[Jim Z]

1.5 million? It'd take them years to build, even with shutting off civilian production. sounds like bullpuckey to me.

if anything, it could be a $1.5 million order, which would be about a hundred or so vehicles.

[68RT]

I wonder if this is a rumor based on the purchases of GEM NEV's that will include short and long bed versions for use on military posts.

[TWX]

I'd be much more inclined to believe $1.5million in purchases. How many federal employees, including the military, would need Wranglers over any other random vehicle?

[drew54]

Challenger392, on Apr 6 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

Like I said I was not sure and did not put into it the first time I heard then when someone said something to me today about it I thought this forum would maybe have some insight on it. As it stands even if it was 1.5 million vehicles that would be a little over 20% of the projected new vehicle output for this year for the entire auto industry. $1.5million in purchases does make more sense. Thank you all for your input.

So what about 50 total Jeeps?

[DaveAdmin]

Fact is, the Jeep actually remains a very useful military vehicle in a non-combat support role. Taking huge, expensive vehicles to run a couple of people around (or some supplies or whatever) is an incredible waste of money and fuel - and fuel is money when you're in occupied territories. Jeeps are light, easy to ship compared to Humvees, get far better mileage, and are FAR FAR FAR cheaper.

Does make one wonder iwth that AEV story over at Jalopnik doesn't it?

[lvelleq]

Challenger392, on Apr 6 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

I do not now how true this is, but has anyone heard about the gov't ordering 1.5 million Jeep Wranglers. Like I said been hearing the rumor at our plant was not sure if anyone who works on ithe inside knows if there is any truth to this. I first heard about it a couple weeks ago and did not put much thought into it, then someone asked me about it today who works at another plant I did not have an answer and said I have heard about it a couple weeks ago. If so that would be great or does anyone have any info.

The feds have a HUGE fleet, and a significant need for 4X4s outside of the Defense Department -- think National Park Service, Forestry Service, Border Patrol, DEA, ICE, EPA, and so on, and so on...."
However, that said, a scan through the General Service Administration's vendors website as well as Recovery.gov so far doesn't indicate a large order of Jeep Wranglers or Libertys. But I've heard the same rumor, and I believe a large gov't order is on the way, just not 1.5 million units.

[nodrz]

DaveAdmin, on Apr 7 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

Fact is, the Jeep actually remains a very useful military vehicle in a non-combat support role. Taking huge, expensive vehicles to run a couple of people around (or some supplies or whatever) is an incredible waste of money and fuel - and fuel is money when you're in occupied territories. Jeeps are light, easy to ship compared to Humvees, get far better mileage, and are FAR FAR FAR cheaper.

Does make one wonder iwth that AEV story over at Jalopnik doesn't it?

For non-combat (to run a couple of people around or some supplies or whatever) roles they should be driving Ford Focus's, Civics or another small economy car. Why would they need a Jeep?

This post has been edited by nodrz: 07 April 2009 - 08:54 AM

[Ian]

nodrz, on Apr 7 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

For non-combat (to run a couple of people around or some supplies or whatever) roles they should be driving Ford Focus's, Civics or another small economy car. Why would they need a Jeep?

Would you like to drive a Focus in the sand in the middle of the desert?

[TWX]

nodrz, on Apr 7 2009, 06:53 AM, said:

For non-combat (to run a couple of people around or some supplies or whatever) roles they should be driving Ford Focus's, Civics or another small economy car. Why would they need a Jeep?

Ian, on Apr 7 2009, 07:02 AM, said:

Would you like to drive a Focus in the sand in the middle of the desert?

that's what I was thinking. The Jeep is great because if you end up having to go through adverse terrain it'll do it. It'll also go places that an AM General Humvee won't, like through narrow passes and between trees...

[Jim Z]

Ian, on Apr 7 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Would you like to drive a Focus in the sand in the middle of the desert?

Sure.

Once.

[robbiemopar]

lvelleq, on Apr 7 2009, 08:44 AM, said:

The feds have a HUGE fleet, and a significant need for 4X4s outside of the Defense Department -- think National Park Service, Forestry Service, Border Patrol, DEA, ICE, EPA, and so on, and so on...."
However, that said, a scan through the General Service Administration's vendors website as well as Recovery.gov so far doesn't indicate a large order of Jeep Wranglers or Libertys. But I've heard the same rumor, and I believe a large gov't order is on the way, just not 1.5 million units.

