Is it possible to just flip the soft top back and drive?

[Tfom]

I read up on it. Apparently it's safe to do at any speed under the following conditions.

You must have an angry bird grill, Selec Trac (because it has cv joints instead of a u joint), street tires on 20" wheels, and side steps. You can never drive it off road. You must drive it to the mall. This will be difficult, as the malls are dying. See here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...f-the-mall-as-we-know-it-and-i-feel-fine/amp/

That reminds me, you should read Forbes magazines worst cars to buy list and take it to heart. You should wait to buy a jeep until they "fix the steering problems,"

You need to "lower" the jeep at least 2" and replace your headlights with square headlights. Under no circumstance should you ever wave at another jeep, but you can wave at a gladiator.

Finally, read that whole damned thread about the sunrider position from beginning to end, then calmly walk outside and place a wheel chock under the rear tire. Then, turn the jeep on, put it in reverse, go back out of the jeep, and place your head behind the tire with the chock on it.

Remove the chock.

Nothing will happen, because...

Autopark.

Sponsored

 

[thecritter]

Manual who needs a manual I am a man I don't read such things lmao... Please ladies don't stone me I am joking. As for the OP question can you, yes been 85 mph in West Texas interstate for a few hrs no problem. Should ya it's your call but probably should not drive 85

 

[ThirtyOne]

Related question: can i roll my windows down without taking out the rear windows? Not real clear in the owners manual.

 

[S2k Chris]

People read the owners’ manual? What Velcro straps? Flip two catches, throw the top back, and enjoy. For extra enjoyment, remove doors and windows too. FFS people, get out of your own heads.

Good:

Better:

 

[S2k Chris]

Until you can show us a placard absent of the "refer to the owner's manual for complete details" disclaimer @digitalbliss, FCA can be handing them out with free soda for all the courts care.

FCA will not pay out a dime in damages if it doesn't have to. Case law here is on their side that they won't have to keeping soft windows in while in Sunrider mode causes damages. This has been explained to you a dozen times. You can't manage to even get what is and isn't legally relevant. The fact that these placards are newer perhaps, is equally irrelevant.

Again, I ride with the windows in much of the time.

So--the fact that Jeeps including these is a...wait for it...fact @digitalbliss. ; - )

Please give this a rest. FCA will not say, "you know what, our placard's correct because we actually enjoy being held accountable and paying damages more than law requires us to if your soft windows get or cause damage."

And this is nothing that hasn't already been said a dozen times before to you.

Please come back here with only legally relevant fact, not what you hope is true.

@digitalbliss implying that FCA blesses keeping the windows in, despite this placard, was, is, and always will be wrong for the JL.

What's next @digitalbliss, pictures of FCA execs doing this? A YouTube video of someone's sweet old grandma saying "there, there, it's ok to leave the soft windows in."

Boxing metaphor: for the love of God, stay down for the count.

Perhaps you’d be happier in a Prius than a Jeep, where people are willing to take a risk and live a little.

View attachment 197460

 

[Rahneld]

This picture does not deffer to the owners manual. If Jeep wants to claim you have to take the windows out, then they have committed fraud with this picture.

Jerry, that's an 1) off road picture of a 2) parked JL. We've been through this before. That FCA took and/or posted that picture on its official websites and/or promotional materials doesn't fraud make, or dilute the case law.

Is it deceptive, sure. Do I think running with windows in dangerous: no. Do I do it: at times yes.

 

[Rahneld]

Well I decided to just try it and go off the new placard. I’ll see how it feels around town around 40-55 mph. If all goes well I’ll try it on the expressway at around 70mph. If I ruin the soft top then screw it I’ll just buy the hard top. Lol!

Ronnie: to beat a dead horse, I don't think this dangerous, but I do want to make this point...

damage to the windows and failure for FCA to warranty them is the least of your concerns in the unlikely event that things do go "sideways" here

..its the damage to other vehicles, say on the highway (yes, I see your speed restrictions, I speak in generic terms to others who would act in kind) the accidents such flying windows might cause, the injury or death to others due to a high speed accident that is the real financial exposure here.

It seems people continually combine three independent things here: what I do, what risk I think it introduces, and what FCA will be held accountable for.

