• Will the Next Jeep Scrambler Pickup Tow Up To 6,500 lbs? Another Leaked Document


    2019 Jeep Scrambler pickup prototype towing (photo credit: 4Wheeler)

    Will the upcoming Jeep Scrambler pickup truck be able to tow up to 6,500 lbs? Yes, according to the leaked SAE J2807 documentation that published at JL Wrangler Forums.

    (image: JL Wrangler Forums)

    GVWR     | Payload

    JT Scrambler Base (3.6L):                       6,075 lbs | 1,400 lbs
    JT Scrambler Premium (3.6L):              6,075 lbs | 1,100 lbs
    JT Scrambler Base (3.0L Diesel):          6,500 lbs | 1,400 lbs
    JT Scrambler Premium (3.0L Diesel): 6,300 lbs | 1,100 lbs

    This information sheds lights on the GVWR, GCWR, payload, and maximum towing ratings. It also shows just two engine options: 3.6L gas V6 and 3.0L turbo-diesel V6. There is no mention of the 2.0L turbo gas engine that is described in the leaked JL Wrangler owner’s manual.

    The 6,500 lbs max towing rating is just above that of the current Toyota Tacoma (6,400 lbs), but it’s lower than the midsize towing leaders (Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon). The GM pickups are rated at up to 7,700 lbs of max towing in 2WD configuration.


    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov
    Andre Smirnov is an Automotive Enthusiast, Producer, Reviewer, Videographer, Writer, Software Engineer, Husband, Father, and Friend.

    Similar Articles

    57 thoughts on “Will the Next Jeep Scrambler Pickup Tow Up To 6,500 lbs? Another Leaked Document

    1. Oh if only the poor jeep engineers had read these comment pages they would have learned about hydropneumatic shocks and could have given this jeep a 6000lb payload instead of 1100lbs. They also could have read up on the latest in unicorn fart Propulsion Systems…

        1. Actually, it has already been announced that this Jeep will have a hybrid, with 368 hp. It will will have electric propulsion, just like the very first cars ever built in history. Which will be perfect for rock crawling.

          And it will run on gasoline, by the way.

          Simpler, cheaper, better, faster, and the American way!

          1. Rumors. A hybrid system capable of moving the Jeep in low range at speeds under 20 mph would be incredible for off-road use. Unfortunately, the extra weight and expense of that type of system kills the deal.

            1. The Hybrid revelation comes straight fro Jeep in writing. That is as far from a rumor as you can get.

              I value Truth.

            1. Cost to own. Overall cost.

              You actually have to think it through, and recognize also that today”s hybrids and tomorrow’s hybrids are not the same as yesterday’s hybrids.

    2. I’m surprised the 5.7L V8 is not an option. Must be cramped under the hood even though the engine fits in the Grand Cherokee and Durango. However this truck appears wider than both and should be more stable Towing the higher weight.

    3. Wondering if these are leaked documents or a daily drip of information. We’ll probably never know but I’d speculate that the release is calculated.

    4. Shaping up to be a decent truck, but it would have been nice to see FCA reach a little further with max payload on this product to separate further from existing competition. I am well aware of some constraints with suspension design and needing to be cost effective, but surely would have been nice to see 1,650lbs max payload on the Premium and higher on the Base models. I know the Premium trim levels are destined to have off-road based suspensions, but having 1,000lbs available payload after 10% tongue weight is applied from max trailer towing (6,500lbs in this example) would have been a nice round number to achieve. It also would appeal to others (such as myself) who is watching this segment expand and will inevitably purchase a mid-size truck, which would be my first truck purchase. Some may suggest a full-size, but those are too large for my tastes and needs.

        1. @ Zviera

          That is not really all that impressive, in my opinion. I would probably opt for Payload reduction is the “price” I will have to pay. It is on-par with existing offerings from other brands, but a new entry product in this segment, I would have liked to see the company go further, not just a “me too”, in regards to payload/ towing. Now, the mid-size truck I choose isn’t just about towing for me, includes utility (open bed), uniqueness, character, aesthetics etc. It really needs to be a ‘total package’ (least amount of compromises for me) as I tend to keep vehicles for 12-15 years.

