If This Is The 2025 Jeep Wagoneer S It’s Definitely An EV, Questionably A Jeep

2024 Jeep Wagoneer Ts4
ADVERTISEMENT

The 2025 Jeep Wagoneer S electric crossover hasn’t officially been unveiled yet, but that hasn’t stopped photos of the crossover from leaking online. Australian outlet Whichcar reports that “it was Jeep’s own social media team that shared the shots,” hidden within a recently deleted Facebook video. So, strap in, because we’re taking a look at the first new Wagoneer that isn’t the size of a tower block.

The Wagoneer S is expected to ride on Stellantis’ STLA Large platform, a vehicle architecture that supports traditional combustion or electrification, with high-voltage systems of 400 volts or 800 volts. In the case of Jeep’s latest machine, electric power is confirmed to be on deck, and properly potent stuff at that. Jeep is claiming peak output of 600 horsepower and zero-to-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, which should put the Wagoneer S in the same territory as the dearly departed Grand Cherokee Trackhawk. That ought to haul the mail.

On first glance, the Wagoneer S seems like it tried to copy the Range Rover Velar’s homework. It’s sleek for a crossover, with a high focus on fashion, but it doesn’t carry itself with the visual ruggedness you might expect from a Jeep. There are some parts bin pieces on display like the same recessed door handles we recently saw on the upcoming Dodge Charger, but otherwise, the Wagoneer S distinguishes itself from the rest of the Jeep lineup with elements like unique lighting and an aero-friendly interpretation of the classic seven-slot Jeep grille.

2024 Jeep Wagoneer 5

It’s particularly interesting how Jeep appears to be cheating the look of a traditional SUV roofline by using a massive rear spoiler and quarter window trim pieces to hide aggressively sloping the rear glass, likely for aerodynamic purposes. It’s yet to be seen what effect this has on cargo capacity, but don’t expect Grand Cherokee-like height in the cargo hold of the Wagoneer S. Also, let’s hope this thing has a rear wiper, unlike the Hyundai Ioniq 5.

2024 Jeep Wagoneer 6

While Jeep certainly hasn’t released a list of available features, there are some things we can discern from these leaked photos. The lens for a heads up display sits prominently atop the dashboard, while the expected panoramic sunroof is on full display. As you’d expect from a vehicle of this caliber, LED headlights and taillights are on deck, the forward sensor suite is prominent, and minor bulges underneath the side mirrors suggest the presence of a 360-degree camera system. One thing that might concern for city-dwellers in left-hand-drive markets like America is the lack of a visible charging door on the right side of the vehicle, traditionally the curbside. Don’t be entirely surprised if it’s located on the driver’s side of the vehicle.

Expect the Wagoneer S to be officially unveiled later this year, with sales to start in the autumn. As with anything bearing the Wagoneer name, this is positioned as a premium product, so it feels fair to expect a price tag to match. It should give models like the Mercedes-Benz EQE SUV and Cadillac Lyriq some fresh competition, all while kicking off Jeep’s journey into the world of battery electric vehicles.

(Photo credits: Jeep)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

About the Author

View All My Posts

83 thoughts on “If This Is The 2025 Jeep Wagoneer S It’s Definitely An EV, Questionably A Jeep”

  3. I kinda like the big spoiler. It looks like the handle on a soda can crushing device. Convenient for Godzilla when he’s in the mood to toss Jeeps around.

  6. I’m confused. Is it smaller than the ICE Wagoneer? If so, why wouldn’t this be an E Cherokee or Grand Cherokee? I mean, I don’t really care, Jeep has been doing weird shit lately like that three row GC, but it’s just confusing is all.

    1. I think the Airflow is supposed to be one size smaller, probably to avoid direct overlap in shared showrooms, but I would be surprised if it didn’t turn out fairly similar

    3. I agree, Chrysler should be their “EV” brand, more upscale to try and justify the pricing, lost it’s brand identity eons ago so can be whatever. They already have the Pacifica PHEV, redo the front end on this and label it the Town and Country, come out with a couple other smaller premium EV crossovers, and let Jeep be all rugged ruggedy ruggedness.

  11. I wonder if they could make a Chrysler version easily by simply removing the wing/buttress styling feature. You’d end up with one of those ‘coupe crossovers’ which are unfortunately in fashion at the moment. I think it’d be a product planning fail if they made the buttress immovable because it’s part of the rollover crash structure.

