2 DOOR JL build/order discussions master thread

[blueshirtz11]

Hopefully I get some good solid news but then again why believe anything that Jeep says

Really hoping my Jeep is on the same rail/truck. No reason it shouldn’t be.

Sponsored

 

[jman]

I walked into my dealership to see what the real story is, as far as they know on the 2 door builds. After having been told that my 2 door will not be on lot till July if I am lucky (Ordered it 3/24 - Rubicon, Ocean Blue, Hard Top) I decided to try a 4 Door Rubicon in White they had on the lot with every option (Sticker was $57k). The ride and handling sold me immediately. Since it really was not that big of a difference in driving and turning radius for me, I made the change over. I never thought I would get into a 4 door but I certainly see the appeal in it. I suggest while you wait for the 2 door build just test drive the 4 door for fun. I honeslty think if my 2 door came in at same time I would now choose the 4 door. The extra space will help with all the gear and friends I drive around. Anyway I still have 2 two door JK's at home (my daughters jeeps) that I could drive when in the mood. Good luck on waiting for your builds to arrive. It will all be worth it.

I'm glad that worked for you but hell no. I've owned 4 door Jeeps before and never again. Totally not my style.

 

[alltimesaresoon]

a review of the latest tracking spreadsheet gives one the idea that turbo 2 L 2 doors are now getting priority over 3.6L. All of the late march or april orders that have gone D1 are turbo

 

[keda69]

a review of the latest tracking spreadsheet gives one the idea that turbo 2 L 2 doors are now getting priority over 3.6L. All of the late march or april orders that have gone D1 are turbo

ofcourse , because they are more money 1000.00 for the engine and your paying 2000.00for automatic also . bigger profit just like the four doors .

 

[Jax2578]

Grr... My Estimated Build Date is now unknown.

 

[zb39]

She’s here! After placing my order back on December 23rd and all the delays, I can’t believe shipping actually went so quickly. Not even a week. I’m trying to free up my afternoon so I can go get her. Ahhhhhhhh!

CONGRATS, Awesome looking Jeep..............ENJOY!

 

[Fred]

She’s here! After placing my order back on December 23rd and all the delays, I can’t believe shipping actually went so quickly. Not even a week. I’m trying to free up my afternoon so I can go get her. Ahhhhhhhh!

Congratulations, awesome, how about some interior pics?

 

[warc1]

ofcourse , because they are more money 1000.00 for the engine and your paying 2000.00for automatic also . bigger profit just like the four doors .

This argument keeps getting trotted out and makes no sense to the point that I'm going to make one last (admittedly long) attempt to try and explain why. FCA does not get $3000 more for each 2.0T. They get no more than two month's interest on the profit margin that I can demonstrate below is likely less than $10 per vehicle. They are probably fast tracking less than 3,000 vehicles meaning their total financial benefit is around $30,000. Do you really think that's the reason 2.0T's are temporarily being accelerated?

No, as I've said before, the most likely explanation is risk management. 2drs and 2.0T's are being rolled out at the same time. During initial production you have heightened oversight to ensure initial production does not have systemic issues. That means more checks, more tests, and more inspection staff that has a very high ongoing cost for which you want to minimize the duration. Those costs are orders of magnitude above $30,000, and if you are rolling out two new product developments (2dr and 2.0T), they can be economized by doing as much as you can in parallel. More significantly, with just one assembly line making all JL's, you greatly lower the risk to the entire production with one combined launch, rather than have two separate introductions with two points of impact to production.

In other words, two possible explanations for accelerating 2.0T's are for FCA to earn an extra $30,000 in total or to manage millions of dollars in risk. What do you think the answer is?

So here's the math and I'll make it as conservative as possible. It should be obvious that these orders are not replacing V6 orders, only deferring them for likely no more than a month, but for the sake of conservancy, I'll make it two. That means this is not new money, only a change in cash flow to get more revenue up front. Total revenue will be the same no matter what the order of the builds are. FCA's benefit under this scenario is that they either earn interest or lower their cost of money by front loading the revenue stream.

Let's say the profit margin on the 2.0L and transmission is 50%, which is an extremely high number. And let's say the cost of money is 7% per year, or 1.16% over two months. Manual Wrangler builds are less that 20% of total production, so the $2,000 transmission value has to be modified by that percentage. The resulting equation for the net increase in revenue to FCA is then [0.5(1000)+0.5(.2)(2000)]0.0116. That's $8.10 per vehicle.

