You obviously haven't met all woman, my sons wife could off-road you guaranteed! In fact, the met on the Rubicon trail, she was a built 4runner and a Gladiator rubicon. Just sayinAppalled? Grow some thicker skin. I have 4 sisters, a wife, and daughter, and my mom's still around. None are ashamed to admit they dont have an interest in cars, and have always left it to "the men". It is a fact of life that as a whole women dont know as much about cars, or even show as much interest, as men. The trend is now where men are showing less interest and women more, but we're not there yet where the historical precedence and numbers can be ignored. I wouldnt be appalled at someone assuming I am disinclined in vehicle operation and repair just because of my young age, the fact is fewer people are interested in understanding their vehicles. The commentary isn't anything to get your knickers in a bunch over. People were trying to bring levity to the situation.
Now, back on topic;
I have already started gauging interest in trading in my JT or to lease a 4xe wrangler for the wife. Im really liking the idea of it as a commuter vehicle for my worm and grocery getter for her. But if it's just 20-25mi, I would probably pass until they get up to near 50mi real world
I appreciate the logic, which seems that some posts are starting to lose.I can appreciate how delays and frustration can get us all to start imagining conspiracies such as an intentional “bait and switch”, but the logical side of me asks: Why would there need to be a subsequent delay in deliveries? A company engaging in intentional “bait and switch“ behavior is all about the money. Why not rather promise higher numbers, produce vehicles with lower actual numbers, and deliver/sell them ASAP?
A former powertrain software engineer at Chrysler, @jeepoch, posted a compelling case in the “let’s speculate” thread here: https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/whats-the-hold-up-lets-speculate.66078/post-1398622
He explains how automobile manufacturers lose money when large numbers of their already manufactured vehicles are sequestered on a lot at the factory. He basically stated that they go to great lengths to avoid any such fiascos, and to get deliveries rolling as quickly as possible.
The intentional “bait and switch” theory also presupposes that FCA would knowingly embrace the associated reputational damage. Although, I suppose that’s possible, the reality is: Delayed shipments equals lost money, pure and simple. The fact that there is a delay, STRONGLY indicates that whatever is causing said delay was absolutely a surprise to the folks at FCA.
Therefore, I’ve ruled out intentional “bait and switch”, as well as a miscommunication between engineers and marketing department. A few potential explanations in my mind are:
Then again, it could be something entirely different - since I’m just a guy with absolutely no automotive manufacturing experience, and way too much time on my hands as I anxiously await my next new Jeep.
- EPA’s actual testing resulted in less favorable numbers than FCA originally expected/advertised (the fact that US stickers have not been seen indicates strongly that the results that came back from EPA were less favorable than expected, and FCA is scrambling to try to save face). Maybe that “scrambling” involves engineers/software developers going back to the drawing board to try to eek out any additional fuel economy or MPGe improvements they can find, so Jeep/FCA can mitigate some reputational damage.
- With global semiconductor shortages, and other logistical/shipping delays due to COVID-19, it’s not far-fetched to envision a scenario where a shortage on a single part is causing the delay. This would be less likely with a part that FCA expected to include on every 4xe from the start. But it becomes much more plausible if one of the “fixes” or “patches” that FCA engineers choose to utilize, in an effort to ‘reign in‘ the decrease in electric range to “only” 4 miles from 25 to 21, or to ‘reign in’ the decrease in total range to “only“ 30-ish miles from 400 to 369, etc. would be to swap out a particular part, or add a particular part.
- A problem discovered with the original 17.3kWh battery, which is causing FCA to make adjustments, or even to source a different battery, which in turn, would cause all the resulting MPGe/range/HP/Torque figures to change.
Wrong. If the specs changed then we as consumers have the right to walk away 100% reimbursement, including deposits. In similar cases the manufacturer has reimbursed the consumer up to $1,000.Alot of entitled folks kicking around these forums. Jeep owes you nothing. If you are going to complain about the EV range, try buying ANY other EV. None of them get what they say. Some are slighly higher, some are slightly lower. Hell my 2020 Rav4 Hybrid gets 44mpg in the summer and low 30's in the winter. I am not crying at Toyota.
You should just walk - if you are really comparing an X3 to your expectations of something from Jeep, and the different purpose of those 2 vehicles.so, we sit an wait. See what they are really going to deliver and decide if we want it or walk.
They talk about all new tech but my BMW X3E has the same tech, launched as described. May not be an off road beast but it is a finely refined AWD that's much more fuel efficient and way faster then The 4XE before diluted results that were advertised. That car rated at 18 electric only miles and 68 MPGE...new tech....Maybe for FCA.
I'm on the fence and just waiting now....