  12. Guess they are going to keep trying to make “Wagoneer” be its own thing.

    It is not Cadillac. It is not Range Rover. Hell it isn’t a Lexus. People loved Wagoneers for their utility, not because it was some ultra luxury car.

    1. The OG Wagoneer was rather famous for being the car model with the highest median income owners. At a time when all other utility vehicles were very heavy on the utility and not much else, the Wagoneer was very comfortable inside.
      In my experience it was very common to see Wagoneers being used as tow vehicles for horse trailers even as late as the late 90s/early 2000’s, when I started paying attention to such things. The newest Wagoneers were 10 years old by that point.

      1. Yeah, Grand Wagoneer buyers from the late ’70s to early ’90s had the highest average household net worth of any domestic brand vehicle, and usually owned at least two other cars, which were invariably European luxury makes. It was a tantalizing market that Chrysler never figured out how to tap with their other models

          1. Yeah, the middle class communities got white or beige Volvo 240 wagons by the train load, upper class got Grand Wagoneers. Both recieved the same cargo area cage for the Golden Retriever, however

          3. Can confirm!
            As the owner of an original Grand Wagoneer who recently visited Cape Cod/Nantucket for the first time, I was in heaven when I realized that old Wagoneers were still everywhere!

        2. Instead of killing it they really should have put in a fuel injected v8 and given it a good update and had a competitor for the Yukon/Escalade/Navigator

          1. They replaced it with a ZJ-derived model that was basically a Grand Cherokee with faux wood decals, sold poorly and was dropped after just two model years. Which further goes to show it was the vehicle itself people found appealing and that the name itself wasn’t enough of a pull to sell anything it was slapped onto

      1. In the post about Wagoneer discounts, there were quite a few late comments from people saying how much they loved their Wagoneer. I honestly couldn’t tell if they were bots or not. Seems like the overwhelming majority do not find anything special about them.

  13. I think Stellantis may have a belief that the Wagoneer brand has a wider appeal than it does. People like the classic Grand Wagoneer, but that’s more to do with that one specific model than an affection for the name itself

      2. Every ‘brand’ gets its own marketing department. Marketing people love that.

        Marketing folk have really marketed themselves well to manufacturers. I wonder if any of them can market this thing to the public.

      4. Until Dodge Rams became RAM, my least favorite was when the Outback trim level from Subaru morphed into a model name. There was the Legacy, the Legacy Outback (and IIRC other models had an Outback trim), then the Outback became the model.

    2. Stellantis just loves brands. Is there a reason to have Ram and Dodge instead of just Dodge? Is there a reason to have Citroen and DS instead of just Citroen? Was there a reason to buy Opel and Vauxhall when they already had Peugeot and Citroen? The answer to all of these questions is no.

      Though badging DS models as Chryslers so they would have a second product would be interesting they obviously can’t combine a brand.

      1. Ram and DS have never made sense to me, I constantly hear people refer to the trucks as Dodge Rams, even 15 years later, it really feels like it’s never been accepted as a marque by the general public. I believe the reason it was done in the first place was so the pickup business would be easier to unwind and sell off separate if Chrysler went bankrupt again and liquidated, but that concern seems to have mostly passed.

        Not sure how accepted DS is, but the Citroën DS is such an iconic car, I find it hard to believe people bought into separating the names easily

          1. I love how everything X is mentioned in an article, it always has to be followed with (formerly known as Twitter) – if people can only use your new name in conjunction with the old name, what was the point of rebranding in the first place?

  15. It looks good for what it is. No one is going to buy it and it’s a dumb product in one of the most oversaturated classes of vehicle on the road. But it DOES look nice, so it has that going for it, I guess?

    I’ll reiterate what I’ve been saying for months at this point: no one wants or needs another $60,000+ EV crossover. The market can’t support them. The amount of people who can and are willing to incinerate that much money on an asset that’s going to depreciate like an anvil being dropped off the summit of Everest and requires so many compromises is finite.

    The people who are going to buy these already bought one of the 7,000 different ones a year or two ago. Many of them have already ditched them and they’re sitting on dealer lots for barely more than half of what they sold for originally. No one wants or needs these products and they’re a stupid waste of resources and a monument to corporate greed.

