Yes it does need to be. But according to most is not coming.
1 - 20 of 135 Posts
I wonder why they are still spending to develop vehicles on the Fiat platforms. They need to switch everything in South America over to EMP1/CMP/STLA Small and EMP2/STLA Medium, and sell versions in the US/Canada as well as LATAM.
I would say the same David S, but for the fact that this is using the same platform the underpins several Jeep models and its plenty capable, why not take advantage? The STLA platforms seem to be geared towards models they can charge a premium for since they'll be heavily electrified, the South American markets don't seem to that interested in those models.I wonder why they are still spending to develop vehicles on the Fiat platforms. They need to switch everything in South America over to EMP1/CMP/STLA Small and EMP2/STLA Medium, and sell versions in the US/Canada as well as LATAM.
The fact the the American team was there to assist in the development and then it appeared in Michigan for testing. I don't think I've ever seen any South American models tested in the US, unless they were shared models.
Several Jeep models in dire need of replacement.It would say the same David S, but for the fact that this is using the same platform the underpins several Jeep models and its plenty capable, why not take advantage? The STLA platforms seem to be geared towards models they can charge a premium for since they'll be heavily electrified, the South American markets don't seem to that interested in those models.
The fact the the American team was there to assist in the development and then it appeared in Michigan for testing. I don't think I've ever seen any South American models tested in the US, unless they were shared models.
Renegade
Compass
Commander (Brazil) Meridian (India)
Hornet
A large part of the savings anticipated with the merger was to be due to consolidation of most models on four platforms. STLA Small, Medium, Large and Frame. Any spending on the old platforms is just delaying the global cost savings of the merger.
Until we know if this is coming for the North American market and what platform is being used, it is hard to render any judgements.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
Until we know if this is coming for the North American market and what platform is being used, it is hard to render any judgements.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
This is a compact unibody like the Maverick and Santa Cruz, a totally different category from the midsizers you mentioned.
That's how the last Dakota came to be. On the cheap. We saw how that turned out. Honestly, I wish they could've struck a deal with Nissan and built a truck off theirs. Just give them the shell and let Ram put their own driveline and front end and interior. Gotta be better then this. It could've been built at Warren.Until we know if this is coming for the North American market and what platform is being used, it is hard to render any judgements.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
If this is a compact based on SUSW, then it is already hobbled. SUSW is nearly 20 years old and while updated several times, it is as much of a joke as the Ford Fox platform was.That's how the last Dakota came to be. On the cheap. We saw how that turned out. Honestly, I wish they could've struck a deal with Nissan and built a truck off theirs. Just give them the shell and let Ram put their own driveline and front end and interior. Gotta be better then this. It could've been built at Warren.
Then there is the question of where to build this.
Frankly the way the Maverick is selling, they might be able to get away with something rushed and on the cheap, until Ford manages to increase production to meet demand anyway. Which could happen at any time. But for now, offering a domestic alternative to waiting months for a Maverick might get them some sales. I understand the logic. Whether it will be successful...I dunno.Until we know if this is coming for the North American market and what platform is being used, it is hard to render any judgements.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
Actually, I don't think the last Dakota was done on the cheap. I just think it was poorly executed and some cheap pieces.That's how the last Dakota came to be. On the cheap. We saw how that turned out. Honestly, I wish they could've struck a deal with Nissan and built a truck off theirs. Just give them the shell and let Ram put their own driveline and front end and interior. Gotta be better then this. It could've been built at Warren.
The Gen 3 Dakota was unique. No frame sharing (as Gen 2 had shared a lot of components with Durango and Gen 1 had a lot of part bin parts in it). So they ended up with a Dakota that probably cost more to make and buyers didn't see as desirable as the previous one.
Until we know if this is coming for the North American market and what platform is being used, it is hard to render any judgements.
A unibody midsize will not be competitive against Tacoma, Colorado and Ranger (all BOF).
