Panel-Hardtop Theory

[AVENTUS]

Especially when the current Wrangler sells twice as many JK Sports as Sahara and Rubicon combined, and just about as many JKU Sports as Saharas and Rubis combined. The large bulk of their sales are in the lower price range not the premium.

Had FCA/Jeep split the Wrangler into 2 separate lines with a Sport-Sahara soft roader with IFS and creatures comforts, and the Willys-Rubicon as the solid-axle off roader, then it would be easier to split the design to cover both markets, but they would need to address it at a platform level, not trim IMO.

I'm not trying to push for a $70K wrangler with less off road capability than a rubicon, Goat suede seats, self-parallel-parking, TV's in the headrests, and a f#@king champagne fridge in the back seat.

I'm pushing for them to do the two tier distinction as you describe, even at the chassis level, IF it drops the cost by going unibody fixed roof with panels, less rugged axles/suspension, suitable for beach-dunes/desert/forest-preserve cruises, but not the same level of large rocky mountaineering as a dude with a lifted rubicon on 40" tires is after.

Do you know how many in their twenties & how many spoiled high school students will be driving that sub sport wrangler JLU ? But opting for the safari roof option, premium sound, and bare bones everywhere else ?

If the majority of the sales are already to the soccer moms & mall crawl segment, and it hasn't damaged the ruggedness/ability of the rubicon/willys yet .... how would offering an even less rugged, 4cyl, soft suspension, entry level "B!tch Wrangler", with an aspirational-luxury panoramic fixed-roof panel option, somehow further jeopardize the image and/or off road integrity of the rest of the line ?

Or perhaps I misunderstand your concern ?

Sponsored

 

[ThirtyOne]

I'm not trying to push for a $70K wrangler with less off road capability than a rubicon, Goat suede seats, self-parallel-parking, TV's in the headrests, and a f#@king champagne fridge in the back seat.

I'm pushing for them to do the two tier distinction as you describe, even at the chassis level, IF it drops the cost by going unibody fixed roof with panels, less rugged axles/suspension, suitable for beach-dunes/desert/forest-preserve cruises, but not the same level of large rocky mountaineering as a dude with a lifted rubicon on 40" tires is after.

Do you know how many in their twenties & how many spoiled high school students will be driving that sub sport wrangler JLU ? But opting for the safari roof option, premium sound, and bare bones everywhere else ?

If the majority of the sales are already to the soccer moms & mall crawl segment, and it hasn't damaged the ruggedness/ability of the rubicon/willys yet .... how would offering an even less rugged, 4cyl, soft suspension, entry level "B!tch Wrangler", with an aspirational-luxury panoramic fixed-roof panel option, somehow further jeopardize the image and/or off road integrity of the rest of the line ?

Or perhaps I misunderstand your concern ?

I think what you just described is a Renegade.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I'll reply to this primarily in PM to avoid sidetracking the discussion..

Do you know how many in their twenties..

No, but I' m equally as certain that you don't either as I am certain that FCA does... and in great detail.

As such, the opportunity has likely been explored in depth, and they have obviously added some features to make the Wrangler more universal, and palatable to those outside the norm, even with simply the addition of Selc-Trac, power soft-top and the road warning systems.

Much of the smaller items like the Safari Roof are better addressed as Mopar options, similar to the JK8 body kits, than in major alteration which really would work best as a separate spin-off vehicle similar to what the JT became and not compromising either in the process. Even those body kits could provide insight into the interest/popularity of the option. And to be honest most of the stuff we've discussed for changes like the Safari Roof can be well supported in the after-market for a reasonable cost, unlike something like a Hemi or other major items'which are exponentially more costly and difficult than a factory option.

I'm not against the vehicle you want, and I've said as much in threads months ago, but it is not what a Wrangler is for the majority of its market, and IMO trying to make it so has a lot of trade-offs that would likely benefit far less people than it impacts, unless it's a completely different vehicle.

 

[AVENTUS]

I think what you just described is a Renegade.

Renegade XL with removable doors would sell quite well !

But nah, I'm just making a point, that these types of panoramic "safari" roofs, would greatly appeal to a lot of potential Wrangler buyers, who would buy a sport or a sub-sport model, regardless of if that model had unibody or body on frame construction.

 

[Matt The Hammer]

Good points Aventus.

My wife is one.

Told her that there will be power top on the new one. She said she couldn't close the roof on a JK. So the power top would be for her and I'm sure many others.

The fixed roof 4 door Wrangler would be something if it were cheaper than the base Sport with a hard top. Other than a swing open full rear hatch, there wouldn't be much incentive to get that over a Sport with a hard top. Maybe if they add the renegade power retracting center (Liberty had them). But the cost would be more than a Sport with a hardtop at that point.