With that said, does this mean the J8 "Sarge" would be the vehicle of choice? If that's the case, then there may be a possiblity the J8 would be sold to the public. Also, since AEV is involved, chances are they could be working on a J8 pickup...I hope it will be the Gladiator 4 door pickup.

Couldn't Chrysler subcontract a Wrangler pickup with AEV to save money instead of building a Jeep pickup in house? If Chrysler does, I hope they would offer the same warranty as on their vehicles. Uh, if Chryslerlistens and they decide to sell the J8 "Sarge" or Gladiator 4 door pickup, please don't ask $50K. Price them reasonable, like in the $28 - $35k range.

This post has been edited by robbiemopar: 07 April 2009 - 12:06 PM

[CherokeeVision]

Maybe they need lots of tough capable vehicles to use for crowd control when the riots start. Or to fight the zombies. :lol:

[TWX]

I wouldn't want to use a vehicle with intentionally removable doors for either crowd control or for fighting the zombie horde...

[goodnightjohnwayne]

DaveAdmin, on Apr 7 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

Fact is, the Jeep actually remains a very useful military vehicle in a non-combat support role. Taking huge, expensive vehicles to run a couple of people around (or some supplies or whatever) is an incredible waste of money and fuel - and fuel is money when you're in occupied territories. Jeeps are light, easy to ship compared to Humvees, get far better mileage, and are FAR FAR FAR cheaper.

The current Wrangler lacks the ruggedness of a Mercedes Geländewagen, and certainly can't match the durability of a Landcruiser 70-series.

Oddly enough, the demand has shifted towards "up-armored" vehicles to the extent that the lightest military vehicles will most likely be based on something akin to medium duty trucks.

It's worth noting that in the third world, you really don't see all that many Jeeps. When a civilian SUV is needed by a NGO or international agency, it's most likely to be a Toyota Landcruiser or a Nissan Patrol. As much as a hate to admit it, the Landcruiser, in its many rugged export market guises, not just the cushy North American version, is the gold standard for durability and reliability. Big American SUVs apparently just don't stand up, and the Jeep Wrangler is more recreation than functional these days. In some ways, the Jeeps of the Kaiser and AMC eras were more focused and better adapted to the third world than the current model range.

Basically, the J8 is trying to go after the same segment as the Land Rover Defender, but that market has migrated to much larger, heavier, up-armored vehicles, and for the remaining market, the Landcruiser is hard to beat.

[Jim Z]

goodnightjohnwayne, on Apr 7 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The current Wrangler lacks the ruggedness of a Mercedes Geländewagen, and certainly can't match the durability of a Landcruiser 70-series.

You know that thing you like? It sucks.

[TWX]

goodnightjohnwayne, on Apr 7 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

The current Wrangler lacks the ruggedness of a Mercedes Geländewagen, and certainly can't match the durability of a Landcruiser 70-series.

Oh, and how expensive is a Landcruiser 70 series?

Quote

Oddly enough, the demand has shifted towards "up-armored" vehicles to the extent that the lightest military vehicles will most likely be based on something akin to medium duty trucks.

And what about state-side vehicles, vehicles in forward bases in safe areas like Europe and South Korea, and in places where the U.S. military has the situation mostly under control and wishes to convey that they're not hiding behind massive armor?

Quote

It's worth noting that in the third world, you really don't see all that many Jeeps. When a civilian SUV is needed by a NGO or international agency, it's most likely to be a Toyota Landcruiser or a Nissan Patrol. As much as a hate to admit it, the Landcruiser, in its many rugged export market guises, not just the cushy North American version, is the gold standard for durability and reliability. Big American SUVs apparently just don't stand up, and the Jeep Wrangler is more recreation than functional these days. In some ways, the Jeeps of the Kaiser and AMC eras were more focused and better adapted to the third world than the current model range.

(emphasis added by me) This is a logical fallacy. Wranglers aren't large SUVs.

As for adapted to the third world, you do know that they drove a couple of stock Wranglers to the top of the tallest mountain in South America, where there were no roads, and where no other vehicles have ever driven to, right?

Quote

Basically, the J8 is trying to go after the same segment as the Land Rover Defender, but that market has migrated to much larger, heavier, up-armored vehicles, and for the remaining market, the Landcruiser is hard to beat.

How expensive is the Landcruiser?

Why wouldn't the American government wish to purchase an American-designed-and-made vehicle as opposed to a British-designed-and-made vehicle? How does your argument about the foreign standard for NGOs have anything to do with the American government?

Sounds to me like you're complaining because you want to, not because there's an actual complaint.