Dodge RamCharger Central banner

Will Dodge / FCA respond to the New Bronco?

5K views 52 replies 16 participants last post by  Elwenil 
#1 ·
No trade secret, domestic auto manufacturer's are making their money with trucks, crossovers, SUV's and the like. Cars, good old basic cars - as I understand it - are sitting in piles of unsold inventories.

The U.S. market even forced the Euro-stalwarts to bring SUV configured four door vehicles to this market...or simply concede the sales in it.

Now the Bronco is back. You can't even get one until 2021, but it hasn't stopped the fever pitched fervor for it. (A nice marketing strategy goes to someone!)

So my question is: Will Dodge respond!?!?

Or, as with the original Bronco, will Dodge be slow to the same party a second time?

And in my view, trying to cover the potential hemorrhage of sales via the Bronco with just the Jeep line ain't gonna cut it.

Want proof? Go test drive a RAM 1500 Laramie or Limited. Then drive the Gladiator Rubicon. Notice any difference? Their transaction cost, meaning true buy price, (forget MSRP) are quite similar. Crazy, huh?

And YES, it is two different buying groups. But by Dodge not responding...they're ignoring one of those two groups. In another discussion within this very site, someone showed what a 2020 Ramcharger could look like. NO ONE is presently in this market space. I'm certainly never considering either a Tahoe or Suburban. No Blazer to be found, at least not yet. Noting, I wouldn't ever buy a GM product either, but I digress.

Summary: I'll never find the mid-sized (over priced) Jeep(s) a buying option for me. I would buy a new Ramcharger. Heck, put the Hellcat motor in it and I'll buy it even faster. Dodge is crushing it with their niche' high performance cars. Wake up 'Dodge Boys,' there's a market revival with the Ford Bronco. Please don't sit on your hands for this one.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Dodge won't, FCA already has the Jeep in that market.  About the only thing I can see might be Jeep offering a cheaper version of the Rubicon since the Sasquatch package with front and rear lockers and larger tires is available on all Bronco models.  They only offer the sway bar disconnect on their top of the line models, but I still think Jeep might have to rethink the pricing a bit since you can only get lockers on the most expensive model, the Rubicon.  But then again, this is Ford, and they will screw it up one way or another, they always do.  Looking at their IFS and that oddly complicated sway bar disconnect, I can just see the warranty nightmare that will be.  They also have too many models that cover the same things, so probably half of them will disappear soon.  But no, FCA doesn't want to compete with itself, so there won't be anything from Dodge other than what is already there.  I do look for them to start offering a rear locker on some truck models, but nothing special.  And remember, "Ram Ramcharger" sounds retarded, so I doubt we will ever see it again.
 
#3 ·
I hope that they don't.

In my opinion.  Jeeps are WAAAAAY overpriced for what they are. 

My wife has an FJ Cruiser and it's pretty badass. 


GM has ruined the Blazer name, and I'm fearful that if FCA touches the Ramcharger name, they'll ruin it too.


Ford is taking Toyota on with the Bronco.  Toyota's are far better offroad vehicles than GM/Jeep/Dodge (Look at the Land Cruiser, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser *even though discontinued*, and even the Rav4).

The people who buy jeeps, will keep buying jeeps, but the people who realize jeeps are overpriced but still want a truly capable offroad vehicle but want something a little more *fun* than a Toyota, are going to be buying Bronco's.

I may buy one myself.  Big Bend Edition with Sasquatch package :)
 
#4 ·
For starters, regarding the new Bronco line up, I said two "...different buying groups."

There are the 'nuts & bolts,' hard core off road folks. The 4WD enthusiast likely best served by aftermarket 4WD specialists...not by a stock brand new Bronco. And, Ford speculates the most popular models will start around $40K. 

Then, I'd safely imagine, there's the majority. They'll spend $50K plus on a brand new 4WD. That rig will more than likely never see dirt. Those folks will also never care about knowing what a 'locker' even is.

Bronco buyers are not lining up now for a 2021 release 'cuz they're waiting to go 4 wheeling. Some will, majority won't. With their current advertising, Ford is doing their best to give the Bronco - not street - but "dirt cred." A play on Jeep's Trail Rated I'm sure.

The potential for sales volume is what converts from a concept to the production floor. Again, the Tahoe & Suburban market. By dimension, the Grand Cherokee is mid-sized by any comparison. The only thing similar is their price. Off of the existing 1/2 ton platform, a DODGE Ramcharger could exist without starting from scratch.  FCA already has that in the 'full size' RAM 1500 production playbook.

