What happened to the once-mighty Jeep brand? There was a column out a few days ago that makes the point that all of the problems with the Jeep brand center around a bunch of short-sighted decisions by its corporate overlords. Is that fair? In a complex world could it be so simple?
Complexity is the theme of this Tuesday’s chapter of The Morning Dump. Cars are not built in a vacuum and the hope of bringing Volkswagen’s hottest brand to more people is in peril because of various global rules. This is the same Volkswagen that said it wasn’t going to lay people off and is now, of course, considering layoffs.
Tesla is committed to robotaxis and AI and all of it, but it still has to build cars, and building cars is, you guessed it, kind of complex. In particular, it needs a new Model Y to compete in China and the company apparently doesn’t think Chinese citizens will be as forgiving as American ones in one certain area.
The Problem With Jeep Is Stellantis
The most valuable car brands in the world, ten years ago, were probably Ferrari and Jeep. Neither sold as many actual vehicles, globally, as a Volkswagen, but I’m not certain you could sell VW-branded strollers to people in Argentina or get 10,000 people who don’t own a Jetta to wear Jetta-themed hats to an F1 race.
It’s also notable that, for a time, both Jeep and Ferrari were owned by the same parent company. But before Ferrari could become Stellantis, it went public and was spun off in quite a profitable way. Ferrari has since continued to be one of the most valuable brands, car or otherwise, in the world.
Jeep stayed with the parent company and has suffered ever since. In 2018, Jeep sold 973,000 vehicles. It’s dropped every year since, hitting a low of 641,000 vehicles in 2023.
Fiat, it turns out, was initially a decent owner of Jeep. In addition to continuing to invest in the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee, Fiat introduced a bunch of lower-cost models like the reimagined and Fiat-based Jeep Cherokee (KL) and Jeep Renegade. These managed to expand the Jeep brand in a way that didn’t ruin the Wrangler image. Of course, Fiat also spent money on bringing Alfa back to the United States instead of making more new Jeep products. It also invested heavily in the new Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer to disappointing results thus far.
I haven’t driven the newest Wrangler yet, though I’ve never driven a bad Wrangler and I think Jeep continues to have strong engineering. It’s usually not engineering that’s the problem with any automaker and that is likely true at Stellantis. The same goes for the designers. I generally think Stellantis designs, whether at Citroën or Chrysler, tend to be as good as the competition and often better.
So what’s the issue? Our buddy Mark Phelan has a big piece in the Detroit Free Press on this that’s been rattling around in my brain like a stray lug in a spare tire well. The headline is: “Jeep’s precipitous decline lies at feet of those in executive suites, mansions”
Here’s the part that I’ve been thinking about:
Fiat Chrysler’s expensive bet on reviving the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer models has yet to pay off. The big SUVs should do well in the long run, though.
Bottom line: Since 2019, Jeep dropped its third bestselling vehicle, let No. 4 age toward irrelevance and dropped No. 5, the Renegade.
Its 2023 U.S. sales were 31.2% down from before the pandemic.
Facing strong new competition in segments Fiat Chrysler and Stellantis either abandoned or underfunded, it’s a wonder things aren’t worse.
I feel like something is fundamentally broken and it’s a larger systemic problem that was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Most American and European automotive executives (and, to a much lesser extent, workers) earn the bulk of their money not from a salary but from bonuses tied to economic performance and share price. While there’s nothing explicitly wrong with assigning value this way, especially for a public company, the nature of carmaking does create some perverse incentives.
By strangling engineering, marketing, and other areas and putting out old platforms, Stellantis was highly profitable, especially during the pandemic. That is a short-term strategy that seems to be creating long-term problems.
I’ve talked about this before, but it’s not clear to me if this pause was a necessary one to fill the company’s war chest in preparation for an uncertain EV transition or just short-term hopeful thinking that made execs rich yet otherwise doomed the company for the future.
Did Fiat Chrysler set up Stellantis for failure? Did Stellantis exacerbate an existing problem? Is it all going to work out and are we all going to look foolish for doubting Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares? These are complex questions and, short of a crystal ball, I don’t have a great answer.
I do agree with Mark’s ultimate conclusion, which is that “It was the executive suite, not the hourly workers, engineers, and designers, that got Jeep into this mess.”