If this is BOF, which one are they using? The old Fiat platform from Brazil or something else?
Lastly, using the 2.0T will not be competitive against Toyota, Chevy and Ford either.
If this is for North America, I fear this is being rushed and being done on the cheap.....therefore, will be shooting a blank in a very competitive segment.
This is a compact unibody like the Maverick and Santa Cruz, a totally different category from the midsizers you mentioned.
If this is a compact based on SUSW, then it is already hobbled. SUSW is nearly 20 years old and while updated several times, it is as much of a joke as the Ford Fox platform was.
Then there is the question of where to build this.
If a small pickup is built for the US it will be in Mexico. If built in Brazil it would be subject to the 25% Chicken tax.Frankly the way the Maverick is selling, they might be able to get away with something rushed and on the cheap, until Ford manages to increase production to meet demand anyway. Which could happen at any time. But for now, offering a domestic alternative to waiting months for a Maverick might get them some sales. I understand the logic. Whether it will be successful...I dunno.
There are exactly two Fiat pickups sold in Brazil, neither is BOF.
Compact pickup was never defined by the US. Compact pickup was defined by Japan as 185.0" x 66.9" or under. Marketing calling anything over 5 meters compact is absurd.
| Rampage (true compact) | Strada | 87 Dakota | Toro | Santa Cruz | Maverick | Ranger | Tacoma | Colorado | 11 Dakota | |
| Wheelbase | 104.2 in (2,647 mm) | 2,737 mm (107.8 in) | 111.9 in (2,842 mm) 123.9 in (3,147 mm) | 2,990 mm (117.7 in) | 3,005 mm (118.3 in) | 121.1 in (3,076 mm) | 126.8 | 127.4 in | 3,337 mm (131.4 in) | 131.3 in (3,335 mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 183.8 in (4,669 mm) | 4,474 mm (176.1 in) | 185.9 in (4,722 mm)/204.4 in (5,192 mm) | 4,915 mm (193.5 in) | 4,970 mm (195.7 in) | 199.7 in (5,072 mm) | 210.8 | 212.3 in | 5,410 mm (213.0 in) | 218.8 in (5,558 mm) |
| Width | 66.8 in (1,696 mm) | 1,732 mm (68.2 in) | 68.4 in (1,737 mm) | 1,844 mm (72.6 in) | 1,905 mm (75.0 in) | 72.6 in (1,844 mm) | 73.3 | 74.4 in | 1,902 mm (74.9 in) | 76.4 in (1,941 mm) |
| Height | 51.7 in (1,314 mm) | 1,585 mm (62.4 in) | 64.2 in (1,631 mm)/67.1 in (1,704 mm) | 1,746 mm (68.7 in) | 1,695 mm (66.7 in) | 68.7 in (1,745 mm) | 70.7 | 70.6 in | 2,001 mm (78.8 in) | 68.7 in (1,745 mm) |
| Curb weight | 2,293 lbs (1,040 kg) | 1,680 kg (3,704 lb) | 3,674 lb (1,666 kg) | 4145 lb (1880 kg) | 4,445 lbs (2016 kg) | 4,716 lb (2,139 kg) |
The Colorado is huge, excessively tall for its width and over 2 metric tons. 3rd gen Dakota was even bigger, except for the height which was proportional to its width.
From all I have read, this new "Rampage" is a Brazilian made Toro (SCCS) pumped up to Santa Cruz dimensions, and isn't coming to the US. It doesn't have the hybrid/PHEV drive of the Cherokee/Hornet 4xe
If they want to compete with Maverick they need to use the EMP2/STLA medium platform with the 1.6T HEV/PHEV and make it in Mexico.
Good name. Good engine pairing. Bed height is too high. Not sure about the styling with the cladding on, but it seems to copy other mid-size trucks rather than being unique. If you look at the sales figures for mid-size and compact pickups. Unless you're bringing something special it's not worth entering the market.