1) I often ride with the soft windows in while the soft top's in Sunrider position, 2) I think the risk--which is defined as cost multiplied by probability--is low here, and 3) I know FCA won't pay out a dime if you leave the windows in and a things "go bad."

This is not an anal attempt to get you to follow the manual. This is rather fact as to what FCA expects, and what they'll hold you to if bad things happen, so you can make an informed choice of your own.

 

[Rahneld]

Perhaps you’d be happier in a Prius than a Jeep, where people are willing to take a risk and live a little.

View attachment 197460

I'll tell you what would make me happier Chris: that's for people to read a post before they respond to it with wrong conclusions about my mindset otherwise expressly stated opposite to claims like yours.

I've already expressly claimed that I take the risk you describe. I've already expressly claimed that risk is something that I think is small.

A Prius, given its low profile and size is not a less risky rig, just an environmentally better one--and that's if you don't factor in the pollution to the ground that expired batteries cause.

My purpose though is also to explain FCA's position on this matter and what courts will decide so that those who post crap here don't wrongly influence other's decisions.

People should take risks. It's part of life. But they should do so armed with the correct information so they take informed risk.

In summary, the one less likely thing than your soft windows flying off and causing big money damages to others is that FCA will pay a dime to cover this.

Let me leave you with an analogy. When a healthy adult asks their physician if they should, on a whim, get a full body MRI, that practitioner should say, correctly, that such things don't show improvement to quality and duration of life because it's true. For every rare true medical problem they discover (and is best discovered) early, they detect loads of potential problems, that often are nothing, that lead to further testing, along with its own risks and costs.

But this said, the properly informed patient that then chooses to pay out of pocket for the test, or not: be my guest. It's those here who portray, "definitely get the test" as fact that need to be shut down because they don't leave others with the facts to make the informed decision that exposes them to the risks that are right for them.

 

[Ronnie S]

Ronnie: to beat a dead horse, I don't think this dangerous, but I do want to make this point...

damage to the windows and failure for FCA to warranty them is the least of your concerns in the unlikely event that things do go "sideways" here

..its the damage to other vehicles, say on the highway (yes, I see your speed restrictions, I speak in generic terms to others who would act in kind) the accidents such flying windows might cause, the injury or death to others due to a high speed accident that is the real financial exposure here.

It seems people continually combine three independent things here: what I do, what risk I think it introduces, and what FCA will be held accountable for.

1) I often ride with the soft windows in while the soft top's in Sunrider position, 2) I think the risk--which is defined as cost multiplied by probability--is low here, and 3) I know FCA won't pay out a dime if you leave the windows in and a things "go bad."

This is not an anal attempt to get you to follow the manual. This is rather fact as to what FCA expects, and what they'll hold you to if bad things happen, so you can make an informed choice of your own.

Yep totally understood and appreciated my friend. Good advice. I’ll most likely just try it around the side streets and see if the windows look / feel stable. I just don’t see how they would come out though. Maybe worst case they come out of the body at the bottom and the sides but there’s no way they’d come loose from the top. Those windows are a pain in the butt to get in and out of the tracks at top which is why I started the thread. Lol! They’d probably just hang from the top and cause a bunch of noise. Then I’d pull over ASAP and put things back together the way they were. On an insurance note my auto insurance would most likely kick in and represent me, pay for damages if my windows flew off and caused pain or suffering to an innocent person. They could deny me and say I knew there was a risk but I highly doubt it.

 

[GreyFox]

Booyah

Edit: note that little section saying "for sunrider feature" skip to 3 & 4

 

[Jebiruph]

Jerry, that's an 1) off road picture of a 2) parked JL. We've been through this before. That FCA took and/or posted that picture on its official websites and/or promotional materials doesn't fraud make, or dilute the case law.

Is it deceptive, sure. Do I think running with windows in dangerous: no. Do I do it: at times yes.

We have been through this before and you are still wrong. The owners manual says to take the windows out before putting the top in the sunrider position, there is no stipulation regarding if the Jeep will be driven or not. This picture, whether it's in motion or not (and it is depicting a Jeep driving on the road) contradicts the owners manual. If the picture is showing the Jeep doing something it's really not capable of, it is fraud.

