- Banned
- #46
Sometimes. For example, the Tazer JL aftermarket product shows us that having audible alarms when opening the hood while the vehicle is armed is purely a software setting. So you're not alone in your sentiments. You'd think that with less restriction than most other vehicles to under hood components more valuable than most other vehicle's that this would have been a factory setting. But...FCA doesn't have to (see below.)
Again I agree. FWIW, there's a post here on how to do this yourself (I suspect without door based safety pressure sensors), which isn't trivial IMHO and doesn't address your question as to why such a feature wasn't standard for those (the majority of) Wrangler owners who have power windows.
I suspect when FCA made these decisions they factored in the cost of the extra parts, the legal claims of those who get injured nonetheless despite sensors when the window goes up, the degree to which such features weren't worth it to add to the cost--or worse disenfranchise loyalists who think "doors," let alone power windows in them, sell the Wrangler brand short--and other factors I haven't considered.
FCA is in a unique position to be able to shrug their shoulders and say, at least on the Wrangler, "if the owners want it bad enough they'll event solutions and product to do so."
Again, I'm with you. But I think the more "to point" question to ask here, looking at this as purely a business decision is "why add a feature that isn't going to generate more sales on an already sought after vehicle?"
As I'm sure you appreciate, that 2007 VW you refer to had competition in its market space far greater than that the Wrangler does. And if that VW doesn't have (an example that may not be true) "dual climate zones" and a competitor did, it might matter to the consumer more to buy another brand.
We all like to think that FCA is loyal to its base and it is; but as a means to a loftier goal: profit. Its executives are duty bound to maximize shareholder profit. You I suspect already know this: I don't mean hard feelings from pointing out the obvious.
That I wish those shareholders were solely vehicle owners.....another debate.
I suspect because the bean counters felt not having this would affect sales less than not having some other feature. I suspect those same bean counter's figures (right or wrong) suggested that of the % of owners polled that would want this feature, they would want to pay less for it than FCA wanted to charge. And I suspect that execs considered the fact that someone could always devise and publish or sell a hack to do this more elegantly than how its implemented from the factory on other vehicles.
Sigh..the rules are different when it comes to Wranglers given the historically high degree of customization, ingenuity, and perseverance of its owners do to things often as well or better than the factory could compared to many other vehicles, and the vehicles uniqueness in its product space.
Sure, as do all of those who posted before me with very good ones. If the Wrangler ever gets some really good competition: and the greatest new competitor that's 75% its price still won't have its aftermarket, then Wrangler execs I suspect will need to think differently. It may help to appreciate that FCA execs make these decisions to maximize overall profit of the line, which sometimes doesn't coincide with your or my specific needs, or that they sometimes "get it wrong."
Sometimes they just put off features to the next model: adjustable speed cruise control.
Yes and yes. : - )
~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what happens when Honda owners start buying Jeeps
Sponsored
