Car makers are rather predictable. When the Mustang stampeded onto the scene in 1964, it didn’t take more than a few years before we saw plenty of “pony car” facsimile competitors. In the same way, after first appearing in 1994 the Subaru Outback crossovers were joined by a half dozen similar products in short order. If something is successful in the automotive world, you can be damn sure that it will be copied as quickly as the other brands can get a rival to showrooms. Why shouldn’t they? In fact, I’m usually shocked when I see the rare cases where other car makers don’t copy a winning formula, or they take a flat-out eternity to do so.
One of those products that took forever and a day to get real Big Three rivals is the full-sized pickup-based station wagon with more than two rows of seats (and, later, four doors) that General Motors arguably pioneered as the Suburban. Why did the other Detroit giants drop the ball in making their own profitable heavy-duty family haulers? More importantly, where the hell is our RAM Tahoe and Suburban?


A Century Of The ‘Burbs
If you ask seasoned car geeks how long General Motors has been making Suburbans, many might say five or six decades. They’d be wrong; it’s hard to believe, but this massive, tall wagon will soon be celebrating its 100th birthday, with the first example having been released in 1935.

Note that early ones only had two doors up front to access the three rows of seats, which sounds like something requiring major gymnastics to get to the “way back.”


In 1967, a rear side door was finally offered, but only on the passenger’s side.

Over the years, the Suburban (either Chevy or GMC branded) changed as new full-sized GM trucks were introduced. Starting with the 1973 models, all Suburbans finally became four-doors.

With each new generation, the ‘Burban became more capable but also a bit more car-like to make it a viable option for more people, even if they didn’t want to get 4WD for off-roading or power to tow monstrous 6000-pound campers.

Naturally, the clean GMT400 version is a big Autopian favorite here.

The Suburban (and later the smaller wheelbase Chevy Tahoe-sized versions) proved popular enough to survive numerous financial and energy crises despite their massive thirst and size. Niche-player International Harvester created something similar with the Travelall, and Jeep offered the four-door Wagoneer starting in 1962, but this two-row wagon was a bit smaller than the Suburban and obviously stayed stuck in a time warp where it didn’t really change until its 1991 demise.
What about the other Big Guys, Ford and Chrysler? For much of that time, they offered absolutely nothing similar. Well, almost nothing. Let me explain.
Looks Like A Distorted Bronco From Street View
It’s not that Ford never considered a Suburban fighter decades ago. Photographic evidence shows that they mocked up a fifth-generation (1967-72) F-Series into something dubbed internally as the “Midhorn”. It’s more Tahoe-like than Suburban, but it looks like it might have been a winner and real competitor for GM’s family truck-based wagon entries.

Why did it never see the light of day? I think the reason is the same thing that killed Ford’s Carousel minivan proposal: Henry Ford II. “Hank the Deuce” apparently didn’t want anything with a Blue Oval on it cannibalizing sales of his station wagons like the big LTD (“LTD” meaning “Limited”, as in limited to how many he could sell). That was likely a good short-term decision, but a tragic long-term one.
Ford corporate might have turned a blind eye, but the aftermarket certainly took notice of this gap. A number of outside coachbuilders like Centurion (famous for those weird van tow vehicles) took eighth- and ninth-generation Ford trucks and converted them into essentially heavy-duty four-door Broncos.

Centurion even went so far as to offer them in both F-150 chassis and heavy-duty F-350 versions:

That full-ton F-350-based model with the 7.3-liter diesel was a little longer than the Suburban, so it could out-tow and out-carry the GM products. You probably already know this, but coachbuilders don’t give their services away; at over $40,000 in 1988 dollars, the cost of these converted Fords was not cheap. You’d likely only pick one over a Suburban if you needed the towing capability, liked the engines better, or wouldn’t be caught dead with a bow tie logo on your grille. Only around 4000 were made between 1988 and 1996. Oh, a boomerang TV antenna!


Obviously, Ford finally wised up in the late 1990s to give us the Expedition and Excursion to fight the GM juggernauts over sixty years after the first Suburban appeared. Still, why was Chrysler ignoring this market?
Silence Of The RAMs: Mopar Offers No-car
To be fair, Dodge did offer a pickup-based utility, albeit a more sporting proposition than mom-and-the-kids family hauler. Starting with the new-for-’72 D-Series as a basis, Dodge launched a roofless two-door called the Ramcharger in 1974 – basically a Mopar interpretation of the concurrent Blazer and GMC Jimmy.

