I’ve seen one or two of these around. Until this moment I thought they were some grey market Chinese import. I mean, I see what the stylist is going for but…
Daniel, I commented at the YT channel for TSN’s Motoring TV series, that the Bronco looked nothing at all like any previous Bronco. Rather, it looked like a direct derivative of the original IH Scout.
And they removed my comment within minutes. One auto media outlet, I think is too close to car makers.
What I don’t get is has wraparound taillights, why not just place the side marker/reflectors cleanly in the wraparound portion like every car with wraparound lights has done for decades?
Benefits and drawbacks there. A low-mount retroreflector does a much better job (pops way brighter) than a high-mount retroreflector, because low beams direct most of their light downward and very little upward. But the low mount also means it’s more readily dirtied by mud, salt, slush, etc.
The other thing I find odd is a vehicle that has taillights in the usual position but the turn signals are placed separately down below in the bumper…It looks silly.
There might not have been room for the side marker light and reflector within the taillight cluster and still have the tail and stop/turn functions work as required or desired. Or stylists might have demanded the separate markers. Or it might have costed out cheaper to have separate markers. Or it might have facilitated and cost-reduced reconfiguration for export markets. These packaging questions often don’t have answers as obvious as they might seem.
Looking closer I’d wager its probably that the stylists wanted a black appearing taillight and a red side marker in it would have spoiled the look, so it got separate one
The height thing is something I hadn’t considered, though I kind of think the design might have looked better if the taillights were mounted lower, that would have actually better mimicked the originals and killed two birds with one stone if that was a factor
The requirement is that the side marker light and reflector be mounted on the permanent structure of the vehicle as near as practicable to the front and rear edges to indicate the overall length of the vehicle. The question of practicability is left to the manufacturer’s discretion, and typically won’t be questioned unless it is “clearly erroneous”. What does that mean? Well, that’s left to NHTSA’s discretion!
This is factory?…. Horrible. The trim joints around the Di-Noc don’t even match up and the whole shebang doesn’t work with the lines of the car. Looks incomplete.
PaulR: No. That is not offered from the factory (at least not yet). But there’s a lot of after-market companies jumping on the band wagon here.
Much worse than this? I work at a Volvo store in the Los Angeles area. Not long ago I was walking past the service drive and there was a Volvo V90 wagon sitting there in a gray color with this kind of wood looking applique. It was horrible and like looking at a bad car crash where you just couldn’t stop looking. Believe me, that Volvo was much worse looking than this Jeep.
The trim falls short on the inside edge of the gas cap cover as compared to the outside edge. That would drive me crazy like a phillips head where a slot should be or a crooked picture/decal.
These things are freaking massive, so let me get this straight, the resurgence in popularity of the old Wagoneers(given the prices they’re fetching ) led Jeep to resurrect the Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer, and their execution was to make it bigger than a freaking Expedition and look far more like a bloated tall Ford Flex than anything resembling the old Wagoneer?
Just goes to show people will still buy a badge I guess. Hey Bill did you see my cool new “Grand Wagoneer”?” .. “No Bob, I was too busy admiring Jeff’s “Eclipse” Cross, parked next to my sweet “Mustang” Mach E… We’re so cool driving these iconic cars, amiright?” .. “Hey fellas, can I join the convo, I as you can see I just bought a new “Blazer”, it seems like this is turning into a real car show!”
I don’t think the new Wagoneer’s development had anything to do with the old one. I believe that Chrysler decided to finally get into the full size SUV game, as part of its aggressive (and so far successful) campaign to fully take on the full-size pickup big boys. The retro model name came after the decision to get into the segment, not the other way around.
Executive #1: “We’ve got this new Jeep full-size SUV coming out. What should we name it?”
Executive #2: “How about we name it after the long running large SUV and current cult favorite Wagoneer?”
Executive #1: “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Executive #2: “Because you’re overpaid?”
The fact that Jeep doesn’t offer a factory woodgrain option is evidence they don’t think of it primarily as a retro offering. Personally, I think if they are going to call it Wagoneer, they should fully embrace it and have a woodgrain offering. As a big fan of the old model, my very first thought when they released the new one was, “where’s the woodgrain? I guess they aren’t serious about it being a Grand Wagoneer.”
