Jeep Doesnt Care

[drbsp]

I am a long-time Jeep customer and currently own three Jeeps. I’ve been loyal to the brand for decades because I genuinely love the vehicles. Unfortunately, my experience with the Wrangler 4xe has been unacceptable.

My 4xe is subject to an unresolved NHTSA fire-risk recall. Based on the safety warning, my wife and I did not feel it was safe to plug in or drive the vehicle. To date, there is no fix. After repeated attempts to resolve this through both Chrysler Capital and FCA, I have received no response. I have effectively been ignored.

With no safe option, I was forced to ground my lease 12 months early, taking a substantial financial loss. I then leased a gas-powered Rubicon simply so I would have a usable vehicle, but I am now stuck with a large bill from grounding the 4xe early—through no fault of my own.

The lack of a solution for a known fire hazard is unacceptable. What is worse is the complete disregard shown to a loyal, long-time customer trying to do the right thing and keep his family safe.

I have filed a formal complaint with the NHTSA and have contacted an attorney, as I may be protected under Florida’s Lemon Law.

I’m sharing this so others can make informed decisions. I would strongly caution anyone against leasing or purchasing a 4xe until these issues are fully resolved—and to go into any Jeep purchase with clear eyes about what customer service may look like when serious problems arise.

Sponsored

 

[SoK66]

You were most likely on very solid ground re: Florida's Lemon Law. However, since you no longer own / lease the vehicle you may be disqualified, and therefore at the mercy of whatever you can get out of Stellantis. Unfortunately, it looks like they have their shields up.

As I understand it, the 4XE has been quietly dropped from current production, a good indication Stellantis is exposed on this issue and doesn't want to dig the hole deeper.

You can get online and find the Florida LL, it's one of the strictest in the Nation. Most likely you will not need an attorney to proceed. The whole purpose of the Lemon Laws was to set clear guidelines and get the attorneys out of the process as much as possible.

 

[VKSheridan]

Brett, I mean absolutely no disrespect but there are approximately 320,065 vehicles within the recall that *might* be affected. Of that number, 19 have had a fire attributable to the speculated root cause. Nineteen.

With a .00005% chance of loss, you voluntarily walked away from your lease because you think your Jeep will be #20 of the 320,046 remaining?

I could understand getting a lawyer if your Jeep was one of the original 19 and Jeep did nothing but I don’t understand what you want from Jeep.

Are you thinking they owe you a buyback because your VIN is included on a recall list?

Are you thinking they owe you money for gas you chose not to burn because you were cautioned against plugging it in until root cause and countermeasure could be determined?

I guess what I’m asking is what do you think Jeep owes you for your decision to unload your Jeep? I’m struggling to understand.

 

[Tr4ckD4ys]

I agree with others. Unloading your Jeep was a bad choice that makes your position almost indefensible. It’s unfortunate as prior you were in a great position to have your lawyer force a buyback with 0 financial consequences to you. I would take this as a lesson learnt to explore more options prior to making big decisions like unloading a recent lease.

I’d be cautious on continuing to work with a lawyer. Not because you wouldn’t have needed them prior, but now it’s raking up cost without a guarantee of getting that money back.

 

[drbsp]

Brett, I mean absolutely no disrespect but there are approximately 320,065 vehicles within the recall that *might* be affected. Of that number, 19 have had a fire attributable to the speculated root cause. Nineteen.

With a .00005% chance of loss, you voluntarily walked away from your lease because you think your Jeep will be #20 of the 320,046 remaining?

I could understand getting a lawyer if your Jeep was one of the original 19 and Jeep did nothing but I don’t understand what you want from Jeep.

Are you thinking they owe you a buyback because your VIN is included on a recall list?

Are you thinking they owe you money for gas you chose not to burn because you were cautioned against plugging it in until root cause and countermeasure could be determined?

I guess what I’m asking is what do you think Jeep owes you for your decision to unload your Jeep? I’m struggling to understand.