FCA-turned-Stellantis underfunded and misdirected Jeep to the point that it’s a fraction of what it was and risks losing the future to EV companies like Rivian, Tesla, and even Chinese brands like BYD.
Ferrari’s detachment from FCA, in retrospect, was a great move. Jeep is a much larger automaker and needs shared platforms to be successful so that might not have worked. Still, Stellantis so far hasn’t proven it deserves to own Jeep or knows what to do with it.
Is CUPRA In Trouble?
Here’s a good example of me not being able to predict the future: If you’d asked me a decade ago which Volkswagen subbrand would be the most exciting and well-positioned for global expansion in 2025 I’d have probably said Škoda, because I love Škoda. I’m not saying that a brand based on Spanish-affiliate SEAT’s Cupra subcompact performance car would be the last brand I’d have picked, but it wouldn’t have been first.
And yet, Cupra is killing it right now. Its mix of hybrid and electric vehicles are poised for a big second half of the decade. Or, well, they were. Now it’s a little less certain. Specifically, CUPRA had a plan to help its parent company meet EU-mandated CO2 targets by selling a Chinese-built Tavascan SUV in large numbers in Europe. Proposed Chinese tariffs of up to 21.3% could have the effect of making that SUV now too expensive to sell at volumes that were predicted.
“It puts the whole financial future of the company at risk,” Griffiths said, speaking from Barcelona. “The intention was to protect the European car industry but for us, it’s having the opposite effect.”
The comments are the strongest yet by a carmaker affected by the tariffs, highlighting worries Brussels will hurt domestic players it is trying to protect via its probe of Chinese subsidies launched almost a year ago.
The anti-subsidy tariffs are on top of the EU’s standard 10% duty on car imports, a measure the Commission says is aimed at levelling the playing field and countering what it says are unfair subsidies. Beijing has threatened to retaliate with probes into EU imports of dairy, pork and cognac.
Complexity! The EU said it wanted more EVs so automakers did the logical thing and made deals with China, which was subsidizing EV development and production, so it could then sell those Chinese-built cars in Europe (and elsewhere). Now the EU, and other governments, are saying: We want clean cars, we don’t really want to pay too much for them, and you can’t build them where it’s cheaper.
Is that fair? Volkswagen would argue it isn’t and they aren’t alone. In particular, SEAT says it plans to build most of its cars in Europe and this is a “one-off” designed to get a new EV to market quickly and affordably and that its car isn’t particularly subsidized (though given the investment China made in battery infrastructure, every new EV is de facto subsidized by those investments).
Again, it’s complex, though VW is also working the refs (in this case the EU) here a bit because that’s what big companies do.
Is VW Going To Back Out Of Its ‘No-Layoffs’ Pledge?
Speaking of working the refs, Volkswagen is a partially state-owned enterprise as the German state government of Lower Saxony owns about 13% of the automaker.
Volkswagen famously said it would not close any plants, a promise made way back in 1994 and is supposed to continue until the end of this decade. That might not be the case anymore, according to the Associated Press:
“The European automotive industry is in a very demanding and serious situation,” Oliver Blume, Volkswagen Group CEO, said in a statement Monday.
He cited new competitors entering the European markets, Germany’s deteriorating position as a manufacturing location and the need to “act decisively.”
Thomas Schaefer, the CEO of the Volkswagen Passenger Cars division, said efforts to reduce costs were “yielding results” but that the “headwinds have become significantly stronger.”
Understandably, the local unions are not happy. This could just be a plea for more concessions or some other changes in policy (see above). Or it could be the prelude to the first plant closing since the ill-fated VW facility in Pennsylvania in 1988.
China Might Get A Six-Seat Model Y
CEO Elon Musk continues to think of Tesla as a company that makes robots, robotaxis, and basically everything other than cars. But it still has to make cars. That’s how it makes money. In particular, it makes a ton of Model Ys.
The Model Y is a great car but, like many of Jeep’s products, it’s getting a little long-in-the-tooth and planned updates have been delayed. The good news is that a refreshed Model Y, codenamed Juniper, is likely going to launch early next year.
Even better and slightly more amusingly, they’re going to make a six-passenger car for China because they reportedly don’t think they can sell the seven-seater that Americans buy:
Tesla sells a seven-seater Model Y in the U.S. but a cramped third row would make it unpopular in China, the people said.
