The Jeep Recon is supposed to be Stellantis’ electric love letter to the Wrangler, a boxy off-roader that trades gasoline for batteries without giving up trail credibility. Yet baked into its design is a basic usability flaw that International Harvester quietly solved on the Scout more than forty years ago. The contrast is a reminder that EV packaging is not the only challenge facing modern off-road SUVs; sometimes the real problem is forgetting what earlier engineers already figured out.
By looking closely at how the Recon treats its rear side glass and how the Scout handled the same problem in the 1970s, I can trace a straight line between past and present design choices. The story is not about nostalgia for its own sake, but about how a simple, proven solution to visibility and livability has been left on the shelf just as Jeep tries to reinvent its core product as an electric adventure rig.
Jeep Recon: An electric Wrangler with a visibility catch
Jeep positioned the Recon as a battery-powered counterpart to the Wrangler, with squared-off styling, removable doors, and an upright greenhouse that signals serious off-road intent. The idea is to give buyers a fully electric SUV that still feels like a traditional Jeep, right down to the open-air experience and trail-focused stance. On paper, that makes the Recon one of the most important EVs in the Stellantis pipeline, because it carries the weight of Jeep’s identity into a future where internal combustion is no longer the default.
Yet the Recon’s design introduces a practical compromise that undercuts that mission: the rear side windows are fixed panels that do not roll down, tilt out, or otherwise open. That choice turns the back half of the cabin into a more closed-off space, limiting airflow and making it harder for rear passengers to enjoy the same open feeling that front occupants get when the doors and roof panels are removed. Reporting on the Recon’s packaging has highlighted this specific issue as a core ergonomic miss, noting that the SUV’s rear glass behaves more like a static wall than a functional window, a problem detailed in coverage of how the Jeep Recon’s rear glass compares with classic off-roaders.
Why fixed rear glass is a real-world problem
Fixed rear side glass is not just a minor annoyance; it changes how people can actually use an SUV on the road and on the trail. Rear passengers lose the ability to control their own airflow, which matters on long drives where some occupants want fresh air while others prefer climate control. In an off-road context, being able to drop a rear window helps with spotting obstacles, communicating with people outside the vehicle, and clearing dust or moisture from the cabin without opening a door in a precarious position.
There is also a basic psychological effect when the rear glass does not open. An SUV that looks airy from the outside can feel more confining from the back seat if the windows are sealed, especially for kids or adults who are sensitive to motion sickness. The Recon’s fixed glass means that even with removable doors, the rear occupants are more dependent on the front of the cabin for both visibility and ventilation. That stands in contrast to earlier off-road designs that treated every side window as a tool, not just a styling element, and it is exactly where the old International Harvester Scout shows how much smarter the packaging can be.
The 1970s IH Scout’s simple, clever side glass solution
International Harvester’s Scout, particularly in its 1970s iterations, approached side glass with a mix of simplicity and flexibility that feels surprisingly modern. The Scout’s designers recognized that an off-road SUV needed windows that could adapt to different conditions, from highway cruising to slow, technical trails. Instead of locking the rear side glass into a single fixed position, they built in mechanisms that allowed those windows to open in practical ways, giving passengers more control over airflow and outward visibility.
That meant Scout owners could crack the rear side glass to vent heat, swing it open to talk to someone outside, or close it tight when the weather turned bad, all without sacrificing the structural integrity of the body. The hardware was not exotic, but it was robust enough to survive real-world abuse, which is why so many Scouts still on the road retain fully functional rear window mechanisms. In effect, International Harvester treated the rear side glass as part of the vehicle’s toolset, not as a decorative panel, and that mindset solved the very usability problem that now shows up on the Recon.
How the Scout’s design directly addresses the Recon’s flaw
When I compare the two vehicles, the Scout’s approach reads like a direct answer to the Recon’s most obvious oversight. The Scout’s opening rear side glass gives back-seat passengers agency, letting them manage their own comfort without relying entirely on the HVAC system or the front windows. On a trail, those windows become functional apertures for hand signals, quick conversations, or simply leaning out to check a rock or rut, all while staying belted in. The Recon’s fixed glass, by contrast, forces occupants to open a door or shout through the front if they want the same interaction.
The Scout also shows that you do not need complex electronics or heavy mechanisms to make rear glass useful. Its solution is mechanical, serviceable, and compatible with the boxy, body-on-frame architecture that modern off-road EVs like the Recon are trying to emulate. The fact that a 1970s SUV can offer more flexible rear window behavior than a brand-new electric Jeep underscores how much of the Recon’s problem is not about batteries or crash standards, but about design priorities. Where the Scout treated every panel as an opportunity to improve function, the Recon appears to have accepted a compromise that owners will feel every time someone climbs into the back seat.
Packaging pressures and why Jeep may have accepted the compromise
To be fair to Jeep’s engineers, the Recon is juggling constraints that the Scout never had to consider. An electric SUV has to package a large battery pack, high-voltage wiring, and additional structural reinforcement to protect that hardware in a crash. Those requirements can push designers toward thicker pillars, more complex door structures, and tighter tolerances around glass openings, all of which make movable rear side windows harder to execute. The Recon also has to meet modern side-impact and rollover standards that are far more demanding than anything in the Scout’s era.
There is also the cost and complexity angle. Adding opening mechanisms to rear side glass means more parts, more assembly steps, and more potential warranty issues, especially in a vehicle that is expected to see dust, mud, and water. Jeep may have decided that fixed glass was the simplest way to keep weight and cost in check while still delivering removable doors and roof panels. The problem is that customers will not judge the Recon by its internal trade-off spreadsheets; they will compare how it feels to sit in and use against both modern rivals and the classic off-roaders that inspired it. On that score, the Scout’s decades-old solution still looks like the smarter choice.
What the Scout teaches about user-centered off-road design
The Scout’s rear glass is a small example of a broader philosophy that treated the driver and passengers as active participants in off-road travel, not just cargo to be moved. Features like opening side windows, simple tailgate mechanisms, and easily removable tops were all designed to make the vehicle more adaptable to whatever the day demanded. That mindset is what made the Scout a favorite among people who actually used their trucks for work, camping, and exploration, rather than just commuting.
For modern EVs like the Recon, the lesson is that user-centered design is not just about touchscreens, drive modes, or smartphone integration. It is about the basic ways people interact with the body and glass, how they get air, sightlines, and communication with the outside world. The Scout shows that you can build those qualities into a rugged, boxy SUV without sacrificing durability. If anything, the simplicity of its solutions makes them more compatible with the kind of hard use that off-road buyers expect, which is exactly the audience Jeep is courting with its electric lineup.
How Jeep could still course-correct on the Recon
The good news for Jeep is that the Recon’s rear glass issue is not an unsolvable engineering crisis; it is a design decision that can be revisited. Future model years could introduce opening rear side windows, whether through a pop-out mechanism, a partial drop, or a sliding panel that preserves structural strength while restoring functionality. Jeep has a long history of incremental improvements on core models, and the Recon could follow that pattern if customer feedback makes it clear that the current setup is not acceptable.
Jeep could also look directly at vehicles like the Scout for inspiration, not as retro styling cues but as proof-of-concept for durable, user-friendly hardware. By treating the rear side glass as a critical interface rather than a styling flourish, the company would align the Recon more closely with the practical needs of off-road drivers and passengers. In an EV market where differentiation often comes down to software and range numbers, a simple, mechanical fix rooted in 1970s truck logic might be exactly what makes an electric Jeep feel like the real thing.
More from MorningOverview