I find it interesting how many people buy the Rubicon model thinking it's better than a Sport or Sahara because it's more expensive. But have no idea that the Rubicon cost is due to the mechanical things that they will never use.

 

[STL J-Hawk]

Good points Aventus.

My wife is one.

Told her that there will be power top on the new one. She said she couldn't close the roof on a JK. So the power top would be for her and I'm sure many others.

The fixed roof 4 door Wrangler would be something if it were cheaper than the base Sport with a hard top. Other than a swing open full rear hatch, there wouldn't be much incentive to get that over a Sport with a hard top. Maybe if they add the renegade power retracting center (Liberty had them). But the cost would be more than a Sport with a hardtop at that point.

I find it interesting how many people buy the Rubicon model thinking it's better than a Sport or Sahara because it's more expensive. But have no idea that the Rubicon cost is due to the mechanical things that they will never use.

I disagree...I want all the extras on the Rubicon, unless they are also on the other trim levels. I want heated steering, heated seats, electronics, etc....as this will be my daily driver, and not really an off road vehicle. Now, if i can get the lower trim level, and add all the other items at a savings, then giddy up.

 

[AVENTUS]

I disagree...I want all the extras on the Rubicon, unless they are also on the other trim levels. I want heated steering, heated seats, electronics, etc....as this will be my daily driver, and not really an off road vehicle. Now, if i can get the lower trim level, and add all the other items at a savings, then giddy up.

Precisely.

I think having tons of daily-driver-creature-comfort-options, on a lower priced model with less rugged axles, and basic beach/forest/field off road capability (but falls short of climbing rocks at steep grade) would help sell more wranglers then ever.

And if a fixed roof with panels lowers that cost, even by $1-$2k, as I assume it would, they'd be. Easy not to do it.

 

[YFD_322]

I disagree...I want all the extras on the Rubicon, unless they are also on the other trim levels. I want heated steering, heated seats, electronics, etc....as this will be my daily driver, and not really an off road vehicle. Now, if i can get the lower trim level, and add all the other items at a savings, then giddy up.

I agree 100%. I think since they got rid of the Sahara on the two door you will be able to get a sport with all the bells and whistles. Question, since your Rubicon is going to be a daily driver, so is my new JL, the only thing that worries me is the tires on the Rubicon for Highway, being noisy and all. Do you see that?

 

[STL J-Hawk]

I agree 100%. I think since they got rid of the Sahara on the two door you will be able to get a sport with all the bells and whistles. Question, since your Rubicon is going to be a daily driver, so is my new JL, the only thing that worries me is the tires on the Rubicon for Highway, being noisy and all. Do you see that?

Yeah, I am a bit concerned about that...hopefully I can find a nice big, fat tire that doesnt have a too aggressive tread pattern. However, I can live with it if I have too...

 

[Billy]

MTR tires will be more noisy, but I'm not sure if it'll be bad enough to worry about. The KO2 tires are pretty quiet, so I'm really only interested in those. The added sound dampening might make MTRs palatable.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I agree 100%. I think since they got rid of the Sahara on the two door you will be able to get a sport with all the bells and whistles. Question, since your Rubicon is going to be a daily driver, so is my new JL, the only thing that worries me is the tires on the Rubicon for Highway, being noisy and all. Do you see that?

As someone with 4 sets including studded MTs and the stock KM MTs (plus Duellers and Silent Armors) , I can say the stock KMs or KM2s on the Rubicon will be noisey... but that's why you get some Sahara or other special edition take-offs with their stock rims cheap on Craig's list (quite often less than $1000, heck I got 5 new [taken off before delivery] Rubicon take-offs for $1000 CDN from the dealership).
PS, many dealerships and after-market shops will post the left-over take-offs from a mod on Craig's List / Kijijii, and likely at launch of the JL there will be a lot of new vehicles getting swaps.

If the hassle of swapping tires doesn't interest you, then you could sell your rubber and get something more universal like the KO2s found on many special editions. I like the Duratrac tread pattern better, but they are just slightly noisier than the KO2s from my experience.

 

[AVENTUS]

What does everyone think of using photovoltaic films on the panoramic sunroof to keep two batteries fully charged ?, or perhaps in the future to charge a lithium ion or new Fuji Aluminum air battery ?

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

What does everyone think of using photovoltaic films on the panoramic sunroof to keep two batteries fully charged ?, or perhaps in the future to charge a lithium ion or new Fuji Aluminum air battery ?

Sounds great in theory, and seeing those ultralight Sun racing aero-bikes/cars with solar roofs makes one think it's practical since they go across the whole country (be it Australia, Canada or US) on solar power, but...

