Well, there's another 4-5 months of summer... Around here, at least...I guess so. I would really like to have it in time to enjoy some of the summer weather.
I had the same thing happen to me, ordered 4/30.. jeep cloned it on 6/15 after sitting 33 days in inspection. Picked up my new JLUS on the 7/18... Keep the faith ...So I ordered my JLUR Punk'n 6/4/18 and it was built and ready for inspection 6/18/18. That was fast. It sat in inspection for over 30 days and Jeep chat would tell me just like the rest of you that they just want to make sure it's perfect and it could take as long as 30 days. After 30 days I contacted them again and I said it's been well over 30 days now what? Jeep said I should contact the dealer Friday because it shows still in "I" status. Well I got busy Friday and never called my dealer and Saturday I went to the Jeep Jamboree in York PA. I get home Saturday and my dealer sent an email stating my vehicle was rejected at inspection and they were building me a new one and it was in the "trim" level. I called him and he asked if I had heard about some of the 2.0's catching on fire in the inspection holding area? He said my JL was probably sitting next to one that burned and was damaged. At this point if I knew I could still get Punk'n in 2019 I would wait an extra couple months for the new model year. I'm bummed. He said they were putting ahead of others and I should have it in 5-6 weeks.
Wait, so it's not Jeep's fault that they built a vehicle that will catch on fire? This wasn't a random "act of God" like a lightning strike...this was due to faulty engineering on Jeep's part. The turbo-induced fire was absolutely Jeep's fault.Did you order a turbo or are you just working off the assumption that yours was parked near a turbo-induced fire? Either way, I don't think it is Jeep's fault. It sucks, but it is Murphy's Law. .
Jeep didn’t intend to destroy his Jeep or any others for that matter. I don’t think they owe him anything beyond a car that fits his order.Wait, so it's not Jeep's fault that they built a vehicle that will catch on fire? This wasn't a random "act of God" like a lightning strike...this was due to faulty engineering on Jeep's part. The turbo-induced fire was absolutely Jeep's fault.
Exactly. They don’t owe him anything but his order. (And even that could be argued).Jeep didn’t intend to destroy his Jeep or any others for that matter. I don’t think they owe him anything beyond a car that fits his order.
Well then you can say its not Jeeps fault because the battery blew up. That is the batteries fault. Jeep didn't make the battery. Blame the battery company.Exactly. They don’t owe him anything but his order. (And even that could be argued).
Jeep obviously didn’t intend for it to happen but to say it wasnt Jeep’s fault is Then same as saying a guy that rear ends you by accident isn’t at fault.
Sad turn of events but it is on Jeep.
Wow...Well then you can say its not Jeeps fault because the battery blew up. That is the batteries fault. Jeep didn't make the battery. Blame the battery company.
"Caught" it? LMAO... I think it was more likely shoved down their throat and they choked on it... "Oh... We've had two parking lot fires in a short period of time, you think that we might have a problem with our design?"Wow...
So if you buy a $50K Jeep and it just goes up in flames in your driveway...who are you going to?
I love Jeep as much as anybody but if they engineered a faulty product then they are responsible.
Luckily they caught this problem before anybody took delivery.
I mostly agree with this. BUT I still don’t think we have the full story. FCA never made an official announcement. Best we have is a guy knows a guy at FCA who said. Then forums and media jumped on that. After the original assumption was a harness was the issue. No clear cause, impossible to lay blame.Well then you can say its not Jeeps fault because the battery blew up. That is the batteries fault. Jeep didn't make the battery. Blame the battery company.
I was under the impression they were still using the same battery but putting a heat shield (of sorts) between the battery and fuel cell. Again, who really knows at this point.I mostly agree with this. BUT I still don’t think we have the full story. FCA never made an official announcement. Best we have is a guy knows a guy at FCA who said. Then forums and media jumped on that. After the original assumption was a harness was the issue. No clear cause, impossible to lay blame.
What people are confusing though, IMO, is fault vs. being liable or taking responsibility. FCA may not have designed the battery or built the harness (if either is actually the cause)= fault, but in the end it is them selling the end product and blame will lay at their feet=liability.
Of course this all depends on if FCA designed and ordered a very specific battery to be built, which a company did do to spec. Then maybe. FCA is at fault. Who knows?
I am sure someone with more business knowledge can correct me if I am wrong.
Haha, right...bad word."Caught" it? LMAO... I think it was more likely shoved down their throat and they choked on it... "Oh... We've had two parking lot fires in a short period of time, you think that we might have a problem with our design?"
My insurance company.Wow...
So if you buy a $50K Jeep and it just goes up in flames in your driveway...who are you going to?
I love Jeep as much as anybody but if they engineered a faulty product then they are responsible.
Luckily they caught this problem before anybody took delivery.