RAM Ramcharger? Really? Of course not. It's called branding. Way back when, did you ever hear of a Plymouth Trailduster? Bet you did. It's branding...brand it back to Dodge. Same Dealer, same showroom...done!

For context, my daily driver is a '16 RAM Laramie Power Wagon. It's luxury combined with on-the-fly locking hubs, disconnecting sway bars, hill descent & a 12,000 pound winch. But out of the 22,000 miles on it, 20 of them (maybe) required any of those features.

Is Dodge ready to sit back and watch Ford run away with this market segment...again? 
 
#5 ·
Doyle said:
Is Dodge ready to sit back and watch Ford run away with this market segment...again?
Yes. Except for the minivan, and some extent the Cummins, Chrysler has always ignored the market trends, and always will.
 
#7 ·
Any way I look at it, it all boils down to Chrysler/Dodge is now a foreign company. All corporate profits now go overseas. Chrysler took the taxpayer funded bailout... and then bailed out. I will never buy a new product from them. Used is a different story as the proceeds stay in the USA.
 
#8 ·
"What was old is new again" Notice a pattern? The original Broncos were built to compete against the original CJ's. Then Ford decided to shift gears and upsize the Bronco to compete against arch enemy Chevrolet and their better selling Blazer. Dodge beat Ford to that punch with the Ramcharger and Trailduster. Years later the Blazer is renamed, the RC/TD are gone, and the fullsize Bronco replaced with more car-like suvs. The CJ got renamed and bought out by Chrysler, which still exists today

Now Ford wants to do what it did decades ago -to build a competitor to the Wrangler. I say go fer it. The best it can do for us on the FCA team is to help bring down the price of the Wrangler.

IMO, the Bronco looks cool, but it's gonna take on the Jeep with cupholders and IFS??? Get real! As far as Dodge (Ram) building a competitor to the Bronco, I'm of the same belief as others here, that FCA will not bother. The Jeep brand has all that covered. The Ram brand is currently geared more towards the big truck crowd, and they have some really good full size trucks going on. They could make some improvements to the Power Wagon which I think are well over-due, but thats never gonna be a Bronco fighter.

If FCA can read my posts and take suggestions, keep making improvements to the Wrangler. Bring back the I-6! It doesn't have to be the old 4.0, just get rid of that V6...We want torque and I-6s are better at low end twist. Speaking of torque, tap Cummins for a new small I-4 turbo diesel. Don't give us another VM Motori diesel. We want real diesels! If you have plans for an IFS for future Wranglers, my suggestion is, scrap them! Keep using the Dana solid axles. This is the small block chevy of axles with tons of aftermarket support.

Finally improve product quality. Jeeps are notorious for cheap plastic parts that break, ill fitting parts, and other stupid warrantee claims that nickel and dime you to death.

Ed
 
#9 ·
The couple exterior shots of the bronco that I've seen do strike me a petty good refresh of the original bronco except for the fugly grille. If they hadn't landed in my feed, wouldn't have seen them because ya know, it's a ferd.

The other thing that landed in my feed was the early 70s Cherokee resto mod that the Jeep design team did and I dug that much more. Chrysler, even under FCA seems to embrace it's heritage more actively and respectfully vs the other guys. Yeah, the turbine tribute 300 was ridiculously lame but it's not that uncommon to spot genuine old school metal around Jeep media events. They can't build it for sale but they a least not only remember it but occasional dust it off and drive it.

Having said that, I will say that I really hope they don't bring back the RC / TD and even more so since the latest sell out. Part of that is how I connect to early iterations that were low tech, bare bones, tough as nails and reasonable affordable. An original bronco or cj in a much bigger box. The later ones did evolve in to leather lined luxo [for the age] built for the street and got big sticker prices but I'm sure I'd still cringe at the 2020 version of that.

It's my usual rant about how ya can't walk in to dealership and drive out with something cool unless you take out a 2nd mortgage and accept a bunch bundled features ya don't really want. I just can't imagine PSA making that any better. Uglier maybe but that's about it.
 
#10 ·
RXT said:
If FCA can read my posts and take suggestions, keep making improvements to the Wrangler. Bring back the I-6! It doesn't have to be the old 4.0, just get rid of that V6...We want torque and I-6s are better at low end twist. Speaking of torque, tap Cummins for a new small I-4 turbo diesel. Don't give us another VM Motori diesel. We want real diesels! If you have plans for an IFS for future Wranglers, my suggestion is, scrap them! Keep using the Dana solid axles. This is the small block chevy of axles with tons of aftermarket support.
The most powerful version of the 4.0L made 235 ft lbs of torque at 3,200 RPM. The 3.6L Pentastar V6 matches that and maxes out at 260 ft. lbs at 4,200 RPM. It will eventually all be electric anyway.