Unfortunately, current solar tech doesn't provide much energy for recharge of a EV propulsion system in a heavy commuter vehicle.
Which is why when solar roofs are added to EVs, they are usually to run ancillary stuff like fans/mini-AC, radio, etc. Sure it can top up, but so minutely as to be be imperceptible. Recharging of even accesory or BSG type batteries is also still more effctive and efficient by taping into fossil fuel engine via generator and regenerative braking.

There's theoretically about 900W per sq meter of solar potential, for ease of math let's round to 1KW, with current tech you get about 10-20% edficiency, but with transparency, flexibility and durable covering reducing that efficiency significantly, but again let's be optimistic and give it the full 20% for easy math (for the next bit), now lets say the rooftop panel is 2.5M long and 1M wide for another round number of 2.5 sqMeters resulting in 500W of power from a very VERY efficient solar roof.
Panasonic's latest automotive offering is only about 175W, the recent Audi concept in the news trades efficiency for transparency and is just over 100W. The old Prius was less that 50W the new one around that of the Panasonic and still quite visible, not as transparent.

Meaning for every 1KWHr battery size, the theoretical VERY efficient roof would take 2 hours to charge, the Panasonic 5hrs. And for every mile you drive in a it typically EV if it takes 200-500 WattHours / 0.2-0.5KWHrs or 25-60mins of charge for every mile driven with the most efficient current tech, and about 1m- 2.5hrs of charge per mile with a Panasonic.

All of that is just for maintaining speed on level ground below 60MPH.
If you want Good to Instantaneous acceleration that draws between 15KW to over 100KW (though for just a few seconds) depending on weight; and things like uphill travel , rolling and air resistance (which increases geometrically with speed) also increase consumption significantly.

Battery size of Hybrids (that typically provide abbout 25-40miles of battery only range @ 60MPH) is about 10KWHr meaning it would take about 20 hours of good sunlight (in the Arctic Summer) to charge a battery enough to drive for 30mins at highway speed or maybe a little more than 1 hour in town with the super efficient model, and over 2 days of charging with the Panasonic roof.
Now if you only drove once a week, or stored the vehicle for long periods between use (cottage or chalet vehicle) then it would possibly provide more utility, especially even just for keeping normal batteries topped-up.

Better to not bother with the photovoltaics getting in the way of the view (even trading transparency for efficiency) or suffer damage from hail or stones on the road, and instead spend the money on a solar powered charging station at home/work/cottage with much larger area array.

I look forward to a true Hybrid Wrangler, and I am interest in Pure EV when batteries get there, but they'll still rely on stored energy (hydrocarbon or battery) for principal propulasion along with regenerative braking, solar likely wouldn't provide more than a percent or two added range and would add much more cost and a bit more complexity to achieve that minimal gain.

 

[Matt The Hammer]

My head hurts.. and I'm an engineer.

 

[freegld]

I'm not trying to push for a $70K wrangler with less off road capability than a rubicon, Goat suede seats, self-parallel-parking, TV's in the headrests, and a f#@king champagne fridge in the back seat.

I'm pushing for them to do the two tier distinction as you describe, even at the chassis level, IF it drops the cost by going unibody fixed roof with panels, less rugged axles/suspension, suitable for beach-dunes/desert/forest-preserve cruises, but not the same level of large rocky mountaineering as a dude with a lifted rubicon on 40" tires is after.

Do you know how many in their twenties & how many spoiled high school students will be driving that sub sport wrangler JLU ? But opting for the safari roof option, premium sound, and bare bones everywhere else ?

If the majority of the sales are already to the soccer moms & mall crawl segment, and it hasn't damaged the ruggedness/ability of the rubicon/willys yet .... how would offering an even less rugged, 4cyl, soft suspension, entry level "B!tch Wrangler", with an aspirational-luxury panoramic fixed-roof panel option, somehow further jeopardize the image and/or off road integrity of the rest of the line ?

Or perhaps I misunderstand your concern ?

In theory, I'd agree with you. FCA could very well put independent suspension in the front and rear in the Sport and Sahara models, and have the Rubicon with solid axles. That way, the Sport and Sahara will have smoother rides and you can add DD features. Most consumers wouldn't even know nor care about what kind of axles their Jeep has. However, you'd still have to keep the removable top, because then why else would someone want a Wrangler?

But why does a business do things the way they do? Obviously it is the bottom line of the balance sheet. And clearly, margins > volume with Wrangler sales. Now, when Ford comes with the Bronco (I own stock in Ford, so I'm rooting hard for the Bronco) and if Toyota can do something more rugged with the 4Runner, market competition might sway FCA into other directions.

Sponsored