I came to find that it’s not cheaper to produce, and it’s much less efficient than gas. It’s also highly prone to moisture contamination. I’m all for alternatives, but alcohol ain’t it.

    However, I do like the idea of diesel, and the possibility of doing bio-diesel at a later stage…

  • docious

    The manufacturers hate advertising those rates that only apply to 5% of model sales, too. It’s all about needing to meet the standards they’re required to meet. FCA is doing a great job of meeting these standards while still keeping the die-hard Wrangler enthusiasts happy. Good on them.

  • CopperheadCSA

    Cheaper? Not hardly. Take away the idiotic government subsidy and just like every other ‘green’ energy and you’ll find it to be way more expensive than you think.

  • Joe

    It would be nice to have those options, but that would require the development, testing, and production of two completely different vehicles that look the same aesthetically. It would be a nightmare for Jeep.

  • Useyourhead

    It is NOT prone to moisture contamination. That is a lie we have been fed. Why would you add acohol (Heet) to your fuel to get rid of moisture if it was causing it? See? Its a lie. Also I get a laugh when people try to claim that ethanol causes deterioration of gaskets and seals. Ethanol is far less corrosive than other fuel additives. Then with that lie debunked they claim it causes gumming. So I say…
    Whoa, you just claimed it was such a corrosive solvent but now say it gums up? It can’t be both ways. I don’t like ethanol in gas because it raises food costs but these lies need to stop.