Yes the statistical chance of a fire is very small, however 19 vehicles catching fire is 19 too many (as my wife would like to say) and it is really something you should have to factor into the equation when charging your car in your garage. I mean, why take the chance, right? As far as the legal case, I was looking to be let out of the lease early to go into a gas powered lease. I simply did not want to continue to take the risk and as my wife understandably did not want me to plug it in and keep in the garage the whole idea of a 4xe became moot. I had contacted 3 lawyers in Florida on the matter and they all indicated I had a case however, the amount of time it would take and the cost outweighed the reality of the situation. I didn’t post on the board with the thought of getting legal advice this was more of a matter of principal and the idea that FCA might do the right thing. Considering I have 3 wranglers and have been an owner for over 30 years I was of the silly assumption that someone would at least acknowledge that there is an issue and perhaps give a little helping hand or something. I can’t even get anyone to knowledge it is an issue. The warning on the NHTSA website clearly indicates that they see it as an issue.

 

[drbsp]

Brett, I mean absolutely no disrespect but there are approximately 320,065 vehicles within the recall that *might* be affected. Of that number, 19 have had a fire attributable to the speculated root cause. Nineteen.

With a .00005% chance of loss, you voluntarily walked away from your lease because you think your Jeep will be #20 of the 320,046 remaining?

I could understand getting a lawyer if your Jeep was one of the original 19 and Jeep did nothing but I don’t understand what you want from Jeep.

Are you thinking they owe you a buyback because your VIN is included on a recall list?

Are you thinking they owe you money for gas you chose not to burn because you were cautioned against plugging it in until root cause and countermeasure could be determined?

I guess what I’m asking is what do you think Jeep owes you for your decision to unload your Jeep? I’m struggling to understand.

You cannot think that when you lease a vehicle that at the time had a sticker of ~$75,000 and was still under warranty that you would have to worry about such things. You can rationalize the statistics but if you are one of the 19 it isn’t good and when you compound this by the fat that I have children in the house, it is something you should not have to worry about or even think about for that matter. Given the lack of a fix, the fact Jeep will not take them as trade ins and the fact that they will no longer be selling 4xe’s (presumably due in part to the inability to fix) and therefore likely will not find a fix that they release me of my responsibility to pay the remaining 12 months on the lease. It is my opinion that the right thing to do would be to take the care back and absolve me of my remaining responsibility. As it stands I now have to pay the remainder of the lease for a vehicle I do not feel safe parking in my garage. I have attached the NHTSA notice from the website - again, obviously they think it is an issue.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I understand the frustration, but you talk like the vehicle caught fire or even became unusable because you didn't feel safe charging it in the garage. It was still every bit as useable as the one you traded it for, and likely got similar milage even if you never charged it. The financial loss was a choice on your part and I'm not sure you'd have a lemon law case even if you kept it as there was 0 down time. Every lemon law I've looked into requires a fairly high number of days out of service. Not charging in the garage never put it out of service at all.

 

[VKSheridan]

I appreciate the clarification. I understand paying a premium for a PHEV just to be relegated to an overweight ICE and then see the model outright get discontinued is certainly enough to make you want to abandon the lease.

I just wasn’t sure what you were hoping to get from Jeep. I’ve seen recalls that instructed people to outright park their rides versus operate it cautiously so I’m guessing you might have a tough road to hoe.

Heres a statement from Stellantis that has the contact information for Frank Matyok. Not sure it will get you want you want but at least you might get an audience. Good luck!

 

[drbsp]

I appreciate the clarification. I understand paying a premium for a PHEV just to be relegated to an overweight ICE and then see the model outright get discontinued is certainly enough to make you want to abandon the lease.

I just wasn’t sure what you were hoping to get from Jeep. I’ve seen recalls that instructed people to outright park their rides versus operate it cautiously so I’m guessing you might have a tough road to hoe.

Heres a statement from Stellantis that has the contact information for Frank Matyok. Not sure it will get you want you want but at least you might get an audience. Good luck!

 

[drbsp]

Thank you, I appreciate the information. I was hoping Jeep would allow me out of the final year of my lease so I could move to a gas-powered vehicle. Unfortunately, the vehicle isn’t performing as it was advertised when I leased it, and having to park away from my home—rather than in my garage—has been a real inconvenience.

Ultimately, that inconvenience led me to lease a gas vehicle. Given that the vehicle can’t be used as intended, it would be reasonable for Jeep to offer some form of concession.

Sponsored