“It’s not even large enough for a large-sized dog,” one of the people said.
Lol. This is definitely true. I’ve got a buddy who designed cars in China for years and is now designing interiors here and, contrary to what you think, the Chinese consumer has way higher expectations now than your average American.
Presumably, the configuration would be 2-2-2 as opposed to 2-3-2 for the U.S version, though a 1-2-3 configuration could be fun.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I will now get five of you to listen to “The Three E.P.s” by The Beta Band.
The Big Question
Is Stellantis really to blame for Jeep’s problems? Was it really FCA’s fault? Or, even more provocatively, is Jeep fine?
I remember when the Jeep lineup was an entry level wrangler, mid level charokee and high end grand cherokee, and that was it, and jeep was doing ok enough that corporations wanted to buy it up.
I really thing the Wagoneer is fine, but priced into the wrong segment. Even Wranglers, are getting to be quite pricy, yet unrefined, but let’s get tot he point. a High end Grand Wagineer needs to be much less tech heavy. Yes you can have a hgh spec option but when peoples credit realiyty kick in, you really need something to offer that still makes the feel like they have a decent family hauler with some off road chops. As it is those big Grands seem more like luxury family haulers with the trail rated badge on there to pander only. Honestly they should have made the expensive one’s Chrysler, and tiered the Jeep units down on tech but perhaps up on Offroadiness. Perhaps even gone crazy and offered a live axle up front on the jeep only.
If you want a wrangler with the good off road bits they are over $70K.
yeah, the Rubicon 4XE is nearly 80k. That is insane if they want people to buy into the whole Electric vehicle thing.
Precisely. Going by my earlier comment of requiring a 40% profit margin, that puts these at $57k in cost. Do you think it cost that much to make them? NO. So, that margin is probably a metric chocolate ton more than 40%, and hence the issue at Jeep.
it is only a 30 mile plug in hybrid so not appealing to the total electric people but I have wheeled with a few. They are ok, I would take one but wow so expensive.
they are kind of eerie to wheel with as they do it silently a good portion of the time. all you hear is suspension flexing.
How would the Tesla go to a 6 seat configuration? The second row bench is already fairly large. The third row is cramped. There doesn’t seem to be much room back there to make more room.
Shape the back more like a minivan
I own a Y with the 7 seat configuration. The issue isn’t headroom as much as foot and shoulder room. That third row is good for dogs and small kids with short legs. Seriously, my larger dogs love having their own space to lay out. But me at average American adult proportions, my knees are jammed into my chest and into the seat back of the second row. From my understanding that seat is right above the rear drive unit. I’m not sure where they’re going to get the space. Then again, I’m not an engineer.
Make 2nd row captain chairs with a pass through to the 3rd row. This helps the 3rd row feel bigger because there is not a wall in front of you and you have a place to put your legs. Add some fancy trim, colors, and extras (heat or something) and it’s now a better place to be.
Yay! Jeeps Dying! Oh crap, Cupras dying 🙁
Wow how did I miss the discontinuation of the Cherokee? Just looked at the current Jeep lineup, and yeah it’s VERY top heavy…
Stellantis seems convinced they’ve re-invented the brand as a luxury item, wishful thinking at it’s finest.
The entire business world pushed to sell “premium” high-margin products over the last few years instead of focusing on volume. Sell half as many vehicles for double the price and maintain your profits. Half as many products to warranty/support & half as much staff to employ.
There’s only so many sleeve-tattoo MMA McMansion guys willing to spend $65,000 on a Wrangler though.
Yep us poors are buying used ones with lockers and sway bar disconnects that do not work anymore from never being used.
That’s ok, they all need to be upgraded anyway. good excuse to do it. Those Rubi e-lockers are not wonderful and parts are no longer made.
It should be 3X3 seating, and in reality most modern automobiles should have 3 abreast seating up front.
It wouldn’t take up any more space than current center consoles, just put a fold down center console/cupholders in the middle seat, basically the same setup in the rear seat of many cars.
That doesn’t play well with the current predilection for giant touch screens in the center and the need for airbags.
Or crash standards. I feel like that may be the most of it, but I can’t say how.
Ford can pull it off with the F-150…
VERY good point. But, they almost have to to fit in workers.
