Extended Warranty Mopar

[TopGunViper]

Who or how do you get in touch with the person from this site to get this warranty?

Sponsored

 

[Pismo61]

Yep 995.00 6year-60000 miles for a 2022 with 18000 miles.Goes up a little from there.Worth it if you do it before the 3year 36000 mile basic warranty is done.

 

[Vinny2002]

Yeah learned my lesson.. This is cheaper if you buy earlier in the life of the Jeep

 

[Ratbert]

Who or how do you get in touch with the person from this site to get this warranty?

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...now-offering-payment-plans-all-online.125507/

https://www.buymoparwarranty.com/

 

[autotragic]

Yeah learned my lesson.. This is cheaper if you buy earlier in the life of the Jeep

buymoparwarranty.com

I didn't buy the max care which is basically bumper to bumper coverage but I bought the one down from that one that's powertrain plus all the ancillaries and the electronics which are the most important parts. You also save a pretty penny if you get a deductible versus no out-of-pocket so $100 deductible can save you quite a bit of money and like I said I only use it for the expensive bits not the bullshit that I don't care about anyway.

 

[TrentYoung]

Absolutely 100% worth it. It cost me just over $2,000 but now no worries for the next eight years, 120,000 miles, and zero deductible.

 

[rcoe]

The original owner of my Jeep bought the 8 year/125k MoparMax warranty. It was transferrable for $50 definitely factored into me buying it.

So might also be a plus for resale in the future.

 

[wrexdet]

buymoparwarranty.com

I didn't buy the max care which is basically bumper to bumper coverage but I bought the one down from that one that's powertrain plus all the ancillaries and the electronics which are the most important parts. You also save a pretty penny if you get a deductible versus no out-of-pocket so $100 deductible can save you quite a bit of money and like I said I only use it for the expensive bits not the bullshit that I don't care about anyway.

Thanks for pointing this out. This fits exactly the level of coverage I would care about. A lot cheaper vs the Max. I pulled the trigger and got this.

 

[AndySpill]

Anyone drop the bucks on this? Worth it? My 2020 has already had the new steering gearbox, 4 doors, hood, tailgate replaced.. and today the timing chain cover gasket. Warranty ends in March and with this many problems thinking it might be worth it?

Vinny:

Warranties are very personnel. If you run into issues, and Stellantis vehicles have had their share, they can save you money. Still more, some drive, and know they do, their vehicles harder than others.

But the reality is that statistically speaking, such warranties, which are issued for the purposes of making profit (and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the guarantor makes good on covering repairs that fall under the warranty's terms) by their very definition take in more money in insurance premiums (and the interest earned on investing that money) than they pay out in repairs.

Like those commercials on TV for plans like CarShield, many of the people you've heard from above are those who experienced repair issues. You haven't heard from the countless others, albeit even those who don't regret getting the insurance, who simply paid their premiums and experienced no, or less issues in cost than what was taken in by the underwriter of the policy in premiums.

For naysayers let me put this in converse. If these plans were statically good decisions they would pay out more than taken in in premiums and become financially insolvent. Statistically, the money not spent on such policies and put in interest bearing accounts will more than likely yield you more. Sure, some people will regret not getting the insurance: most won't.

According to Standard and Poor's, the average annualized return of the S&P index, which later became the S&P 500, from 1926 to 2020 was 10%. 1 At 10%, you could double your initial investment every seven years (72 divided by 10) (before taxes.) This in investing is known as the "rule of 7."

This by no means is a dig against insurance: of which, given the right insurance, I am a huge proponent. Medical insurance, liability insurance (especially as mandated by law to drive street legal), property insurance (including liability): yes, yes, yes. These are the insurances, still profitable to the issuer that are needed in life by all but the Warren Buffet's of the world, to prevent catastrophic financial loss. Government issued weather insurance that is not for profit: also generally good.

 

[TheRaven]

You definitely want the warranty. There are members who like to drone on about "warranty companies wouldn't be in business if they didn't make money"...but that's obsolete thinking. Besides, all that information does you no good when you're facing an $8000 engine replacement or your JL is sitting at the dealer waiting for more parts to be thrown at it. Don't forget that you own an FCA product. Just get the warranty.