Obviously, the market for a woody version would be very limited. But just as obviously, some people want it bad enough they’ve turned to the aftermarket. I say, Jeep, just give the people what they want!
I never thought it should be a retro offering, its just such a curious use of the name given the fact that the classic Wagoneer/Cherokee really wasn’t all that big, it was a predecessor for the familiar Grand Cherokee. Jeep seemed to have a more rational foothold in the SUV market that I believe buyers noticed, the Grand Cherokee was the biggest Jeep you could buy until now, and the brand weathered through the first onslaught of giant truck based SUVs during the late 90s, NOW they need to be part of the Expedition and Suburban set? Great timing with $6 a gallon gas.
I think there should be a woody option, this is Stelantis afterall, with all the various editions of Chargers and Challengers with no shortage of their own graphics and kit it wouldnt be asking much to have a woody package available with a SUV that costs 6 figures.
LOL, you’re right the maker of 3 dozen Challenger/Charger editions shouldn’t have a problem offering a woody Wagoneer. Didn’t they have a woody PT Cruiser at one point? And Jeep waiting decades to do a giant SUV and the Wagoneer finally coming out right as gas prices started soaring with no end in sight still was terrible timing.
To be fair regular Wagoneers start about 60k and Grand Wagoneers start about 90k, so only the most loaded examples encroach on 100k territory.
Although I’m not 100% liking the outside, the inside of these are outstanding. If a person didn’t know what they were getting into and if the names/badges were all covered, I truly believe that the person getting inside would think they got into a Bentley or other very high end brand car.
Personally, I like the look of the new Grand Cherokee L on the outside much more.
I agree, the inside is where these really excel, much like the Ram pickups they are based on. The Grand Cherokee is definitely sleeker looking outside. I think the Wagoneer looks a bit too tall and a little awkward, more so than its Ford or GM competitors. Though I will say that the first time I saw one I mistook it for a Navigator until I started paying attention and realized what it was.
Living in suburban Texas, where nothing succeeds like excess, I have already seen a number of these new Grand Wagoneers on the road, albeit sans the faux woodgrain. In person, they are huge and sort of look like a bloated Expedition. Given the popularity of gigantic SUVs around here, I suspect Chrysler has a real hit on its hands, although one that I saw that still had its Monroney sticker showed an MSRP of well over $100K.
The Dinoc in the picture above reminds me of the hideous after-market padded vinyl “convertible” tops that graced many otherwise sleek aerodynamic designs.
I can see them wanting to bring back the Wagoneer, but nothing about this says Wagoneer to me. If it wasn’t for those fat, chrome accented window frames, It would look a bit like they were trying to design a next-size-up Range Rover.
Its almost as though they were targeting Range Rover (they were) and not trying to do a “retro” or “tribute” (they weren’t). They went with a well-known name, and this is likely what the original would have evolved into had it stuck around.
I never understood fake wood stickers on the interior and especially the exterior. Nothing looks cheaper than an imitation wood sticker. They should have used a real strip of darkly finished wood just one inch high and 1/4 inch thick running front to back. That would have been a beautiful eyecatcher and befitting its high price tag.
I’ve seen one or two of these around. Until this moment I thought they were some grey market Chinese import. I mean, I see what the stylist is going for but…
IMHO, they missed the mark…
If you’re going to do vinyl woodgrain siding, do it right!!
Study a Ford Country Squire from the mid-60’s….something that Betty Draper wold drive in a NYC suburb.
The above racing stripe doesn’t cut it.
So, so ugly. Just like the original! Spot on, designer!
Unfortunately it was bound to happen.
My, isn’t that…something!
Wayback glass says “IH Scout” louder than “Wagoneer”.
Jeep and Ford designers must have found a bunch of miscategorized images of Scouts when they Googled what the Wagoneer and Bronco looked like.
Daniel, I commented at the YT channel for TSN’s Motoring TV series, that the Bronco looked nothing at all like any previous Bronco. Rather, it looked like a direct derivative of the original IH Scout.
And they removed my comment within minutes. One auto media outlet, I think is too close to car makers.
I do not understand the modern tendency to mount reflectors in wheel opening trim. This is not the first I have seen.
Probably cheaper that way.