Stellantis needs to go POOF!
Give Jeep back to AM General, and just make the rest of Stellantis disappear. Seize the millions the “executives” made by destroying it. Give their ill-gotten money to the engineers and hourly labor instead.
Stellantis is a holding ground for the worst cars anyway (just missing some British shit to complete the package LOL)
The Wagoneer is fucking stupid. Just make a LWB Durango and sell it as a Dodge or Chrysler. Jeep should’ve just had a LWB 7-seat Wrangler Safari based on the Gladiator chassis. That shit would fucking PRINT money.
I think that the Wrangler and Gladiator platform has a ton of potential, and I imagine they could save a ton of money by standardizing on the frames and drivetrains of the Gladiator and the Wrangler. Europeans don’t understand Jeep, and it shows.
I would already own one of those Africa concept jeeps from about 8 years ago. https://moparinsiders.com/looking-back-at-the-jeep-wrangler-africa-concept/
might need to move the back axle back 6 inches, but otherwise I agree with this. Problem is still cost though. Gladiators suffered/still suffer in the sale department because even the lowest priced ones are still quite dear. I think if you shop well the lowest priced unit is still 40K.
Jeep not having a RAV4 competitor alone should be enough to warrant the CEOs exit.
They were too high off the tit of Wrangler margins to see the Telluride eating their lunch at one end and the RAV4 at the other.
The recently-departed Cherokee was slightly bigger than the RAV4, and the current Compass is slightly smaller. I don’t think either one stole many sales from Toyota. But all of that is beside the point. The RAV4 competitor should have been a Chrysler. It is pure insanity that FCA did not have a direct entrant in the hottest segment. The China-market Commander was branded as a Jeep over there, but it was a soft-roader that would have worked perfectly as a Chrysler over here.
FCA literally had a vehicle already developed, on the SUSW architecture that was compatible with some North American factories, and they still couldn’t be bothered to compete in the one segment that was absolutely blowing-up.
Why would it need to be a chrysler though. No jeep since the XJ other than the Wrangler has needed to be anything more than a softroader.
Is quadratrac or whatever it’s called likely better than most AWD systems – probably but it’s overkill for 99% of the folks. Most folks buying AWD or 4WD are never going offroad, they just don’t want to get stuck when it snows more than 10″
The simple reason is that Chrysler is meant to be the mainstream brand, and FCA did not have an entrant in this most mainstream of segments. Jeep is meant to be a rugged brand, and even their more mild entries like the Compass have a strengthened chassis and suspension components that make them heavier (i.e. less efficient) and reduce internal space.
As a longtime Allpar.com member I can tell you that the debate over whether to “soften” Jeep into a mainstream brand with a full lineup has been absolutely raging for going on decades now.
The market makes the decision. The decision has been made. It could not be more clear after the new Grand Cherokee debuted without a TRD fighting sku.
Second paragraph of the Tesla article: “The Model Y is a great car but, like many of Jeep’s products, it’s getting a little long-in-the-tooth and planned updates have been delayed” Perhaps the solution to Jeep’s woes are just making the Model Y!
I like the way you think. Should Tesla buy Jeep?
Lord no. And I just realized what you were getting at in that sentence. Tesla’s products are also getting long in the tooth, which is what I thought you meant.
Jeeps are already some of the least reliable cars in America right now. We don’t need Elons Cybertruck DNA screwing them up even more!
For whom? If I was a parent that sounds like a dang nightmare.
What’s wrong with it? It’d just be like adding a 3rd row to a McLaren F1!
Jeep is not fine. Stellantis went the route of Stanley mugs and aimed for the quick splash/high volume sales with no long term rewards instead of the low volume/legacy sales from loyal buyers that built the brand in the first place.
There was a time when 10% profit was the goal and acceptable. Now, it seems like it’s required to be 40%. This is for one reason only, the execs. I don’t see this 40% “trickling down” to the average worker. It’s frustrating when the next quarter is the only priority. It’s especially frustrating with a brand with such iconic history as Jeep. To me, this is not sustainable, and does trickle down to things like housing prices, medical prices, etc… The average wage for a single income house is not enough to sustain the average family in average circumstances. I am a master of fixing shit, but I have no clue how to fix greed.