          1. Edit: “I would probably opt for Premium model spec, and payload reduction is the “price” I will have to pay for such.”

            1. My fully loaded RAM 1500 HEMI 4×4 Laramie has 1075 lbs payload. I was never missing anything , pulling my travel trailer in many critical situations in Canada and USA on road, offroad, RAM handled that very safely and under control.
              FCA has conservative approach for payload and towing.
              This Jeep beats my payload and it’s impressive in my point of view.
              My kids don’t drive with us anymore, so I have a plenty of head room.
              Jeep is recognized as an offroad brand all over the world.
              We used to call Jeep any offroad vehicle in the Europe 20-30 years ago.
              Even Land rover was jeep for us.
              You buy, what ever you want, this Jeep pickuptruck will sell well and many will jump from Toyota for sure. Toyota is not , what it used to be. ( I had 2 diesel Toyotas in my life. )
              What other options do you have ? GM ? Good chassis technology, girly face .
              This ……is………..Jeeeeep !

      1. MY guess it that it being a jeep, off-road capability is more important than payload capacity. Unless you want to add in some fancy, complicated and expensive active system the two strengths tend to counteract one another.
        That being said, 6500 lbs is pretty good-as much as one ought to be towing with a vehicle that size.

    5. This is the first time I see where I think the diesel is truly the higher performing motor. If the 3.6L V6 stays the same as it currently is we are looking at 285hp/260ft-lbs. The 3.0 diesel should be 240hp/420 ft-lbs.

      HP has never been that close on the diesel. GM offered a 180 hp diesel vs the 306 hp V6. Ram has the same 240hp diesel but is competing against the 395hp Hemi.

      1. The RealJay S – – –

        TRJS: “HP has never been that close on the diesel. GM offered a 180 hp diesel vs the 306 hp V6. Ram has the same 240hp diesel but is competing against the 395hp Hemi.”

        Yeah. Good observation. That’s because HP is just rate-of-delivery of torque. It’s torque that gets you moving with a deep haul or heavy tow load; it’s HP that lets you maintain the push as you accelerate to higher RPM’s (and road speeds). HP by itself is relatively less important for pickups; relatively more important for sports cars.

        Randy Pobst** has a little homey expression for this: “Torque is what pushes you back in your seat when you hit the throttle; HP is what keeps you there as you as progress.” (^_^) I guess if you had a ruler to measure your seat depression with time, you could get at both Torque and HP….

        —————–
        ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Pobst
        —————-

        =====================

        1. “HP by itself is relatively less important for pickups; relatively more important for sports cars.”

          This is not entirely true either though. While low end torque is nice, its only because its a way to generate decent HP without a lot of RPM. This is why basically every mid sized V6 truck beats the Duramax up the ike and every V8 beats the Ecodiesel despite usually having a torque disadvantage.

          It takes HP to overcome the forces of air drag, rolling resistance, etc. It also takes a certain amount of HP to move a certain amount of weight up a hill at a certain speed. Whether that hp is at 2000 rpm(a lot of torque) or 9000 rpm(a little torque) doesn’t matter.

          You hook up both gas and diesel engines to the same trailer and the diesel might out pull the V6/V8’s for the first 3000 RPM’s of the first gear but once the V6/V8 is up to 4-5k rpm its making more HP and still has not shifted to 2nd gear(while the diesel has). By the time the gas motor shifts to 2nd, the diesel is well on its way to 3rd. So the combination of high RPM capability and increased gearing reduction of the higher spinning gas motors allows them to make up for the lack of torque. The force that the tire applies to the ground is the same or more.

          Now that the HP of the Ecodiesel is so close to the Pentastar, I dont think that difference will be as large, especially if the Ecodiesel is tuned or at altitude. This would make it a hell of a lot easier to choose the diesel for me. In the Colorado its expensive and offers no better performance(V6 outpulls it up the IKE) and the same goes for the Ecodiesel and upcoming Ford Lion diesel.