I believe BMW started it.
What I don’t get is has wraparound taillights, why not just place the side marker/reflectors cleanly in the wraparound portion like every car with wraparound lights has done for decades?
Well, it does go with the “put the rear red reflector way down on the bumper instead of in the taillights” modern trend that I also don’t understand.
Benefits and drawbacks there. A low-mount retroreflector does a much better job (pops way brighter) than a high-mount retroreflector, because low beams direct most of their light downward and very little upward. But the low mount also means it’s more readily dirtied by mud, salt, slush, etc.
The other thing I find odd is a vehicle that has taillights in the usual position but the turn signals are placed separately down below in the bumper…It looks silly.
There might not have been room for the side marker light and reflector within the taillight cluster and still have the tail and stop/turn functions work as required or desired. Or stylists might have demanded the separate markers. Or it might have costed out cheaper to have separate markers. Or it might have facilitated and cost-reduced reconfiguration for export markets. These packaging questions often don’t have answers as obvious as they might seem.
Looking closer I’d wager its probably that the stylists wanted a black appearing taillight and a red side marker in it would have spoiled the look, so it got separate one
The height thing is something I hadn’t considered, though I kind of think the design might have looked better if the taillights were mounted lower, that would have actually better mimicked the originals and killed two birds with one stone if that was a factor
What’s the point of mounting it that far from the rear of the vehicle? I guess this must be legal, but…..
The requirement is that the side marker light and reflector be mounted on the permanent structure of the vehicle as near as practicable to the front and rear edges to indicate the overall length of the vehicle. The question of practicability is left to the manufacturer’s discretion, and typically won’t be questioned unless it is “clearly erroneous”. What does that mean? Well, that’s left to NHTSA’s discretion!
Range Rover black roof treatment and DI-NOC, all it needs is white sidewall tires!
As a novety and a nod to its heritage, I kinda like it. I wouldn’t own or drive it, but I like that somebody did this. Hey, why not?
Strangely, for a moment, the quarter panel treatment reminded me of the ’78 Dodge Colt woodie wagon.
Didn’t get them with wood in Australia. Not bad looking.
The black roof above the doors and below the roof rack give off a bit of a Vista Cruiser vibe.
HELLO Wisconsin!!
This is factory?…. Horrible. The trim joints around the Di-Noc don’t even match up and the whole shebang doesn’t work with the lines of the car. Looks incomplete.
Peeyew!
PaulR: No. That is not offered from the factory (at least not yet). But there’s a lot of after-market companies jumping on the band wagon here.
Much worse than this? I work at a Volvo store in the Los Angeles area. Not long ago I was walking past the service drive and there was a Volvo V90 wagon sitting there in a gray color with this kind of wood looking applique. It was horrible and like looking at a bad car crash where you just couldn’t stop looking. Believe me, that Volvo was much worse looking than this Jeep.
The trim falls short on the inside edge of the gas cap cover as compared to the outside edge. That would drive me crazy like a phillips head where a slot should be or a crooked picture/decal.
I guess it’s supposed to be in jest and look a little horrible…and they succeeded!
The door handles look a bit like Chevrolet bowties.
Everything about it (except the woodgrain) looks like a minor update of the Chevy Suburban to me.
These things are freaking massive, so let me get this straight, the resurgence in popularity of the old Wagoneers(given the prices they’re fetching ) led Jeep to resurrect the Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer, and their execution was to make it bigger than a freaking Expedition and look far more like a bloated tall Ford Flex than anything resembling the old Wagoneer?
Just goes to show people will still buy a badge I guess. Hey Bill did you see my cool new “Grand Wagoneer”?” .. “No Bob, I was too busy admiring Jeff’s “Eclipse” Cross, parked next to my sweet “Mustang” Mach E… We’re so cool driving these iconic cars, amiright?” .. “Hey fellas, can I join the convo, I as you can see I just bought a new “Blazer”, it seems like this is turning into a real car show!”
I don’t think the new Wagoneer’s development had anything to do with the old one. I believe that Chrysler decided to finally get into the full size SUV game, as part of its aggressive (and so far successful) campaign to fully take on the full-size pickup big boys. The retro model name came after the decision to get into the segment, not the other way around.