As for small diesels, Cummins has yet to make a small diesel that will pass emissions for light vehicles. that's also the reason the 4.0L went away, it would cost to much to get it to pass modern emissions standards.

I'm afraid IFS is inevitable for Jeep, including the Wrangler. When the top racers in Ultra4 are running IFS, it's only a matter of time for it to trickle down.
 
#11 ·
I would accept ultra 4 IFS over a solid axle every day of the week, the problem with ifs, is and always has been, bean counters.
 
#12 ·
What is it people like about their RC's? Obviously, depending on the individual, there are many different things.

For me? I like - in particular - the size. The 'full body,' 1/2 ton, RAM 1500 size. I'm 6' 3". Not short, but far from tall. And even at my height, the original Bronco is a knee knocker. Back seat? Forget it!

So in that regard...I've sat in Jeeps...I certainly don't see where Jeep is anywhere near having that (market) 'covered.' A percentage of it, yup. But 'covered'? Uhhh, nope! Curious comparison...I've not taken the time to check the dimensions, but I'd guess the biggest Jeep is no bigger than a Dakota.

Why did Chevy build the Blazer full size? Just a guess, but was it a take off of a 1/2 ton truck they were already building?

Unless, unlike last time, if they just want to chase the Ford Bronco into the small(er) 4WD market with what they've already got, then yes, stay with the Jeep only. Roll the dice. 

A forecast? Jeep market share is going to get clobbered once the Bronco is up to full production. A full sized (!!!) Dodge Ramcharger wouldn't be as vulnerable.
 
#13 ·
I doubt Jeep sales will be hurt too much by the Bronco.  A Jeep is still a Jeep, and there are a lot of people loyal to that brand name.  Just look at how many 75th Anniversary Jeeps are out there, or olive green ones, or Wranglers with the 1941 graphics.  Even the odd hood stripe with the various Jeep grilles on it is popular.  Sure, there are some who buy a Jeep for the performance off road and don't care about the name that will buy a Bronco.  There are those who are loyal to Ford, but buy Jeeps because Ford didn't have a competitor that will now look at buying a Bronco, but the vast majority would stick with Jeep either because of loyalty, design, or whatever.  The Bronco would need to do something astounding to win over the entire market, and it filed to do that.  It's pricing was the one place it could have made a difference, but now that the pricing information has been released, it's not going to be any cheaper than the Wrangler.  Let's also keep in mind that the Bronco is two separate models, one to compete with the Wrangler and the "Sport" which is more in competition with the Compass or Renegade.

Speaking of the Renegade, be careful what you wish for.  If the Ramcharger does come back, it could very easily end up a Dodge version of the Renegade, a re-bodied Fiat 500 made in Italy.  Every iteration of Chrysler since the Ramcharger was discontinued has said the same thing, there is no market for a full size, 2 door SUV.  Anything else would be disappointing to Ramcharger fans, but what we want would be a dismal failure in sales.
 
#14 ·
Hey, as long as we're bantering about Jeep vs. Bronco...I'm cool.

I certainly don't want any version of Fiat 4WD (other than their Corporate name) creeping into the market and replacing American roots. Sure, they're gonna try 'influence' as much as they deem necessary. Inevitable.

It will be curious to look back at this in a year or two and see how this market segment / sales plays out.

I suppose the next big buzz will be the RAM Hell-Rebel...
 
#15 ·
Well there was the V8 Wrangler unveiled recently...
 
#17 ·
Want low end torque, good mileage, and great drivability, go full hybrid. 200 or so HP from the electric motors, and 250 or so on tap from the gas.
 
#19 ·
Elwenil said:
The most powerful version of the 4.0L made 235 ft lbs of torque at 3,200 RPM. The 3.6L Pentastar V6 matches that and maxes out at 260 ft. lbs at 4,200 RPM.
It's a matter of engine physics. How much torque an engine makes is directly related to displacement, But if you want low end torque, or more torque production at a lower rpm, you want a longer stroke. Displacement-wise the 3.6 and 4.0 are kinda close, so they should make close to the same amount of torque, but even though both engines are over-square, the 4.0 still has a slightly longer stroke and that means torque is produced at lower rpm. The numbers you posted reveals that point. The 4.0 and 3.6 make about the same amount of torque, but the 4.0 makes it at 3200rpm where the 3.6 produces it at 4200rpm. That can be considered a significant difference.