          1. Excellent comment and absolutely accurate. An itty bitty 1.6l F1 engine, screaming 15,000 rpm, could be used in a fully loaded OTR truck application.

            In the real world however, that would require massive gear reduction, get terrible fuel economy, and if you thought a jake brake on a grade was annoying, can you imagine a Semi wailing like an F1 car in the lane next to you?

            1. It would also need rebuilds constantly. The higher your piston speeds and revolutions per minute, the faster the moving parts and seals wear out. Which is why I prefer naturally aspirated V8’s with decent displacement for my trucks. With modern fuel systems, you can get 20+ MPG from V8 that has around 6 liters of displacement, which is perfect. Plenty of power and long-term reliability.

            2. That’s not really accurate. Rpm at 70 mph cruise has really no bearing on reliability. Many import 4-cyl motors (particularly older models) cruised at 2500 rpm or more and were nearly unkillable. My dodge V8 cruised at 1600 rpm and was hardly reliable. The 3.5 ecoboost runs lower rpm in any scenario vs the GM 6.2 but somehow I doubt you are going to claim it will be more reliable.

    6. I wonder how they are dealing with cooling on this. They already have a hard time cooling the Ecodiesel in the Ram which is a much bigger vehicle.

    7. I find this vehicle to be an interesting comparison to the Raptor. Yes, its smaller (midsize category) but being built on a Wrangler should mean class-leading off-road capability. The Raptor can slightly out-tow it but has less payload unless you compare it to the “premium” Jeep. A Scrambler might potentially have a Rubicon version with front and rear lockers, unlocking front sway bar, larger tires, rock sliders, etc. Having the option of a manual with the diesel and the Rubicon option would be super cool.

        1. Since the Ram doesn’t use real leaves until you get to the 3500, I’d be shocked if they did on the JT. Parts commonality dictates the same coil spring suspension as the JL. Spring rates will be respective, of course. As to progressive springs, I’d expect progressive coils on the standard truck (better empty ride and load carrying) while using a linear spring in Rubicon- better flex.

    8. Comparing this against the 2WD Colorado really isn’t fair, since that’s more of a work truck. I think the comparison against the ZR2 with its 5000 lb tow rating is closer to the mark given the off road tilt of the Scrambler, so 6000+ lb is pretty impressive. That said, I bought my V6 ZR2 for commuting and weekend warrior off-roading in the mountains, so towing capability wasn’t a concern for me.

      1. I too see the “Premium” Scrambler to be compared to the ZR2. By the time the market is saturated with Scramblers and Rangers, the Colorado (including ZR2) will most likely receive its mid-cycle refresh, and I’d have to update my “comparison sheet”.

        1. That’s what I do, when I buy some product, even ATV, Generator, action camera…..
          Don’t forget to make one extra column in this case. The brand and face you like, because on the end, you want to drive, what makes you happy, just approaching the door handle.

    9. Looks like the “premium” is the Rubicon grade, with deeper gears and softer rear springs. The bump in GVWR to maintain payload on the diesel is nice.
      Would be really great is they offer a payload option on the gas model for the diesel GVWR.
      Only one gear ratio for the diesel, but so much more torque than the gas engine, it should do fine, even pushing 35’s down the road.
      Hopefully BSG and ESS are somehow code for Automatic and Manual transmissions. Zero chance that the diesel will have a manual.

      1. Manuals can compensate for being underpowered. My suzuki samurai is a perfect example. My 4.0 tj isn’t exactly powerful either.
        An auto is much easier to drive and to drive smoothly. A missed downshift can mean stuck in mud or sand

      2. Especially in the long run. My brother’s 08 Tacoma ate throwout bearings and clutches like crazy when he used it for rock crawling. Some of it was due to the big tires it had on it and the fact that he was trying slip the clutch to avoid busting a diff on the trails. An auto with a good trans cooler is a very good option. Especially the newer automatics out there these days.