Executive #1: “We’ve got this new Jeep full-size SUV coming out. What should we name it?”
Executive #2: “How about we name it after the long running large SUV and current cult favorite Wagoneer?”
Executive #1: “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Executive #2: “Because you’re overpaid?”
The fact that Jeep doesn’t offer a factory woodgrain option is evidence they don’t think of it primarily as a retro offering. Personally, I think if they are going to call it Wagoneer, they should fully embrace it and have a woodgrain offering. As a big fan of the old model, my very first thought when they released the new one was, “where’s the woodgrain? I guess they aren’t serious about it being a Grand Wagoneer.”
Obviously, the market for a woody version would be very limited. But just as obviously, some people want it bad enough they’ve turned to the aftermarket. I say, Jeep, just give the people what they want!
I never thought it should be a retro offering, its just such a curious use of the name given the fact that the classic Wagoneer/Cherokee really wasn’t all that big, it was a predecessor for the familiar Grand Cherokee. Jeep seemed to have a more rational foothold in the SUV market that I believe buyers noticed, the Grand Cherokee was the biggest Jeep you could buy until now, and the brand weathered through the first onslaught of giant truck based SUVs during the late 90s, NOW they need to be part of the Expedition and Suburban set? Great timing with $6 a gallon gas.
I think there should be a woody option, this is Stelantis afterall, with all the various editions of Chargers and Challengers with no shortage of their own graphics and kit it wouldnt be asking much to have a woody package available with a SUV that costs 6 figures.
LOL, you’re right the maker of 3 dozen Challenger/Charger editions shouldn’t have a problem offering a woody Wagoneer. Didn’t they have a woody PT Cruiser at one point? And Jeep waiting decades to do a giant SUV and the Wagoneer finally coming out right as gas prices started soaring with no end in sight still was terrible timing.
To be fair regular Wagoneers start about 60k and Grand Wagoneers start about 90k, so only the most loaded examples encroach on 100k territory.
The trim running halfway through the gas cap reminds me of a ’57 “Packard”.
If they had lowered the bottom line about 4 inches, they wouldn’t need the separate piece for the gas lid, AND it would match the wheel arch better.
Although I’m not 100% liking the outside, the inside of these are outstanding. If a person didn’t know what they were getting into and if the names/badges were all covered, I truly believe that the person getting inside would think they got into a Bentley or other very high end brand car.
Personally, I like the look of the new Grand Cherokee L on the outside much more.
I agree, the inside is where these really excel, much like the Ram pickups they are based on. The Grand Cherokee is definitely sleeker looking outside. I think the Wagoneer looks a bit too tall and a little awkward, more so than its Ford or GM competitors. Though I will say that the first time I saw one I mistook it for a Navigator until I started paying attention and realized what it was.
Living in suburban Texas, where nothing succeeds like excess, I have already seen a number of these new Grand Wagoneers on the road, albeit sans the faux woodgrain. In person, they are huge and sort of look like a bloated Expedition. Given the popularity of gigantic SUVs around here, I suspect Chrysler has a real hit on its hands, although one that I saw that still had its Monroney sticker showed an MSRP of well over $100K.
The Dinoc in the picture above reminds me of the hideous after-market padded vinyl “convertible” tops that graced many otherwise sleek aerodynamic designs.
Wonder if it might make a good “used car” buy in a few years? Once the “novelty” wears off for the enamored “new car’ buyer?
I can see them wanting to bring back the Wagoneer, but nothing about this says Wagoneer to me. If it wasn’t for those fat, chrome accented window frames, It would look a bit like they were trying to design a next-size-up Range Rover.
Its almost as though they were targeting Range Rover (they were) and not trying to do a “retro” or “tribute” (they weren’t). They went with a well-known name, and this is likely what the original would have evolved into had it stuck around.
So, I guess this is some sort of aftermarket accessory? Where’s the fake cabriolet vinyl roof with landau irons on the D pillar?
I never understood fake wood stickers on the interior and especially the exterior. Nothing looks cheaper than an imitation wood sticker. They should have used a real strip of darkly finished wood just one inch high and 1/4 inch thick running front to back. That would have been a beautiful eyecatcher and befitting its high price tag.
Sort of a wooden pinstripe. Now there’s an idea!