Much was written about it at the time sharing pieces with the 1500. Not sure how much though.Actually, I don't think the last Dakota was done on the cheap. I just think it was poorly executed and some cheap pieces.
The Gen 3 Dakota was unique. No frame sharing (as Gen 2 had shared a lot of components with Durango and Gen 1 had a lot of part bin parts in it). So they ended up with a Dakota that probably cost more to make and buyers didn't see as desirable as the previous one.
It was a unique frame, I think Durango was closer to Ram in design. For example Gen 3 Dakota had front strut suspension, Ram and Gen 2 Durango shared conventional coils and shocks up front.Much was written about it at the time sharing pieces with the 1500. Not sure how much though.
Gen 1 Durango and Dakota shared everything from the A-pillar forward.It was a unique frame, I think Durango was closer to Ram in design. For example Gen 3 Dakota had front strut suspension, Ram and Gen 2 Durango shared conventional coils and shocks up front.
Gen 1 Durango also used the Dodge Caravan rear liftgate as well.
tail lights too right?Gen 1 Durango also used the Dodge Caravan rear liftgate as well.
If a small pickup is built for the US it will be in Mexico. If built in Brazil it would be subject to the 25% Chicken tax.
There are exactly two Fiat pickups sold in Brazil, neither is BOF.
Compact pickup was never defined by the US. Compact pickup was defined by Japan as 185.0" x 66.9" or under. Marketing calling anything over 5 meters compact is absurd.
Rampage (true compact) Strada 87 Dakota Toro Santa Cruz Maverick Ranger Tacoma Colorado 11 Dakota Wheelbase 104.2 in (2,647 mm) 2,737 mm (107.8 in) 111.9 in (2,842 mm)
123.9 in (3,147 mm)2,990 mm (117.7 in) 3,005 mm (118.3 in) 121.1 in (3,076 mm) 126.8 127.4 in 3,337 mm (131.4 in) 131.3 in (3,335 mm) Length 183.8 in (4,669 mm) 4,474 mm (176.1 in) 185.9 in (4,722 mm)/204.4 in (5,192 mm) 4,915 mm (193.5 in) 4,970 mm (195.7 in) 199.7 in (5,072 mm) 210.8 212.3 in 5,410 mm (213.0 in) 218.8 in (5,558 mm) Width 66.8 in (1,696 mm) 1,732 mm (68.2 in) 68.4 in (1,737 mm) 1,844 mm (72.6 in) 1,905 mm (75.0 in) 72.6 in (1,844 mm) 73.3 74.4 in 1,902 mm (74.9 in) 76.4 in (1,941 mm) Height 51.7 in (1,314 mm) 1,585 mm (62.4 in) 64.2 in (1,631 mm)/67.1 in (1,704 mm) 1,746 mm (68.7 in) 1,695 mm (66.7 in) 68.7 in (1,745 mm) 70.7 70.6 in 2,001 mm (78.8 in) 68.7 in (1,745 mm) Curb weight 2,293 lbs (1,040 kg) 1,680 kg (3,704 lb) 3,674 lb (1,666 kg) 4145 lb (1880 kg) 4,445 lbs (2016 kg) 4,716 lb (2,139 kg)
The Colorado is huge, excessively tall for its width and over 2 metric tons. 3rd gen Dakota was even bigger, except for the height which was proportional to its width.
From all I have read, this new "Rampage" is a Brazilian made Toro (SCCS) pumped up to Santa Cruz dimensions, and isn't coming to the US. It doesn't have the hybrid/PHEV drive of the Cherokee/Hornet 4xe
If they want to compete with Maverick they need to use the EMP2/STLA medium platform with the 1.6T HEV/PHEV and make it in Mexico.