Like those GM utes, they were essentially chopped-wheelbase pickups with open beds from the windshield back and offered with removable hardtops or a canvas roof. The earliest models, like the one shown below, even had frameless door glass (but quickly were changed to add the pickup’s solid framed doors by June of ’74). And that console ice chest is pretty damn cool!

In 1981, a refreshed model debuted that included the “RAM” brand name and the revisions given to Mopar’s now-aging line of trucks. The metal roof was now fully fixed in place. The best addition on these facelifted models had to be those cool rear quarter windows that wrapped into the edges of the roof.


This old warhorse soldiered on until 1993 in the United States, and proved so popular in Mexico that Chrysler continued to sell it there for three more years. When it became clear to Chrysler Mexico that the U.S. was not going to release a replacement, they took matters into their own hands in 1999 and created a version based on the exciting new-for-1994 “big rig” style Ram.
You’ll note the creative use of a Dodge Caravan tailgate structure and rear backlight. It might be a little convoluted in places, but it’s rather brilliant for the reported AMC-like $3 million pittance required to tool it. Mercedes Streeter has written about this one in detail; it only lasted for two years in Mexico, and when it disappeared, that was the end for full-size factory Mopar utes.

As with the Centurion Fords, the aftermarket saw a need and stepped in to turn some examples of the newer-style RAMs into Suburban-esque wagons. In many cases, coachbuilders used GM or Ford parts and stuck them onto an existing RAM pickup. This creation of a 1999 truck below was for sale a while back; as expensive as the Ford Centurions were, I can imagine this thing must have cost even more to build. At least they invested the work into a 2500 with a Cummins to have something special.

The proof-of-concept above shows the potential for the idea. Time to get an image of the latest 1500 and get started and a brand-new factory version.
Engage Photoshop … Kick Out The RAMs!
Not surprisingly, there are many, many renderings online showing concepts of RAM pickups converted to Suburban- or Tahoe-like utes. I won’t post them here since a.) legally I can’t show other people’s work without permission and b.) I don’t like any of the ones I’ve seen anyway. Most illustrators just add side window treatments scraped from or identical to an Expedition or a GM truck; how can you have a Ramcharger without those cool-looking wrapover rear quarter windows? Why would you want a big ute that looks just like the other guys anyway?
Also, I KNOW there is already a new “Ramcharger” electric truck, but honestly this classis SUV deserves rights to the name. If not, maybe we have to call it the Trail Duster to reference the rare Plymouth version of the 1974-81 Ramcharger.
I’ll start with a Tahoe-style shorter model based on a 1500:

Let’s stretch it to a Suburban-sized version as well:

In back, I think the double doors are a bit of a lash-up, and a full lift-up tailgate isn’t befitting a “real” Ramcharger. I’ll add a lift-up hatch and fold-down tailgate, but with the split put down lower as on an Expedition to allow for easier cargo access. I tried doing funky things with Durango-style taillights and black panels as on the latest big Ford models, and it just didn’t look right. I kept it simple since to me that kind of no-nonsense approach says “RAM”.