    Focus on making small affordable EVs. BEVs make excellent commuter cars. When it comes to haulers they’re so compromised it’s ridiculous. I’m sure this will be advertised at 300ish miles of range on a full charge. That’ll be 250ish at best in the real world. Load in the two kids, partner, dog, and all their stuff and it’ll be 220. Drop the temperature below freezing and it’ll be 180. Add something to tow and it’ll be like 100 feet. Good luck with that road trip!

    This class of cars is literally begging for more hybridization. That’s where these resources should be used. The Pilot, Paluride twins, Tahoe, etc. offer 0 hybrids. The Grand Cherokee only offers a mediocre PHEV that can’t even operate as a normal hybrid. PHEV or traditional hybrid variants of full sized SUVs will give them ridiculous range and still reduce emissions significantly.

    Do that. A lot of it. Pretty please!

    1. I’ve been hearing this over and over again. If nobody wants another one and really wants small affordable EVs Why do the local Chevy dealers have Bolt EUVs sitting on the lot for $35k but $60k Blazer EVs sold as soon as they are allotted to the dealer (before even shipping)?

      People are buying them. So let’s stop pretending like if we say it enough it will come true.

      1. My brother in Christ, this is volume related. Chevy sold about 62,000 Bolts in 2023. I can’t find any sales figures for the Blazer yet because it’s brand new, but it’s an exponentially lower volume car right now, especially considering the stop sale order.

        No shit you see more Bolts on lots-they make way more of them. You’re also going to see way more Taos-es on VW lots than you will Golf Rs, and obviously the Golf Rs are all going to sell, et cetera.

        1. So they’ve got plenty of volume to satisfy current demand for the small ones. Why would they stop focusing on the large ones that they can’t keep in stock?

          Or make both, which I think is what is happening.

        1. I agree… but people seem to have surprisingly short memories for things like that. I think it has more impact on people that don’t like EVs in general, not like they are going to buy any EV anyway.

    2. Small nitpick: EV range doesn’t drop that much with added weight unless the vehicle’s regenerative braking capacity is exceeded. In pure ICE cars 100% of the extra energy needed to accelerate the additional weight gets lost as heat when braking, which is why weight is so important for fuel economy there.

      This doesn’t change your overall point though, and I fully agree with it.

        1. Oops, I should’ve been more clear. I meant onboard weight inside the vehicle (passengers, cargo) and not weight from a trailer. I’m not too familiar with trailers, but trailer brakes would eat up some potential regen energy, but the most significant factor for EVs is the trailer’s humongous additional drag.

          Current EVs and trailers designs are definitely not very compatible at the moment.

          1. If electric tow vehicles become an actual thing, someone will need to come up with regen trailer brakes – either with the trailer having its own battery and ability power itself or with the ability to send the regen power to the vehicle’s battery.

            I’m honestly surprised Tesla didn’t come up with something like this to launch with the Cybertruck. They could have made a covered snow mobile trailer with almost the exact side profile of the truck.

            1. I don’t know about the trailer battery idea, most of them are going to sit outside in the driveway in all temperatures and weather conditions not being used at all for like 48-50 weeks out of the year, how well do lithium batteries hold up to not being charged or discharged over such long periods?

              1. I don’t know, but I think I’ve seen stories on here about a couple of camper trailers with electric propulsion.

                I think it would make more sense to just have regen braking and pump the electrons back into the tow vehicle’s tank – that eliminates the battery cost and care concerns. Depending on the cost it would still only make sense if it is used frequently.

                1. That’s not possible, electrons can’t move opposite the direction of travel. It’s basic physics, just ask toecutter.

                  (Jk) (obviously)

              3. It’s an opportunity for rethink. As Thi mentioned, they could double for use as home energy storage during the 95% of the time most trailers just sit around, but also they could work as subordinate EVs, powered by their own batteries with regen all tied into the tow vehicle’s control. That should at least partly make up for the additional weight of the batteries and motors in the trailer taking away from the tow weight limit as well as allowing greater towing range. Give it optional external controls, and it would even make maneuvering them for parking really simple as they could just be decoupled from the tow vehicle and maneuvered with its own wheels into tight spaces with ease.