 

[Rahneld]

Yep totally understood and appreciated my friend. Good advice. I’ll most likely just try it around the side streets and see if the windows look / feel stable. I just don’t see how they would come out though. Maybe worst case they come out of the body at the bottom and the sides but there’s no way they’d come loose from the top. Those windows are a pain in the butt to get in and out of the tracks at top which is why I started the thread. Lol! They’d probably just hang from the top and cause a bunch of noise. Then I’d pull over ASAP and put things back together the way they were. On an insurance note my auto insurance would most likely kick in and represent me, pay for damages if my windows flew off and caused pain or suffering to an innocent person. They could deny me and say I knew there was a risk but I highly doubt it.

I don't see, properly installed, much likelihood of them coming out either. And I too am inspired to not do this by the time and effort in removing and reinstalling them. I don't see the back window ripping off its "C" channel. I don't see the side windows (properly installed) ripping off their Velcro, but weirder things have happened. And I don't see a 30 car pileup and trauma scene resulting if one of my windows dislodging as I run local errands while doing 25 mph in the midst of strollers, bicyclists and pedestrians.

As I also suspect you must appreciate, there's more to life than "am I covered for this." Risks to other motorists--I speak generically here--and the damages we bring to them often can't be resolved with a banker's cheque alone; my focus being high speed situations.

Finally, you can bet your bottom dollar--because they do it all the time--that your Insurance Company's attorneys will look for any breach of contract on your part to not pay out, or out in entirety, particulaly on large cases. They will pour over the vehicle policy and owner's manual, see what it says, check for the absence of any reference in it to other manuals on vehicle operation (not service,) and note refences in any other conflicting manufacturer literature to the owner's manual, that people may cite as justification for their not removing windows, or getting tires serviced, or whatever.

All this said, go have fun with your Wrangler. For me, this thread is about having fun taking informed risks, which involves uncovering fiction, and accurately quantifying the possibility of damages and their costs. : - )

 

[Rahneld]

We have been through this before and you are still wrong. The owners manual says to take the windows out before putting the top in the sunrider position, there is no stipulation regarding if the Jeep will be driven or not. This picture, whether it's in motion or not (and it is depicting a Jeep driving on the road) contradicts the owners manual. If the picture is showing the Jeep doing something it's really not capable of, it is fraud.

" there is no stipulation regarding if the Jeep will be driven or not" because there need not be, and lawyers remove all unneccesary things that copywriters add to a manual that could expose the manufacturer to more risk. It falls into the area of law known as foreseeable risk, in that it's reasonable that a vehcile at rest isn't going to cause soft window damage or disloding. (BTW: most vehicle policies are underwritten for on road use only and this JL appears to be around nothing else that it could cause damage to.)

And it's not fraud in the legal sense because pictures like these aren't seen by the courts as guidance on the part of the manufacturer to an owner when compared to an owner's manual which expressly states differently.

If you want to label this as fraud in the basic sense of the word, or misleading, or conflicting, or just not right, I agree.

 

[GreyFox]

 

[Rahneld]

Brandy, I am lost as to this icon, which depicts frustration. You just posted a placard already explained as to it's lack of legal significance here, and in the monster thread on this topic.

That placard says that keeping the soft windows in is not only ok, but dare I say, suggested. I get that. But I also get the legal disclaimer on the bottom that tells you to 1) refer to the Owner's manual, which says otherwise. In court, that's what will be noticed, along with an 2) Owner's Manual with different instructions that 3) defers to no other manual on vehicle operation (if not service.)

This is the legal standard, the legal litmus test that the owner's manual will prevail: the legal 3 point test that exonerates automobile manufacturers.

Are you frustrated at FCA for conflicting instructions? If so, be my guest. You're completely entitled. I am too. This very disclaimer language of referring to the owner's manual came to be over the years to resolve conflicting instructions by a manufacturer.

And maybe this seems unfair. If you think so I'd see why. Here's what FCA's attorneys might say to you.

"Brandy, companies, like the humans they are composed of sometimes make mistakes. The courts have to strike reasonable balance that doesn't find them going out of business paying legal claims, with owner's rights. This disclaimer language was the compromise. It's either that, or pay $350,000 for your rig to cover its costs, 97% of which would be our paying out on such cases."

The law's a balance.

Sponsored