Mmmmmm, Farrah Fawcett. Greatest. Poster. Ever.I'm an old guy too, unfortunately I never grew up. The battery power model thrills me less than the wife's special flashlight she keeps in the night stand. The 392 however, makes me feel funny inside. Kinda like those Farrah Fawcett posters we use to have.
Wearing out tires is, fun. And it also has a loud button so you can't hear the honks while texting at the light.
Now, if you want to not understand something, I'm all for not understanding that OP banner thing.
392 is siiiick and i need it..want it.... one dayWell, I know I’m an old guy and not “kewl”, but frankly the new “specialty” Jeeps are something I totally fail to get. You’ve got the 4XE and the 392. Both cost more money ( a 392 a LOT more money), burn more fuel (4XE is significantly worse than the 2.0 or 3.6 when running the engine). The hybrid also adds a ton of complexity, and I’m sure your insurance agent will be your new best buddy when you insure the 392. I just don’t see the point of either option. Neither will do anything that a regular gasser won’t do (ok, the 392 will wear out tires faster when doing burnouts), neither will go places lower models won’t. The top speed of the hot rod is still only 99 mph... unless a guy is just driven to have something “different” and has a lot of money to throw away I can’t figure what the “gain” would be to owning either model. The hybrid “might” have an edge is you commute in yours daily and the total trip is under 20 miles, but you’re dragging around a lot of extra weight and a lot of electrical and mechanical complexity to get that short 20 mile “gas free” trip. My 2.0 has consistently been mid 20’s on combined roads and I can baby it and hit 30. (I don’t, but I have just to see if I could). Anyway, different strokes for different folks I guess, but both models to me look like solutions in search of a problem. YMMV
Many of us buying the 4xe have a history with electrics or hybrids, and chose the 4xe over other non-Jeep alternatives. This certainly isn't a Jeep for everyone, but it has its place. For me, with a short commute (all-electric unless I open it up) and occasional off-road needs for work and fun, this has been a great little vehicle. I bought it because of the tax credit, sky-high trade-in values (on the vehicle I traded in), and fun factor. This is bridging a gap for me between a Nissan Armada (traded in) and a Rivian R1S (delivering next year). I'm sure the 392 will have buyers in similarly unique situations. Definitely different strokes for different folks, just sharing my perspective as this forum has been very helpful for me. I applaud Jeep for trying new things and hitting a couple of interesting niches.Well, I know I’m an old guy and not “kewl”, but frankly the new “specialty” Jeeps are something I totally fail to get. You’ve got the 4XE and the 392. Both cost more money ( a 392 a LOT more money), burn more fuel (4XE is significantly worse than the 2.0 or 3.6 when running the engine). The hybrid also adds a ton of complexity, and I’m sure your insurance agent will be your new best buddy when you insure the 392. I just don’t see the point of either option. Neither will do anything that a regular gasser won’t do (ok, the 392 will wear out tires faster when doing burnouts), neither will go places lower models won’t. The top speed of the hot rod is still only 99 mph... unless a guy is just driven to have something “different” and has a lot of money to throw away I can’t figure what the “gain” would be to owning either model. The hybrid “might” have an edge is you commute in yours daily and the total trip is under 20 miles, but you’re dragging around a lot of extra weight and a lot of electrical and mechanical complexity to get that short 20 mile “gas free” trip. My 2.0 has consistently been mid 20’s on combined roads and I can baby it and hit 30. (I don’t, but I have just to see if I could). Anyway, different strokes for different folks I guess, but both models to me look like solutions in search of a problem. YMMV
There's something else people tend to forget about the EV powertrain and it's environmental impact or technology. The ICE is more than 100 years old and has a huge amount of development behind it. EV power training has not even started in terms of development (compared to ICE). Imagine what this option will be looking like in the years to come. I don't think it will be long before EV cars have 1000+ mile range and much faster charging.The reality is that battery production and waste is definitely harmful for the environment, but you need to stack it up against fossil fuel environmental impacts to try to find the lesser of two evils.
But the bottom line is we can't keep closing our eyes and plugging our ears to the changing environment and our impact on it. You don't need to be part of Greenpeace to accept the fact that our industries are having a negative impact on the planet's ecosystems. We can't just keep growing at this rate and doing things the way we've always done them. Changes need to be made in a lot of areas.
Industrious and determined people will find ways to accept this change and adapt and even create opportunity through the challenges. The people who just cross their arms and stick to the same sad name-calling are just being willfully ignorant, in my opinion.
And to get there it's going to take those of us who invest in the early iterations to drive that research and technology.There's something else people tend to forget about the EV powertrain and it's environmental impact or technology. The ICE is more than 100 years old and has a huge amount of development behind it. EV power training has not even started in terms of development (compared to ICE). Imagine what this option will be looking like in the years to come. I don't think it will be long before EV cars have 1000+ mile range and much faster charging.
You actually made my point. Electricity "could" be the answer, but we are trading one mess for another. Today it costs too much to recycle lithium so it just gets scraped. Hopefully the technology will get there, right now we may as well be driving coal fired steam cars.I'll beg to differ a little bit on that statement.
You are absolutely correct that we need to replace fossil fuels. Where I differ is that we do actually have the answer in electricity, but there are three fundamental problems with electricity;
1) How do we create it without raping and pillaging some other part of the environment?
2) How do we move it in much larger quantities than we move it today?
3) And, how do we store it once we get it to where we need it?
Once those questions are answered, we're good to go. Maybe there really is an Arc Reactor out there somewhere
..... right now we may as well be driving coal fired steam cars.
Two words...Cheryl Tiegs.Mmmmmm, Farrah Fawcett. Greatest. Poster. Ever.
Oh, for sure. It's going to evolve exponentially like most technologies have done over the last 10-20 years. 20 years ago most computers were comprised of towers and monitors that would take up most of a large desk, but now we're walking around with smart phones and smart watches that are thousands of times more powerful. Look to military, medicine, entertainment... very few areas of tech that haven't progressed incredibly fast over the last couple decades. With everything tech is giving us these days and the minds working on this stuff, I just don't see electric car batteries being something that stumps engineers for years to come. Progress will continue to be made.There's something else people tend to forget about the EV powertrain and it's environmental impact or technology. The ICE is more than 100 years old and has a huge amount of development behind it. EV power training has not even started in terms of development (compared to ICE). Imagine what this option will be looking like in the years to come. I don't think it will be long before EV cars have 1000+ mile range and much faster charging.
More likely these Level2 chargers will be gone... level3 chargers are so much faster and Jeep will need them for the all battery Wranglers that will be smashing the trails of Moab...I do wonder if those will still be there in 3-5 years. Or if they'll still have a Jeep logo.
Yes and no. Ev powertrains specific to vehicles are actually older than ICE but the application specific development is low due to lack of widespread usage.There's something else people tend to forget about the EV powertrain and it's environmental impact or technology. The ICE is more than 100 years old and has a huge amount of development behind it. EV power training has not even started in terms of development (compared to ICE). Imagine what this option will be looking like in the years to come. I don't think it will be long before EV cars have 1000+ mile range and much faster charging.