The end result is something that you barely look at twice because you assume that it already exists. Why shouldn’t it? It looks great; the distinctiveness of the nose is matched by the uniqueness of the rear greenhouse. And could a 2500 version be offered? Did someone say Cummins? Why not? It’s a can’t miss.
Let’s RAM A Hit Out Of The Park
The best part of this new Ramcharger? Profitability of large sport utilities- especially the luxury versions- is typically off the scale. I remember reading something years back about how one Navigator sale packed more profit than selling three or four Focuses (or is that Foci?).
Come on, Stellantis, in the last few years, you’ve given us the Alfa Hornet, a Charger with fake engine noises, plus a Jeep Wrangler pickup and a Wagoneer that nobody wants. You lookin’ for an easy winner? This is it. As Burt Reynolds said in Smokey and the Bandit, “Do if for the money, for the glory, and for the fun … but mostly for the money.”
Hear me out… rather than go to battle for a category where GM and Ford run the show and Toyota picks at the scraps, how about they re-introduce a Ram B-Series Van and go claim some largely uncontested space.
It could be a Heavy Duty platform built to accommodate everything from the Ram Charger inline hybrid to the Cummins and come in multiple heights, lengths, up fitter, cargo and passenger configurations along with available factory 4WD.
Make RAM Dodge Again
I’ve always called them Dodge
Most RAM owners seem to, as well
Hell, I have a 1500 Classic currently assigned as a company car, and the folder of paperwork that came with it was marked “23 Dodge – white” by our fleet manager
This is a much nicer looking take on this segment than the Jeep versions. I am assuming that the C&D pillars would likely need to be about twice as thick as shown. But that could be behind the tinted glass to maintain the overall appearance.
The issue, of course, is the Stellantis issue. They simply can’t develop even a halfway decent product. This would likely follow the fate of all other Stellantis products and end up at the bottom of any comparison within a year of being released, ending up on dealer lots.
Chrysler messed this up so hard it’s probably too late for them, but really let’s talk about how the Grand Wagoneer and the Navigator purport to be Escalade competitors but neither of them have a high performance variant.
You want to beat the king? And you give us the Navi and GW? Nope. Not gonna happen. The Escalade is so power a brand it literally propped up Cadillac for like a decade or two.
Those windows are too big for what most consumers seem to want. It’d never sell. For my taste, those windows are almost big enough.
You don’t need windows. All cameras. Sunlight? Buyers don’t want that
It is mind boggling that RAM doesn’t offer this. It would be an instant success if for no other reason than it would give buyers a chance to be different. Which I swear is why anyone buys a stupid Waggoneer. RAM makes perfectly useful trucks, building an SUV version is certainly not rocket science, so … why?
I’m going to guess the fact that Stellantis is basically broke has a lot to do with it.
Stellantis has this, it’s just sold as the Jeep Wagoneer.
No, it doesn’t sell.
LOL
Well, you got me there, haha!
Would a RAM branded Wagoneer sell better though? Maybe if it was cheaper? Weird to think of Ram as the low-cost Jeep alternative though.
I’m not sure why anyone outside of law enforcement would buy a Durango these days.
The Wagoneer is also much, much (did I say much?) uglier than your rendering, in my humble opinion.
The target demo of RAM is deadbeat dads and drunk drivers. There’s no need for a family hauler when the only family time is a court-appointed Thursday afternoon supervised visitation.
That’s bullshit. That can be said about any car. I’ve had a RAM for 12 years and I’m a great father and I hardly drink alcohol.
The Jeep Wagoneer and grand Wagoneer fill this spot for Stilanntis!
“fill this spot” is the right description
Historically, Chrysler simply didn’t have a lot of money and just chose to put their development dollars elsewhere. If you wanted something that could seat more than 6 (or 8 in a 60s/70s wagon) they’d be happy to show you a nice B-series van, or Ram Van, or Sprinter, or ProMaster.
When an OEM is developing something like this, they spend a billion or two on the vehicle, and then a billion or two on the powertrains, and then the last few million go into deciding what it should look like and be branded as. (Not necessarily in that order, but you get the idea)
I’d put money on the Ram variant being in the pipeline and cancelled because the chip shortage was on by the time it was done and it could be sold for a higher profit margin as a $100k Jeep.
I’ve long said that discontinuing the Aspen was one of Chrysler’s biggest mistakes. Just as luxury SUVs were catching on, Chrysler discontinued theirs.
Most people didn’t know they even existed, even some who worked for Chrysler.
It was a Durango underneath, but could have been moved to a truck chassis instead of being discontinued.
I had one as a rental way way back.