              4. I really don’t get the obsession with recreational trailers, so I can’t add much to that discussion. Around me, however, I see lots of contractor trailers getting every day use. The owners probably don’t care that much about range since they are going to a relatively local job site. The big win for a battery and regen brake system in those would be work site power.

                1. The issue with contractor trailers is that payload is the single most important consideration, and the more the trailer itself weighs, the less it can carry (particularly without exceeding the tow vehicle’s capacity limit, the driver’s license limit, or local regulations)

                  1. Would the battery really have to be that big? It’s not being used for propulsion, just scavenging. Typically these contractors might be carrying a generator or two and many of those are being replaced by portable batteries. In fact I talked to some guys I spotted on a job site using those battery ‘generators’. What surprised me was one of them was driving a compressor. I didn’t think it would have the power, but they said it was holding up fine.

                    I’d assume integrating it into the chassis would make weight management better. On the other hand, portability would mean not having to work close to your trailer. Maybe have a regen system that you plug your portable units into when in transit?
                    That might be good for people trailering electric motorcycles and such too.

  17. Re: charge door location, I reckon it is time to bring back the filling door behind the license plate, or similar ‘middle of the back of the car’ position. It makes a lot of sense – they were there to start with so that it didn’t matter what side of the pump you pulled in on, you can reach from either side. It only went away because of crashworthiness concerns with fuel tanks, but EV charging receptacles aren’t going to be driven through the battery and cause a leak in the event of a rear end collision, so I don’t see why the solution can’t come back again.

    1. It’s easiest to pull into a garage or charging stall front first, then back out. So a port near the front makes most sense. Dead center rear would be a problem if you are street parking and up against another car. Or if you are parked in a garage and someone needs to walk around the back to get into the house it’s not gunna happen unless you have the garage door open all the time.

      I know it’s extra cost but a charge port on both sides could be done. OR make the charge port easily swappable from either side by the dealer. Seems doable as well.

      1. With a backup camera, I dont see how it’s any harder to back a big truck into a charging spot than pull in, seems like it’s a six of one/half dozen of the other thing

        1. My wifes EV has one of those 360 degree camera views. It’s still unquestionably easier to just pull into a stall head-first and then back out into the aisle. Backing into a stall can be done but its more stressful and most people chose to pull in nose-first if given the choice.

        2. Nearly all new cars nowadays use their BLIS sensors for Cross Traffic Alert when backing up. This, in addition with mandatory backup cameras, makes pulling into a spot forwards the safest and most accessible to most people. While backing into a spot is made easier with backup cameras, getting out of there is harder in low visibility situations like when you’re trying to look over Suburbans or insanely tall stock full size modern pickup truck’s hoods.

      2. Good point about pulling into the garage nose first! Though I suppose you could always mount the charger near the garage door…
        Making the charge port dealer-swappable side to side definitely has merit, too. Cars are almost exclusively bi-laterally symmetrical, so if you had a charge door on one side, there could easily enough be a matching styling ‘feature’ (fancy blanking plate) on the other side. That said, I don’t think the connection between the charging port and the battery is as simple as an extension cord – don’t some of the high power chargers require active cooling of the conductors?

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if the connection between the charge port and the battery electronics is basically an extension cord. Extra charge ports are probably expensive because of current EV’s having fancy motorized doors.

        2. Cooling of the conductors sounds interesting and expensive. For that short of a run I’m not sure why they wouldn’t just go with larger conductors to keep temps under 90c or whatever they are rated for in cars. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they did it, EVs seems more complicated then they need to be sometimes.

      3. I wonder if the upcoming Apple Car will be designed after the Magic Mouse and need to be turned upside down to charge through the skid plate.

        1. “break things”

          I’m guessing it will have a proprietary charge port compatible with neither Tesla nor other standards. And you’ll have to buy the plug from Apple for about 5 times the price of all other plugs on the market.

          Also It will require an apple watch or phone to open the doors and access 50% of its functionality. And the car will have no storage memory in any of its systems, so you’ll have to pay a monthly subscription if you want your radio presets saved. It will also actively monitor your usage and download it to the Apple cloud while Apple claims it is the most secure car in the world.

          1. It don’t have wiper blades, but instead a Dyson-like blower to silently clear your windshield with high-pressure air. The blower is all sensor driven and automatic: no manual controls at all. The frequency is fixed and was set by Steve Jobs on his hospital bed.

Leave a Reply