Yep, as an engineer I’ve seen this happening over the last 10 years. Our wages have not proportionally increased, if anything they have gone up less than they used to and don’t even come close to inflation. Management and C suites have done great over the past 10 years in almost all industries.
“You should be happy you’re employed” says the C suite
The big-3 have union-negotiated, generous profit sharing for factory workers – but there is likely a large group of staff that are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement but are not upper management that likely get screwed. See pizzaman’s comment on the engineer’s pay not changing much in the last decade. This is not tru in all industries – if you are an engineer for Biotech/Medical applications you are likely doing ok – but midwest engineers have been losing personal buying power for the last decade or more – it is kinda sad since engineers are what make or break your products.
I’m an engineer too, and my pay has followed the same path as pizzaman. The unions are great for this reason, but they are still behind.
40% is ridiculous…at the same time they’re cheaping out in miniscule ways like 2 or 3 window switches for 4, putting the fucking functions in screens instead of buttons and the stealerships screwing people over
To borrow a line from Ate Up With Motor from their Cadillac Seville article that puts it better than I ever could:
“High volume is a dangerous drug for any manufacturer. Like cocaine, it produces an immediate rush, but it can have a corrosive effect on good judgment. With high volume comes the need to maintain it, to move the metal at any cost.”
Jeep is better off with a more focused approach. Excessively burning the brand’s intangible capital to keep volume up is a fraught strategy. I do not view Jeep’s declining sales as a bad thing unto itself if lower volume helps retain a stronger brand image (i.e. it is more profitable over the long-term).
So, what do?
You have the Wrangler to satisfy the hard-core. That’s the image-leader.
There’s an mid-level SUV that’s capable enough to honour the Jeep branding, yet comfy enough to be passable for daily use. That’s the volume seller.
There’s an upper-level of aspirational Jeep that’s within reach of the upper middle class. Not Wagoneer-level thin air, but Grand Cherokee-level. That’s the money printer.
Disclaimer: I am not in marketing, nor do I particularly care about Jeeps aside from ones owned by David Tracy.
I thought they were doing the whole less volume thing by jacking up pricing on the Grand Cherokee?
I should have done the Ford recall today, I’m realizing. I’ll add it back in tomorrow.
*YAWN* Another Ford Recall. Maybe the next CEO will fix it.
It’s kinda funny how a recall is normal ford activity now.
Its also horrifying.
“It was the executive suite, not the hourly workers, engineers, and designers, that got Jeep into this mess.”
What company doesn’t that apply to these days?
ding ding. One David Tracy could not do nearly the damage as one Carlos Tavares.
Jeep is a niche brand with mainstream appeal. Outside of AMC, no one has gotten Jeep right, but Fiat got it close.
At this point though, to make Jeep “pure” would likely alienate some pretty decent sales, but putting all the eggs into one basket is going to continue to hurt the brand.
Tight rope to try and navigate.
“Cars are not built in a vacuum …” I can attest to this. I’ve needed a new car for years, but every week when I empty my vacuum bag, no car. Occasionally a penny, a nail, or paper clip, but no car.
As to the Jeep question, Stellantis leadership is to blame, but I think Jeep comes through in some form, it’s too popular a brand to fail. That’s also why Stellantis won’t let it go, so the recovery will be slow. A smaller, more focused and nimble management team would benefit Jeep immensely, but that won’t happen under current ownership, so be ready for a slog.
Also Jeep needs a sub Wrangler model and it should include a Gilligan’s Island version, ie ., “as primitive as can be .” This base version should eschew all the namby pamby crap that clutters up current cars. Of course, there will be up market models, but a true base market vehicle is rare to non existent today, not because there isn’t demand for cheap and reliable, but because of lower profits. I want my empty v(ehicle).
Your opening mataphor(?) is pristine. #chefkiss
You vacuum EVERY week? Get a hobby. sheesh.
Probably not strictly necessary, but for some reason my macaw likes to ride around on the vacuum cleaner, so it’s his weekly treat and saves me from nips on the ear when he gets bored.
“I want my empty v(ehicle)”
For some reason this made me think of Dire Strait’s Money For Nothing lyric “I want my MTV”
(Em ty v?)