The only thing I remember of it, besides feeling bigger than it should, was the insanely soft suspension and how much it wallowed and rolled. It couldn’t maintain composure to save it’s life – wheras the Durango rentals I’d had were far better composed. I genuinely felt that it was not safe to take an on/off ramp any faster than a crawl.
I’m not saying the Aspen was a great entry as-is (although the one owner I knew loved his), but that it was a highly profitable market segment that they simply walked away from just as it was heating up.
I agree with you. The Aspen itself wasn’t great. Way more badge engineered than even the 300C vs Charger. But I don’t think they should have walked away completely. Jeep has never felt like the right place for the luxury suv
I think a lot of GM’s (and to a lesser extent Ford’s) success is in how well they differentiate their SUVs from their pickups. In profile, the Tahoe etc have a very non-pickup C-pillar that does most of the work to make it not look like just a pickup with a bed cap on it. Ford does it by blacking out all the pillars. And both have unique front ends that show strong family resemblance but aren’t actually shared with the pickups.
This photoshop is fine, but looks more like a coach build based on the pickup vs a ground-up factory effort.
The current Wagoneer shouldn’t be a Jeep but a Dodge or Chrysler instead.
I made this rendering on oppo
https://opposite-lock.com/assets/uploads/files/1751480613046-durangoramswb.jpg
This is true, but the Wagoneer is making inroads into the GM sales side of this, not sure they will give that up? But I do think they should. or at least make the Wagoneer a rugged option and a version of it the Chrysler flagship.
This is more of a testament to the bland styling of modern-day Ram trucks, but it took me a minute to realize I wasn’t looking at a Tahoe.
Longhorn, Midhorn and Shorthorn were all bandied about…
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/yeah-the-chevrolet-blazer-inspired-the-design-of-the-second-gen-bronco-so-did-the-1955-chevrolet-nomad/
It’s baffling why Chrysler missed this train in the early Aughts, when it woulda mattered!
Also, if you call it “Ramcharger”, you’re risking the wrath of Bill Stephens. And since he’s indirectly responsible for the existence of WKRP in Cincinnati, don’t mess with him.
Ram Ramcharger sounds like a GI Joe character…
Or a patriotic porn performer.
It’s called the Wagoneer.
While Stellantis(??) is sticking RAM logos onto the Wagoneer and cutting the price by 5 digit numbers.
Leave it to The Bishop to design a better Wagoneer in an afternoon.
Although I think the photoshop job is pretty handsome, the Wagoneer is already on the same platform as the RAM 1500 so doing a badge and fascia swap on it is probably not too outlandish imo. Circles back to my comment a few days ago about Stellantis shoving too much nonsense into Jeep when it has plenty of other brands to that’ll fit their existing vehicles better.
These statements would seem to be at odds.
The Wagoneer (not the Grand) starts right where a Ram-branded version would, and right where the Tahoe and Expedition do.
The fact that it doesn’t sell well either shows how hard it is to break into this market. GM is going to take its majority share, Ford will take a reasonable amount of what’s left, and Toyota/Nissan/Jeep will fight over the rest.
The time to do this was 30 years ago, building off the ’94 Ram success and trying to lock up market share before Ford established themselves and GM thought to invent the Denali and Escalade. Now, it’s just too late.
I’d say this is because the GM offerings have been so good so consistently, not because of of some weird missed opportunity 30 years ago. If Ford/Toyota/Nissan/Jeep had a real ringer, it’d start gobbling up market share. Ford has gotten close a few times, and others have had a few decent offerings, but the real problem is that they’ve been bested by the respective contemporary GM each time.
I think that’s mostly been true, and GM has earned that share. There isn’t really a realistic scenario where they aren’t the leaders in this segment no matter what the competition does.
What I was trying to say is that if Dodge had come out with a full sizer in the 90s instead of the Durango, building off the runaway success of the Ram at that time, I could easily see them in Ford’s position now, with respectable sales and an established position. The Expedition didn’t exist until ’97 or ’98. There was a window to jump in there.
THAT is the answer there. The “big rig” style Suburban in 1994 or 5 would have beat the Expedition/Exploler to market and been a mega hit. Especially if they offered it as 2500 version with a Cummins.
TBH a ’95 Ram ‘Suburban’ likely would have hit it out of the park.
It doesn’t seem like it would take much to be where Ford is. The Expedition is fine, but I’m not sure who is buying it over the GM offerings besides die-hard Ford people (or people who get A-Plan pricing).
Stellantis, Toyota, and Nissan would all kill to be where Ford is at though. And they’ve all been trying, with minimal success, to be there for years now.
https://tfltruck.com/2025/07/q2-2025-full-size-suvs-sales-report/
Do you prefer Ford exterior/interior fitment/trim/style/powertrain or GM? Both have strengths/weaknesses.
Expedition has a BIG share of this market and was first with IRS. GM was always the 900lb gorilla with Suburban, but Ford has captured significant market share. As development costs are shared with F series this is a market coup.