Wouldn't the 1.6T be a base engine, as it wouldn't be comparable to the 2.0T in the Maverick or 2.5T in the Santa Fe, unless it was a PHEV version? I can see an HEV version of that engine with a 200hp/220+lb-ft with decent city/hwy competing for the hypermilers. Otherwise the 2.0T is going to be the one for those wanting greater performance and eTorque has been used with this engine before it wouldn't be a stretch to see it upper trims.
On another note, the midsizer for the US is supposedly going all electric, which will drastically limit its appeal. Unless they have an ICE variant(s) planned, I wouldn't count on it making much of a dent in sales. However, since most of the Revolution concept's dramatic exterior design elements didn't make it to the 1500 REV, I wouldn't be surprised if they make to a smaller version.
The gen 1 Durango does NOT share a lift gate with the Caravan. I believe you are confusing with the Mexican only Dodge Ramcharger from that time with does use the lift gate from the Caravan.Gen 1 Durango and Dakota shared everything from the A-pillar forward.
Gen 1 Durango also used the Dodge Caravan rear liftgate as well.
EDIT: Further checking the gen 1 Durango does share the liftgate handle from the Caravan but that's it.
MaverickWouldn't the 1.6T be a base engine, as it wouldn't be comparable to the 2.0T in the Maverick or 2.5T in the Santa Fe, unless it was a PHEV version? I can see an HEV version of that engine with a 200hp/220+lb-ft with decent city/hwy competing for the hypermilers. Otherwise the 2.0T is going to be the one for those wanting greater performance and eTorque has been used with this engine before it wouldn't be a stretch to see it upper trims.
On another note, the midsizer for the US is supposedly going all electric, which will drastically limit its appeal. Unless they have an ICE variant(s) planned, I wouldn't count on it making much of a dent in sales. However, since most of the Revolution concept's dramatic exterior design elements didn't make it to the 1500 REV, I wouldn't be surprised if they make to a smaller version.
2.5L Horsepower | Torque HP = 191 Combined Horsepower @ 5,600 rpm | TQ = 155 lb.-ft @ 4,000 rpm (TQ rated for engine only not combined output)
2.0L Horsepower | Torque HP = 250 @ 5,500 rpm | TQ = 277 lb.-ft @ 3,000 rpm
Santa Cruz
191 @ 6100 181 @ 4000
281 @ 5800 311 @ 1700-4000
It shouldn't b any problem for the 1.6T to top the competition. The AWD version is PHEV.
European Euro6 1.6T tunes
EP6FDT – 180 PS (132 kW; 178 hp) 360 N⋅m (266 lb⋅ft) at 1500-3000 rpm
EP6FDTX – 205 bhp (153 kW; 208 PS)/208 bhp (155 kW; 211 PS)/210 bhp (157 kW; 213 PS)
EP6FDT – 225 PS (165 kW; 222 hp)
EP6FDTR – 250 PS (184 kW; 247 hp)/270 PS (199 kW; 266 hp)
Hybrid 1.6T
Thermic: 180 hp (130 kW)
Electric: 110 hp (82 kW) at 2500rpm
Combined: 225 hp (168 kW)
Thermic: 250 N⋅m at 1750rpm (184 lb-ft)
Electric: 320 N⋅m at 500 - 2500rpm (236 lb-ft)
Combined: 360 N⋅m (266 lb-ft)
PHEV 1.6T
FWD PHEV 250 PS (184 kW; 247 hp) (80 kW (109 PS; 107 hp) Front Synchronous Electric Motor)
AWD PHEV 360 PS (265 kW; 355 hp) at 5500, 520 N⋅m (384 lb⋅ft) at 1650 (82 kW (111 PS; 110 hp) Rear Synchronous Electric Motor
2x Total 162 kW (220 PS; 217 hp) Synchronous Electric Motor)
I don't agree there should be any BEV only models. PHEV+BEV at a bare minimum, for smaller models ICE/HEV/PHEV.
1 - 20 of 135 Posts
Allpar Forums
A forum community dedicated to Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, AMC owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