 

[swampflyer]

I have the max, 0 out of pocket mopar warranty good until 27. I wish you could extend it when it gets close to rumming out. You never know when you will need it with the jeep products.

 

[AndySpill]

You definitely want the warranty. There are members who like to drone on about "warranty companies wouldn't be in business if they didn't make money"...but that's obsolete thinking. Besides, all that information does you no good when you're facing an $8000 engine replacement or your JL is sitting at the dealer waiting for more parts to be thrown at it. Don't forget that you own an FCA product. Just get the warranty.

Kevin:

Warranties are for some; they even prove financially beneficial for some after the fact. But saying that they wouldn't be in business if they didn't make money is obsolete thinking is like saying that the idea that the sun sets in the West is obsolete thinking as well, yes even for Stellantis product.

There is no defying the math. Warranties and insurance, at least from private issuers like we discuss here are designed to make those that issue them money. Occasionally their bean counters get the math wrong but not by design and not more than the vast majority of time they get things correct. That can only happen, again by virtue of the math, if they are charging the insured more than on average they pay out to them, accounting for the interest they earn on invested premiums.

 

[TheRaven]

Kevin:

Warranties are for some; they even prove financially beneficial for some after the fact. But saying that they wouldn't be in business if they didn't make money is obsolete thinking is like saying that the idea that the sun sets in the West is obsolete thinking as well, yes even for Stellantis product.

There is no defying the math. Warranties and insurance, at least from private issuers like we discuss here are designed to make those that issue them money. Occasionally their bean counters get the math wrong but not by design and not more than the vast majority of time they get things correct. That can only happen, again by virtue of the math, if they are charging the insured more than on average they pay out to them, accounting for the interest they earn on invested premiums.

I've explained this countless times on this forum and more than once to you, in fact. Warranties are not funded this way anymore. Bottom line is that for an FCA product, MaxCare/AddedCare is a near-guaranteed win for the JL owner. Period.

Just get the warranty.

 

[AndySpill]

I've explained this countless times on this forum and more than once to you, in fact. Warranties are not funded this way anymore. Bottom line is that for an FCA product, MaxCare/AddedCare is a near-guaranteed win for the JL owner. Period.

Just get the warranty.

Yes Kevin: you have explained it, numerous times, but it's wrong. It was wrong 20 years ago and will be so 20 years from now.

Your spiel goes something like this "bean counters can't be bothered quantifying probabilities of vehicle warranty covered repairs (despite 100's of thousands if not millions of dollars being at stake) and just pool losing vehicle warranty ventures into the those of profitable vehicle ventures with better service records (a.k.a. reinsurance.)"

Each vehicle warranty, whether ultimately profitable or not after the fact, is quantified with intent on making profit, which by definition means that for the average owner, more will be collected in insurance premiums and interest on that money than paid out it claims.

Does this mean that some owners won't come out ahead: especially since this is Stellantis, not Toyota? Of course not. Does it mean that it isn't worth it for some owners to take the warranty, even before the fact, who either know that they're likely to tax their vehicle and/or lack the spare funds to cover the unforeseen repair (a topic for another day on not renting their lifestyle): no. Is the peace of mind of insurance (particularly those living on the margins) worth the cost for some: yes.

But you might as well say that 1 + 1 = 2 is outdated, and in the "new math" it equals 3 to say that vehicle warranty coverage, even on Stellantis product, on the whole is a financially sound move.

I just wish everyone who bought such warranties would be forced to contribute here. You strongly tend to hear here from the outliers who benefited from it. This would be the longest thread on the forum with tons of people--liking or disliking their choice to insure, before or after the fact alike---saying they spent more on the coverage than they used it, for every poster now and then who said it saved them.

This thread is a little like those gabling commercials that show you the big winners except this thread plays on fear while the gambling commercials play on greed: the two emotions, no coincidence, geared by design to motivate people to make bad decisions.