As for small diesels, Cummins has yet to make a small diesel that will pass emissions for light vehicles. that's also the reason the 4.0L went away, it would cost to much to get it to pass modern emissions standards.
Cummins is fully capable of building a small diesel that can pass emissions. Maybe it's not feasible at this time, but maybe at some point in the near future, it's possible. And as an FYI, I believe that President Trump has relaxed emission standards so that it maybe possible and profitable to make a small diesel.... Having said all that it seems that since my last post until this evening, I've just purchased a Ram 1500 with an Ecodiesel...so stay tuned for that

I'm afraid IFS is inevitable for Jeep, including the Wrangler. When the top racers in Ultra4 are running IFS, it's only a matter of time for it to trickle down.
It doesn't matter what type of suspension ulta4 uses, a production vehicle could never be mistaken for a competition vehicle. I have always believed that the switch to IFS wasn't always about improving ride and handling or lowered ride height. IFS is lighter then a solid axle and vehicle manufacturers are constantly pressured to improve fuel efficiency. IFS could be a great system, but in the light weight "fuel efficent" versions being developed it's usually too flimsy to survive real wheeling. IFS is probably inevitable for the Wrangler...unless of course, the customer base demands the solid axle. Back in the 80s Ford planned for the Mustang to go to FWD and even developed a FWD Mustang concept car...that is until they heard the outrage from the customer base who demanded the Mustang remain a RWD car. The FWD concept eventually became the Probe and didn't last very long. I think theres enough Jeep purists who wants the solid axle to remain in the Wrangler that FCA might want to heed this warning

Ed
 
#20 ·
Some random grumbling:

The Ramcharger badge is pretty unlikely to return because of marketing basics. Assuming truck based it would be built under the Ram brand resulting in Ram Ramcharger. If sold under the Dodge brand to make the naming work it would be built as a crossover, aka a Pacifica. Built as a poser mall crawler with legit off road cred would make it a Jeep and I think maybe Jeep Trail Duster has a better ring to it.

Gas vs diesel vs electric vs hybrid - the debate about marketing and regulation forces driving that decision is pretty much beyond my interest level. Personally, I like good ole gas and I'll skip the bit about storage cells with a 40 year life span not being a thing that exists yet.

IFS vs straight axle? Is anything being built anywhere that still has a solid front axle?

Exterior dimensions vs useable space: I've randomly parked my old RC next to a 90s / 00s Expedition / Explorer or whatever ferd branded their "full size" 4 door SUV back then. My RC in stock form is taller, wider and generally looks a lot more beefier. It also has much less rear seat room and cargo space. Not sure I have a point here.

For myself, I'd like to see PSA steal a page from the Daimler play book and follow the formula they used when resurrecting the Challenger. They kept the basic dimensions and body lines, updated for aero advantage and arguably came up with something that looked better than the original. They also built it in 2 distinct flavors. One being the bucks down V6, cloth seats, radio not infotainment and overall with the theme of basic transportation. The other being big ticket Hemi, leather, nav and screw both MPG and tire wear.

I don't follow the trends close enough to say for sure but I think FCA missed that trick with both the Ram and Jeep evolutions. They kept the crew cab diesel dually drag a house off it's foundation and the yer only getting up that trail in a jeep but made the more plush than an Imperial features pretty much mandatory or at least hard to avoid. Do vinyl seats even exist anymore?
 
#21 ·
3/4 and heavier Rams have a solid front axle.  Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator both still use a solid front axle.  I'm sure Ford and GM trucks also have solid axle models in the heavier trucks, but I don't get paid enough to look under them.  ;D
 
#22 ·
shanker said:
Toyota's are far better offroad vehicles than GM/Jeep/Dodge (Look at the Land Cruiser, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser *even though discontinued*, and even the Rav4).
Totally disagree with the Jeep comment. A Rubicon wins with lockers front AND rear, lower t-case gears, electric sway bar disconnect, better approach and departure angles and a solid front axle.....I'm sure there are other things I am forgetting.
 
#23 ·
IMHO, the only way we'll see a solid-axle Ramcharger again is with some kind of Wrangler spin-off.

Ford and GM both stopped making 3/4-ton SUVs, so it would be really out of character for FCA to go there with HD Ram. A specially outfitted Durango would miss the mark entirely.
 
#24 ·
The bronco looks like Land rover designed it for the yuppie crowd.

It is a jeep for the fords only folks.
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top