Yes, it would be wonderful to have cars that are bare boned w/o all the unnecessary nannies, screens and weight…if any company came out w/ that at a dirt cheap price they could make a lot of $ (it’s not as realistic though, but possible) I keep joking that if somebody came out w/ just brown manual diesel wagons they would be rich! (Instead of there are 10’s of us, there are 100’s of us who would be customers!)
You got the Dire Straits joke.
Yeah, I was gonna comment that it did look like it was intended ha ha…you ever seen UHF? (It has that video in it) Hilarious movie
Jeep is facing the same issue some other manufacturers (e.g. Jaguar) face: they built a boutique product in reasonable quantities, until some dingaling in the Corporate Office decided they should ramp up production and compete in as many markets as possible.
A smallish supply of Wranglers and derivatives, plus one or two upmarket entries — think XJ, Cherokee and Grand Cherokee — kept a steady if smallish supply of customers coming into Jeep stores, just as the E-Type and a couple of luxury sedans were enough to satisfy the demand for Jaguars.
But that wasn’t enough. Stellantis decided everyone wanted a Jeep, so turned on the spigot and built enough to suit everyone, expecting massive profits. But everyone wasn’t necessarily interested in Jeeps.
In time, the same will happen to the few other low-volume manufacturers left, such as Ferrari.
Infinite growth, amigo. The only way a C-suite guy is going to get paid is if they can accomplish that sweet, sweet growth!
It’s along the lines of what I’ve been saying for years with these large umbrella corporations that own (too) many brands: make each brand essentially a sub brand, sell only models that brand is good at making and can sell even if it means the brand goes on hiatus for a couple years here and there. Like, Range Rover would be thought of as a full line of manufacturer of vehicles with their cars branded “Jaguar” (and those cars should only be what sells, be it a sports car, large luxury sedan, small sport sedan, or some combination or none-of-the-above until there’s demand) rather than its own separate entity that needs to be profitable on its own, requiring a full lineup for itself and volumes that the brand was never meant to sell at. Trying to turn a beloved brand that sells on an image that is necessarily limited be it price, practicality, or whatever, into just another full-range maker against established players in the universal appeal sector that do the job better and inevitably losing what it is in the process (and, thus, even those previous passionate fans) is a historically proven near certain failure. I think the problem is dealer structuring and internal blockages, but either some brands need to die or these large umbrellas need to rethink everything, especially as we turn to a world of EVs where differentiation of character is more difficult (although real design differentiation could be the game changer here, getting wild will reduce parts sharing and is often also polarizing, which limits appeal). IDK, I’m not a myopic CEO, so it doesn’t really matter what I think, anyway.
Jeep was the only Chrysler Group brand that had cachet in Europe, so FCA tried to capitalize on that in a big way. That’s where “Let’s sell a Jeep to everyone” came from. It helped the corporation, but it hurt the brand. (Or at least one can make a strong argument that it did.)
Stellantis doesn’t understand what makes Jeep Jeep, why ANY vehicle works in the US market, and it’s product portfolio and upcoming models reflect this. Making the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer identical outside was a horrible choice, a quick glance at the Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade Hierarchy can show you why.
Now the Wagoneer S? HA no. A sleek EV with a Jeep badge? nobody will buy it. The 4xe seems to sell well because it’s just a powertrain option on a Jeep. You want to sell EVs under the Jeep badge, don’t make them a swoopy, sleek, generic SUV, make it a Jeep. Give us decent, cheap, smaller offerings, a second generation Renegade in PHEV/EV trim will SELL. You know what we don’t really want? The Compass, it’s ancient platform has no right being on the market despite a low starting point.
All that coupled with the ever aggressive price hikes year over year, and a hard push for higher trims across every brand (looking at you RAM) and you’ve got a consumer base that has a hard time finding what it wants, and an even harder time finding it at a price they can stomach.
I’ve thought about the Wagoneer twins the same way I think about McLaren as a brand: The issue with the higher trim levels is that the people buying them have no way to show that they got “The Expensive One.” The only way for most to distinguish the models is the presence/absence of the “Grand” script. If Jeep really wanted to cater to those buying a $100k+ vehicle, they needed to make it look like it cost more!
If you make a Jeep that costs as much as an Escalade, good luck convincing buyers not to get the Escalade. Neither will ever go off road or tow construction equipment, so why not get 6 figure looks for a 6 figure price? Somehow a brand that is based on image didn’t understand the concept of conspicuous consumption.