Regarding aggregate value, FCA is trying to ramp up 2dr production to 6,000 vehicles per month and are likely nowhere near that number. But let's say they are. Let's also say that nominal demand for 2.0L is 25% of production (high in my view) and that they are now accelerating them to 50% of production. The total number of accelerated vehicles over two months becomes 6,000(.5-.25)2. That works out to 3,000 total vehicles, and if you round up my $8.10 net profit to $10, you get an aggregate total of $30,000.

You can argue that I'm way off base, and that my assumptions are out by an order of magnitude, and you'll still get nowhere near the risk management benefit.

 

[Fred]

I walked into my dealership to see what the real story is, as far as they know on the 2 door builds. After having been told that my 2 door will not be on lot till July if I am lucky (Ordered it 3/24 - Rubicon, Ocean Blue, Hard Top) I decided to try a 4 Door Rubicon in White they had on the lot with every option (Sticker was $57k). The ride and handling sold me immediately. Since it really was not that big of a difference in driving and turning radius for me, I made the change over. I never thought I would get into a 4 door but I certainly see the appeal in it. I suggest while you wait for the 2 door build just test drive the 4 door for fun. I honeslty think if my 2 door came in at same time I would now choose the 4 door. The extra space will help with all the gear and friends I drive around. Anyway I still have 2 two door JK's at home (my daughters jeeps) that I could drive when in the mood. Good luck on waiting for your builds to arrive. It will all be worth it.

While I wait for my ordered two door ( an agreement to buy in the first place that I would not break) I would never consider a four door no matter what the ride . Don't need room for stuff or want people in the back seat anyways. Plenty of room and actually more than I need in a two door with the back seat out. Plus the four door only looks like a Jeep from the front. Viewed from the side it may as well be stretched out farther with 6 doors! Imagine all the fun and storage you could have then! I and many others as pissed off as we are will wait for our two door to arrive. We prefer it not only for looks, but it is more capable off road in tight spaces. Not knocking the four door as it does have a place in the Jeep world, and it serves it well.

 

[warc1]

She’s here! After placing my order back on December 23rd and all the delays, I can’t believe shipping actually went so quickly. Not even a week. I’m trying to free up my afternoon so I can go get her. Ahhhhhhhh

I can only imagine the relief and joy after a buying process so high in frustration. Here's hoping many more deliveries will follow quickly (not the least of which - mine)

 

[alltimesaresoon]

This argument keeps getting trotted out and makes no sense to the point that I'm going to make one last (admittedly long) attempt to try and explain why. FCA does not get $3000 more for each 2.0T. They get no more than two month's interest on the profit margin that I can demonstrate below is likely less than $10 per vehicle. They are probably fast tracking less than 300 vehicles meaning their total financial benefit is around $3,000. Do you really think that's the reason 2.0T's are temporarily being accelerated?

No, as I've said before, the most likely explanation is risk management. 2drs and 2.0T's are being rolled out at the same time. During initial production you have heightened oversight to ensure initial production does not have systemic issues. That means more checks, more tests, and more inspection staff that has a very high ongoing cost for which you want to minimize the duration. Those costs are orders of magnitude above $3,000, and if you are rolling out two new product developments (2dr and 2.0T), they can be economized by doing as much as you can in parallel. More significantly, with just one assembly line making all JL's, you greatly lower the risk to the entire production with one combined launch, rather than have two separate introductions with two points of impact to production.

In other words, two possible explanations for accelerating 2.0T's are for FCA to earn an extra $3,000 in total or to manage millions of dollars in risk. What do you think the answer is?

So here's the math and I'll make it as conservative as possible. It should be obvious that these orders are not replacing V6 orders, only deferring them for likely no more than a month, but for the sake of conservancy, I'll make it two. That means this is not new money, only a change in cash flow to get more revenue up front. Total revenue will be the same no matter what the order of the builds are. FCA's benefit under this scenario is that they either earn interest or lower their cost of money by front loading the revenue stream.

Let's say the profit margin on the 2.0L and transmission is 50%, which is an extremely high number. And let's say the cost of money is 7% per year, or 1.16% over two months. Manual Wrangler builds are less that 20% of total production, so the $2,000 transmission value has to be modified by that percentage. The resulting equation for the net increase in revenue to FCA is then [0.5(1000)+0.5(.2)(2000)]0.0116. That's $8.10 per vehicle.