Attention everyone: paid extended warranty coverage is not a service, but a business. From your electric razor to your vehicle and everything in between its underwritten to make policy issuers money, which can only happen if you statistically lose same. Their profit, especially after paying sales commissions only occurs if they win and you lose statistically.

Money managers the world over will tell you that barring the insurances that cover catastrophic loss (e.g. medical, liability, homeowners) that self insurance for the manageable expenses in life on the whole provides a better return. The stock market has, before taxes, historically returned 10% annual. This fact leads to the rule of 7's that finds you doubling your money in about 7 years. Just stick what you'd pay for a warranty in a managed stock index fund.

Extremely wealthy people avoid most insurance, barring life insurance's tax avoiding status. Why is that? Is it that they want to lose money? Large companies often self insure their own medical costs. Is it that they want to lose money? No, it's because there's costs associated with using a profit motivated entity (like insurance companies) versus self-insuring.

Insurance companies aren't per se evil. They have their place. They guard against catastrophic loss for people. They hedge financial risk allowing institutions to take on projects (none of which come without risk) and cap costs if things go sideways. There is a place of them providing a win-win situation for all parties in some lines of business, but not vehicle coverage.

 

[TheRaven]

Yes Kevin: you have explained it, numerous times, but it's wrong. It was wrong 20 years ago and will be so 20 years from now.

Your spiel goes something like this "bean counters can't be bothered quantifying probabilities of vehicle warranty covered repairs (despite 100's of thousands if not millions of dollars being at stake) and just pool losing vehicle warranty ventures into the those of profitable vehicle ventures with better service records (a.k.a. reinsurance.)"

Each vehicle warranty, whether ultimately profitable or not after the fact, is quantified with intent on making profit, which by definition means that for the average owner, more will be collected in insurance premiums and interest on that money than paid out it claims.

Does this mean that some owners won't come out ahead: especially since this is Stellantis, not Toyota? Of course not. Does it mean that it isn't worth it for some owners to take the warranty, even before the fact, who either know that they're likely to tax their vehicle and/or lack the spare funds to cover the unforeseen repair (a topic for another day on not renting their lifestyle): no. Is the peace of mind of insurance (particularly those living on the margins) worth the cost for some: yes.

But you might as well say that 1 + 1 = 2 is outdated, and in the "new math" it equals 3 to say that vehicle warranty coverage, even on Stellantis product, on the whole is a financially sound move.

I just wish everyone who bought such warranties would be forced to contribute here. You strongly tend to hear here from the outliers who benefited from it. This would be the longest thread on the forum with tons of people--liking or disliking their choice to insure, before or after the fact alike---saying they spent more on the coverage than they used it, for every poster now and then who said it saved them.

This thread is a little like those gabling commercials that show you the big winners except this thread plays on fear while the gambling commercials play on greed: the two emotions, no coincidence, geared by design to motivate people to make bad decisions.

Attention everyone: paid extended warranty coverage is not a service, but a business. From your electric razor to your vehicle and everything in between its underwritten to make policy issuers money, which can only happen if you statistically lose same. Their profit, especially after paying sales commissions only occurs if they win and you lose statistically.

Money managers the world over will tell you that barring the insurances that cover catastrophic loss (e.g. medical, liability, homeowners) that self insurance for the manageable expenses in life on the whole provides a better return. The stock market has, before taxes, historically returned 10% annual. This fact leads to the rule of 7's that finds you doubling your money in about 7 years. Just stick what you'd pay for a warranty in a managed stock index fund.

Extremely wealthy people avoid most insurance, barring life insurance's tax avoiding status. Why is that? Is it that they want to lose money? Large companies often self insure their own medical costs. Is it that they want to lose money? No, it's because there's costs associated with using a profit motivated entity (like insurance companies) versus self-insuring.

Insurance companies aren't per se evil. They have their place. They guard against catastrophic loss for people. They hedge financial risk allowing institutions to take on projects (none of which come without risk) and cap costs if things go sideways. There is a place of them providing a win-win situation for all parties in some lines of business, but not vehicle coverage.

Sponsored