Wagoneer needs a lot of help I think. It didn’t hit the appearance right, its being sold to the wrong people (not Jeep owners), they aren’t doing a great job advertising that it starts (not for the Grand) at like $46 (not sure how much cash on the hood that is).
Wrangler is ok, but they should offer a tech unladen version. Something as simplistic in tech (so far as legally allowable) as the solid axle front suspension is. There is, I think, a good market for that in their demographic.
They need a Jimny, compact wrangler, that is similar in appearance, but cheaper, smaller, etc. Unsure if independent front suspension is the better call here or not.
$34k. $34,000 (just under) is where a (2-door) Wrangler starts with the only tech option being the Uconnect system. No A/C, no driver’s aids (other than basic cruise, I believe), manual transmission, and the most basic possible 4WD system Jeep offers. (And I’d make the argument that, since Uconnect contains Carplay/Android Auto, it’s a “must” for most people).
That’s a lot of scratch for such a basic vehicle. I built one with my non-negotiable items added, and came out just under $40k. That’s not how I would want it configured, but my minimum viable purchase configuration.
It’s crazy where the Wrangler has come since the introduction of the Unlimited 20-ish years ago; the model that proved people would buy a bigger Wrangler for their primary vehicle.
I bought my 2020 Wrangler for $43k in late 2020 and sold it 3 years and 20k miles later for $40k. I added a few things to it but not much, it looked very stock with even the tiny wheels and stock highway tires. The real problem with the Wrangler isn’t that the base models are overpriced, the problem is that the ones they are asking $65-80k for are still $40k cars and the additions that make them that much more are usually replaced or upgraded by their owners anyway.
Where’s the required photo of Carlos today?
Labor Day is over, and it’s time to get back to work, even at Stellantis…
Stellanis clearly seems to think of Jeep as a premium/luxury brand (trading the Cherokee & Renegade for the Wagoneer and GW). I don’t think that is necessarily a bad strategy or the wrong one, but it is going to result in lower sales.
I haven’t driven one, but I don’t think the current JGC is as well thought-of as the previous generation, which is a big deal, and obviously the Wagoneer models have not caught on as well as hoped.
I guess I don’t think it’s panic time. The brand is well thought of. It’s surely profitable, even at lower sales numbers. Problems with product can be addressed. They have to get the Hurricane engine sorted. They have to engineer a successful product below the Grand Cherokee. They have to figure out if the Wagoneer issues are primarily styling, cost, reliability, or something else, and adapt. Ultimately I think it’s OK if Jeep isn’t selling $2X,XXX vehicles anymore. But they do need to make the $40K and up stuff desirable.
Or similarly, when the 40k and up vehicles aren’t desirable, they can start slapping 10k+ on the hood of every vehicle until they start to move, or in the case of the high-trim Grand Wagoneers, 20-30k.
You can do that as a stopgap while better product is being developed, but its not a recipe for long term growth or success as a brand.
Put another way, that’s fine for Ram to do, but Jeep aspires to more.
Exactly, it’s a deep concern when their “flagship” vehicle is getting 20% on the hood before it even has announced a mid-cycle refresh, much less a replacement or new generation.
I do think it was the wrong strategy. Jeeps used to be attainable, fun vehicles. Yeah, they had their rough edges, but It’s a Jeep Thing.
Now they’re trying to sell Escalades with a Jeep badge and have priced all of their existing fans out of the market. They basically targeted all of the people who fit the “You Wouldn’t Understand” part of the saying and now are surprised when the market isn’t interested.
I don’t think the people who bought Renegades and Cherokees were the type of people who put Jeep Thing stickers on their bumpers though. Are/were they “fans” of Jeep? Hard to say, maybe they were.
What is true is that the Wrangler and GC are/were the type of products that appealed to affluent folks far beyond what their MSRPs would have suggested. It’s not uncommon to see a Wrangler in a driveway next to an exotic car. I don’t think it was crazy to try to appeal to those customers with luxury products, even at the expense of the Renegade crowd.