        1. Yes to the external trans cooler.It’s a must,even with tow pkgs on other brands. The built into the radiator trans cooler does not cut it.

    10. Well that’s about 1,000# short of where I hoped it would be. Maybe they’ll bring back the Dakota on a similar frame, but oriented more towards work truck and towing, and get to 7500-8000? The Dakota was a good truck, ruined by terrible redesign in 2004. Would be fun to see the S10 (Colorado), Ranger, and Dakotas all back in the midsize game with Tacoma.

    11. I think this truck is really going to steal the show next year. Tough solid front axle, lots of aftermarket stuff already available, awesome 8-speed transmission, etc. If the Rubicon version is priced right, it’s going to destroy the TRD pro and ZR2 in the offroad department. The Ranger Raptor will be DOA.

    12. If you are going to buy the gas powered pickup (my choice by the way), you should make sure you pick the right axle ratio 3.45 or 4.10, depending on how you are going to use the truck. If it’s going to be a farm truck, or if you go off roading often, or if you are going to be at maximum payload a lot then you should go with the 4.10 gears, otherwise your going to need to use low range a lot. If on the other hand, you’re buying this truck mostly for it’s looks, or if you are using it primarily as a commuter vehicle and only very occasionally will be using it off road,etc. I would order the 3.45 gears as the truck will pull away from a red light or merge onto the highway quicker.

      1. By the way, if your thinking of buying the diesel option on the jeep you might want to read the advertisement about the price of re-manufactured 6.7 turbochargers (over $1700 just for part,not the labor and only a 2 year warranty) on the TFL “homepage”. Better save your pennies! All diesels are expensive to maintain!

      2. That depends on the gear ratios of the transmission. The 6/8/10 speed transmissions out in the last 10 years have much better gear ratios and axle ratio is no where near as important as it was in the days of crappy 4-speed autos. Hence why more and more half-tons have crazy low axle ratios like 3.08, 3.23, 3.31, etc. Ford’s 10R80 has a 4.69:1 1st gear and a 2.98:1 2nd gear. Chrysler’s 8-speed has a 4.714 1st gear and a 3.143 2nd gear. Unless you plan on going bigger than a 35″ tire, it might not matter if you go with 3.73’s or 4.10’s.

        1. According to the chart, the diesel gets 3.73 gears no matter what. With the gas engine, the fear ratios are determined by the choice of standard or Rubicon.
          Grizz is absolutely correct. With the 8 speed it won’t matter much. Notice the tow rating is the same. The 4.10 gears are really prep for 35s and will probably work fine with 37s.

        2. Since companies like ford and ram have some of the best and brightest engineers in the world working on the design and performance of their vehicles. Why then do they see fit to offer their customers a number of different gear ratios if, as you say, it doesn’t matter anyhow.

          1. Dan, 4.10 gears will put about 25% more power to the ground in 1st gear then 3.08 will. But once you move to 2nd gear it’s not that important. Having multiple ratios to choose from means you can hold a lower gear longer to compensate. I always choose the lowest gear anyway. Small penalty in fuel economy but more fun to drive

      3. 3.45 gears will NOT pull away from a stop light or merge on to a highway quicker than a 4.10.
        It would do the exact opposite.
        A 3.45 gear would cruise at a lower rpm on the highway and potentially get better fuel mileage.

    13. This truck might hit over 30 Mpg with ecodiesel. This could be an efficient daily commuter, business truck ,weekend, holidays outdoor activity truck pulling trailer and offroad warrior in one package. It will steal many sales from any SUV brand, not just trucks, because of manageable size.

    14. I like the Jeep Scrambler diesel,but without at least a 6ft box,it’s useless to me.I’m hoping it is at least that long.

    15. I’m I’m just not real excited over a Jeep p/u. The bed will be less than 6′. Another thing about Jeep’s there good about anything when it comes to 4 Wheeling except snow.

    Leave a Reply

    Top