Regarding aggregate value, FCA is trying to ramp up 2dr production to 600 vehicles per month and are likely nowhere near that number. But let's say they are. Let's also say that nominal demand for 2.0L is 25% of production (high in my view) and that they are now accelerating them to 50% of production. The total number of accelerated vehicles over two months becomes 600(.5-.25)2. That works out to 300 total vehicles, and if you round up my $8.10 net profit to $10, you get an aggregate total of $3,000.

You can argue that I'm way off base, and that my assumptions are out by an order of magnitude, and you'll still get nowhere near the risk management benefit.

yes, your math makes sense, but you have failed to calculate the most important factor. people like to gripe and complain and think that the world is against them. your scenario doesn't adequately align with that world view, so it will be discarded in favor of one that does match.

 

[Sydneytola]

This argument keeps getting trotted out and makes no sense to the point that I'm going to make one last (admittedly long) attempt to try and explain why. FCA does not get $3000 more for each 2.0T. They get no more than two month's interest on the profit margin that I can demonstrate below is likely less than $10 per vehicle. They are probably fast tracking less than 3,000 vehicles meaning their total financial benefit is around $30,000. Do you really think that's the reason 2.0T's are temporarily being accelerated?

No, as I've said before, the most likely explanation is risk management. 2drs and 2.0T's are being rolled out at the same time. During initial production you have heightened oversight to ensure initial production does not have systemic issues. That means more checks, more tests, and more inspection staff that has a very high ongoing cost for which you want to minimize the duration. Those costs are orders of magnitude above $30,000, and if you are rolling out two new product developments (2dr and 2.0T), they can be economized by doing as much as you can in parallel. More significantly, with just one assembly line making all JL's, you greatly lower the risk to the entire production with one combined launch, rather than have two separate introductions with two points of impact to production.

In other words, two possible explanations for accelerating 2.0T's are for FCA to earn an extra $30,000 in total or to manage millions of dollars in risk. What do you think the answer is?

So here's the math and I'll make it as conservative as possible. It should be obvious that these orders are not replacing V6 orders, only deferring them for likely no more than a month, but for the sake of conservancy, I'll make it two. That means this is not new money, only a change in cash flow to get more revenue up front. Total revenue will be the same no matter what the order of the builds are. FCA's benefit under this scenario is that they either earn interest or lower their cost of money by front loading the revenue stream.

Let's say the profit margin on the 2.0L and transmission is 50%, which is an extremely high number. And let's say the cost of money is 7% per year, or 1.16% over two months. Manual Wrangler builds are less that 20% of total production, so the $2,000 transmission value has to be modified by that percentage. The resulting equation for the net increase in revenue to FCA is then [0.5(1000)+0.5(.2)(2000)]0.0116. That's $8.10 per vehicle.

Regarding aggregate value, FCA is trying to ramp up 2dr production to 6,000 vehicles per month and are likely nowhere near that number. But let's say they are. Let's also say that nominal demand for 2.0L is 25% of production (high in my view) and that they are now accelerating them to 50% of production. The total number of accelerated vehicles over two months becomes 6,000(.5-.25)2. That works out to 3,000 total vehicles, and if you round up my $8.10 net profit to $10, you get an aggregate total of $30,000.

You can argue that I'm way off base, and that my assumptions are out by an order of magnitude, and you'll still get nowhere near the risk management benefit.

I spoke with my dealer today. He says they have had meetings with the FCA reps and were told the reason they are pushing the Turbos is because of the gas mileage. Apparently they need to get these out to increase some average gas mileage rating due to a government regulation that is going into effect.

 

[jman]

I spoke with my dealer today. He says they have had meetings with the FCA reps and were told the reason they are pushing the Turbos is because of the gas mileage. Apparently they need to get these out to increase some average gas mileage rating due to a government regulation that is going into effect.

That is much more likely to be the case. I don't really agree with warc1.

 

[alltimesaresoon]

there's also the positive marketing angle of having turbos in the showroom and on the floor and saying "turbo" and improved gas mileage to customers. it's diversification of the brand

 

[warc1]

I spoke with my dealer today. He says they have had meetings with the FCA reps and were told the reason they are pushing the Turbos is because of the gas mileage. Apparently they need to get these out to increase some average gas mileage rating due to a government regulation that is going into effect.

I'll buy that over the profit argument. Still, I'd wager it's a multi-factor decision, for which, risk management is a primary factor. Otherwise, why schedule the 2dr and 2.0T introduction at the same time? They could have started pushing 2.0T's on JLU's at any time and more easily met a fuel economy regulation.

Sponsored