The people I know who bought crossover Jeeps are people who like Jeep but didn’t want to go full Wrangler. Heck, I did that. I bought a Liberty because it was the cheapest way to tow my trailer. If Jeep hadn’t been selling something that was more capable than your average Rav4 at a price I could afford I never would have bought one.
Chasing the big spenders is fine, but at the expense of your bread and butter volume customers? I guess we’ll see, but so far signs point to bad idea.
To my knowledge, there is no historic precedent for entry level vehicles in the Jeep lineup beneath the CJ and Wrangler.
While I see the argument that the Wrangler has moved upmarket, its unique capabilities and compromises have always made it a semi-luxury purchase for everyday buyers who don’t *need* to venture off-highway. For those who do, (or just really want to) 33k entry is still very attainable for a purpose-built vehicle. The average new car price was $48k in the USA this year. 2 door wranglers still seem quite affordable and fun through that lens.
The true 2024 replacement for a Jeep CJ is a SxS anyways, and there is nothing Jeep can reasonably sell that will change that.
Depends on how far back you want to go. They sold loads of Liberties, Cherokees, and Compasses back when they were affordable. Yeah, that pissed off the purists, but the market liked those and they helped finance the awesome Wranglers that we keep getting. Now all of those entry-level, gateway Jeeps are so expensive you have to really want one to pay what they’re asking. The market doesn’t like that and has spoken pretty definitively in the Jeep sales numbers.
Agreed, I don’t mind Jeep moving upmarket. The rugged Wrangler, and the old money aura of the *original* Wagoneer are the strongest things Jeep has going for it. The Wagoneer needs better execution, but they will probably get there with the next model. I see more of them around central Ontario than expected.
Thats all well and great, but CJDR dealers still need to sell entry level vehicles to people with bad credit. The Hornet and Compass should be that, but as it stands are too expensive. They Hornet needs to cost $25k, not $33k.
The Hornet is also an egregiously unreliable car
Jeep’s problem is that the people who want a Wrangler is not an infinite supply, so putting so many eggs in that basket is just dumb. The people who want a new Wrangler who can afford a new Wrangler is smaller still. Then you have the people who would like a Jeep but not a Wrangler are left with unreliability, ugly designs (except for maybe the Grand Cherokee non L), crappy non-Jeep Jeeps and things that cost way more than they should. But drive by any Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge-RAM dealership and they have a fuck load of Wranglers and RAMs with nothing compelling between.
I might be stating the obvious but I have to think the Bronco is putting a decent dent in Wrangler sales.
The “toy” vehicle market is only so large, especially with Bronco and 4Runner being in the same pool.
The GC non-L definitely looks decent, although in some ways not as handsome as what it replaced. The L just looks too much like a lifted minivan.
IMO Jeep should keep the GC, Wrangler, cut everything else, and bring back the “Liberty” name for a smaller offering between where the Compass is and Cherokee was; and for the love of God, make it look a bit rugged.
Since the birth of the GC, I’ve hated having both it and the regular Cherokee nameplate. So many regular people (not car people) can’t separate them. If we must have both, make the Cherokee the Laredo/Limited trims of that body, and the Grand the Overland/Summit/(Performance trim).
“Infinite customers” is the “GREAT LIE” of late-stage capitalism.
Jeep has been the prize since 1953.
“It’s good!”
“I know.”
I love Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank, but he’s hard to like in High Fidelity. Is that good acting, good casting, or good direction?
Gross Pointe Blank is an incredible film. I have thought of it as the shadow prequel to John Wick since Wick came out. Changed name, same character (got out because he got married etc), way darker tone. Its a movie I enjoy very shallowly, as I know there is a ton of social commentary in it, but I just like the silly assassin comedy.
I prefer to think of John Wick as happening in an alternate timeline where Bill and Ted failed their history report and Ted had to go to Oates Military Academy.
This is wonderful.
Hahaha, awesome. Buried under the cement next to his guns and money, is a guitar case marked Wild Stallions.
Pedantry alert. Wyld Stallyns
I am shamed.
I suppose it depends on the screenwriters’ intentions: was he intentionally written as a not-very-likeable character who is trying to do better? If yes, then success.
If he was supposed to be a flawed, unlikely hero like Jack Black played in ‘School of Rock’, then… less success.
I think he is intentionally unlikable and also an unreliable narrator. Basically the whole movie/novel is his exes telling him how terrible he is