Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Allpar News System, Oct 2, 2014.
Everyone, run for cover!
Won't speak due to ignorance regarding Tesla structuring and material usage HOWEVER I completely agree that the rest of the industry has a ton of catching up to do. Imagine when Tesla releases a better 4 motor drive Wrangler before Jeep does.
The new Model S P85D, is AWD, it has a 275 mile range, it has 675lb-ft. available at zero RPM, and conservative estimates have it at 3.2 seconds, 0-60 mi./hr. Consider the bar raised.
The best part is how their patents are available for anyone who wants to re-raise that bar and keep pushing the industry forwards.
Leader in the use of aluminum is not based on volume.....especially of one vehicle (F150).
Leadership is the demonstrated ability to use aluminum in various applications.and segments successfully.
FCA could be that leader. Unfortunately, as others play catch-up, FCA engineers will be targeted for their knowledge.
If the FCA bean counters do not retain skilled talent, we could find ourselves at the bottom of the pack very quickly.
So? My Audi is 100% aluminum body.
...from 2002, and Tesla hasn't caught up yet.
Let's not since this is off-topic for this thread. Take it elsewhere.
....(why did Wrangler change from 5 on 5.5?).....
Sorry Norm, I missed your question.
The change was in response to the spec to use cheaper, semifloating front axle hubs by AMC on YJ and XJ/MJ. With the advent of the axle drive disconnect, wheel end unlocking hubs were "no longer needed" and weight was lessened by removing the hubs, full floating axles and smaller wheel hubs without provision for the unlocking hubs.
SIDEBAR on JJ image:
Count the slots in the grille.....guess it aint a real Jeep from some of the proclamations by Manley. Of course JJ came several years before he started at JTE......hehehe.
The minivans have successfully used an aluminum structure for the front crossmember since the 1996 NS. A steel truss plate is bolted to the underside.
The later RS added aluminum front knuckles.
I remember ALCOA advertisements about the use of aluminum in cars since the 1950's. Alloy sciences and processes have no doubt improved.
There are service manual precautions about not using hammers on structural aluminum components to get them apart (i.e.-pickle forks, air impacts, etc.) and screw pullers should be used instead. That is the sensible and preferred way to get anything apart IMO.
From a longevity standpoint they have held up well, better than the JR-body aluminum upper rear shock mounts that corroded and crumbled into white aluminum oxide powder.
We have known of dissimilar metals not getting along, especially in the damp salt belt areas. The Mopar replacement rear mounts are now steel.
It has to be done right the very first time. Not like the Prowler frame/suspension recall that resulted in a new car for the owner:
Could one assume there were issues that cause the JK to move from those 5 on 4.5 to 5 on 5? Or was that required due to the JK's larger size and weight?
Either way it was irritating to now stock three times the amount of wheels, because of a plethora of Jeep bolt patterns.
Back in the day, Dodge, Ford, Jeep and every variant of Jeep, all used 5 on 5.5 and it made emergency trail repairs of axle, or wheel a much easier task, as nearly every vehicle on a run, could be interchanged.
Curious if Jeep management ever realize that?
TJ owners wanting to upgrade to JK axles or brakes are now faced with the additional cost of tossing those $2000 wheels, times 5, to perform the upgrade.
The frame I've seen for photos of the Telsa's, looks like an aluminum ladder frame that holds the batteries, motors and suspension. There seems to be subframe on the front, that might be for crash standards and/or front suspension.
A 2 year lead? Would easily be made up by the sheer numbers of production units that Ford and Chrysler will out produce Telsa. i.e. you will learn more fielding, supporting and maintaining 200k units for Ford & Chrysler, than you will for only 3-6k units for Telsa. As well, the Ford and Chrysler Trucks and Jeeps will be real world tested in far more adverse conditions than the Telsa's.
I'm NOT beating up Telsa, I'm just saying by shear numbers and more resources, the bigger Companies are likely to catch up very quickly.
Maybe it was a Chrysler decision to make every vehicle 5X4.5 that could support it, to reduce their own inventories and increase supply commonality? Only when the JK grew to the point it had to have 5x5.5 did Chrysler let it deviate from the rest. I have no idea, just pure speculation.
Remember this concept?
To put the discussion of how the Wrangler could remain "open-air" without being an actual "convertible" another way: could they give it the Renegade's MySky system (or the Liberty's SkySlider but make the canvas top completely removable) and also make all the windows (excluding the windshield but including the rear glass) fully retractable? That might be close enough for me...
JK is 5 on 5 not 5 on 5.5. That size was reserved for CJ and ALL previous Jeep models, except for the SJ's which used GM 6 lug axles.
YJ shared 5 on 5.5 with CJ AND Dodge 1500, so it wasn't a rare size.
TJ went to 5 on 4.5 and may well have been to share with ZJ and XJ, but the axles all had different spring perches etc.
I'm just saying that a management more in tune with it's product use, might have considered the customer as well as the 25 cents they saved.
I think Bob already stated why that isn't going to happen.
I thought YJ was 5 on 4.5 as well.
Frankly, it could have been, they are so rare I don't honestly remember and most ended up with CJ or bigger axles anyway, still an owner expense. One of the reasons the YJ wasn't warmed to until later.
Also lot of angst over the headlights, but it had a nicer ride than CJ because of the wider springs.
I actually considered putting the YJ front clip on my CJ but the core support was different, and other Jeepers looked at me like I was nuts! LOL! Some put CJ front clips on their YJ's.
Only if they share their own patents, and Tesla deems them equal. This is not new or open source, this is standard industry procedure of trading patents of equal value. In short, it's propaganda, not something special, and my respect for Tesla plummeted when I learned of the details.
It impresses me less when a company with a tiny and pricey output does something innovative, than a mass producer. Prowler was impressive in its day, F-150 today.
PS> Tomorrow I will try to do a summary through page 42 ...