Dad still talks about a ’75 2wd Suburban he bought (purchasing manager) with a 454.
The Suburban is more of an up to 7,500lb gorilla.
So you mean a Jeep Grand Wagoneer?
Isn’t this exactly that? A Ram-branded 3-row body-on-frame SUV wouldn’t be that much cheaper than a Jeep-branded one. So why compete against your own corporate cousins? They only made 12k Grand Wagoneers, so it isn’t exactly a hot seller compared to the 105k Chevy Tahoes and 44k Suburbans GM sold.
Plus, I think Stellantis has much bigger problems than worrying about a vehicle that might sell in such low volumes. Their reputation is shot. Their quality and reliability is seen as shit by most people, and they’ve done little to improve that for years now.
The Wagoneer should have been Ram or Dodge; the Grand Wagoneer should have been Chrysler. End of story. Part of the issue with FCA / Stellantis was seeing Jeep as a cash cow and trying to make it everything to everyone. It directly lead to the starvation of product from other brands as well as watering down what Jeep is.
I don’t think Chrysler would have had any more success selling a $100K vehicle than Jeep did.
The gamble obviously hasn’t worked out, but they weren’t exactly wrong to assume Jeep appealed to a wide variety of consumers, including affluent ones. Plenty of wealthy people own Wranglers and Grand Cherokees; the issues are that the full-size segment is dominated by GM, and the actual execution of the GW wasn’t great.
Personally, I think it should have been a Chrysler because it plays up to zero of what separates a Jeep from any other domestic brand. If it wears the Jeep badge, it should be a freakin’ Jeep. Simply being Stellantis luxury SUV isn’t what makes Jeep a Jeep, that’s Chrysler or a high trim Ram.
I’m not saying it would have sold more, but as a vehicle, it would have made more sense.
The Grand Wagoneer should have been a true Land Cruiser (J200 and J300) or Land Rover competitor.
I do think so, because it would have made for a better Chrysler. The current Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer don’t have what attract a lot of Jeep buyers (off road capability or at least the appearance of that).
The Sequoia did that for the current gen by going back to solid axle. While I get this isn’t the best argument since the Sequoia hasn’t been a super successful seller, I think it’s the general direction Jeep should have actually gone. It would have at least given Jeep a better chance securing the loyal buyers who buy Jeeps because they are good off road. The direction they ended up going just put them directly against GM and Ford product and Jeep just flat out didn’t do as good of a job of them at it. If the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer were more off road capable they could have at least say “yeah, we aren’t as good at A, B, or C because it can do X, Y, or Z when GM and Ford flat out can’t.” The current market position of the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer means you really got to like just the Jeep brand and basically ignore everything else (it’s not any better off road than the competition, it’s not a better SUV, it’s not more efficient, it’s not as reliable, it’s not as luxurious, etc).
The Wagoneer or Grand Wagoneer works as a luxury SUV about as well as the Jeep Gladiator pickup, in that it doesn’t. It certainly doesn’t work as a $100 proposition since anyone will take an Escalade or even an ugly LX Lexus over it.
Doesn’t that make it the perfect Chrysler then? Back of the pack luxury is what Chrysler is all about, right?
It is puzzling. If the Wagoneer took styling cues from the original, fair enough, make it a Jeep. But it doesn’t, and if you sold it as a Chrysler I would never connect it with the Wagoneers of the past. Chrysler desperately needs something new and a luxury SUV could have been immensely helpful there. Plus, since when has Jeep been a luxury brand?
Who needs a Ram Ramcharger when the profit-laden Jeep Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer being sold across the showroom is selling so well?
Oh – Wait…
The question to Stellantis was, “Should you make luxury SUV under the Chrysler brand, or make a Jeep that isn’t a Jeep and dilutes the only strong brand you have left in North America?”
Stellantis made the wrong decision.
I’ll disagree – Because the Chrysler Aspen was a proven, massive sales dud.
The issue w/ Wagoneer is that it doesn’t look like anything like a Wagoneer – The profile is straight up 1970’s GM Colonnade – and gets terrible mileage.
Then Jeep decides that in order to compete with Escalade – Just put a “Grand” in front of their non-Wagoneer?
Correct choices:
1. The Durango had decent styling, should have or now put a proper body on frame, all the options Karen or her boat towing husband need.
2. Jeepify the Jeep. Lose the Grand Wagoneer as a model, make it a trim at the top of a proper Jeep.
Signed, Landcruiser owner who tried to buy a RAM but gave up after the dealer experience.
Also not a deadbeat dad or alcoholic.
Didn’t I see that the rationale was that the original Grand Wagoneer sold to a bunch of old money types in the late 80’s, so the Stellantis bosses tried to capture that again?