the guy I bought my LJ from had a brand new Nissan Leaf in his garage. Told me a local dealer was leasing them for $800 down and $50/month. I can't see how they make any money like that but that's one situation where a lease would be a good deal.
Those things are SUPER cheap because they have a very low take rate. There was a point where they were basically giving them away because they couldn't get them off the lot, same with the Chevy Volt. Nissan Versa is a gas car that is also super cheap to lease.
Like I said before it has a lot to do with how much people have to pay per month to afford what they want, nobody looks at the overall cost. In this case the guy with the leaf is being smart about leasing, but many are not. When I worked in auto claims you'd see people still paying loans on older vehicles that they were under water on, then they would bitch when the thing gets totaled and it's worth nothing. It happened a lot more frequently than I would've imagined. Some of the cars I was surprised you could even finance something that old.
I guess to afford something like a new F250 a lot of people have to finance the thing for 84 months since it costs $80k+. I never understood why people would buy a brand new truck in New England, in 10 years the thing will be rusted away to nothing.
Those things are SUPER cheap because they have a very low take rate. There was a point where they were basically giving them away because they couldn't get them off the lot, same with the Chevy Volt. Nissan Versa is a gas car that is also super cheap to lease.
Like I said before it has a lot to do with how much people have to pay per month to afford what they want, nobody looks at the overall cost. In this case the guy with the leaf is being smart about leasing, but many are not. When I worked in auto claims you'd see people still paying loans on older vehicles that they were under water on, then they would bitch when the thing gets totaled and it's worth nothing. It happened a lot more frequently than I would've imagined. Some of the cars I was surprised you could even finance something that old.
I guess to afford something like a new F250 a lot of people have to finance the thing for 84 months since it costs $80k+. I never understood why people would buy a brand new truck in New England, in 10 years the thing will be rusted away to nothing.
actually, the guy was upside down in the LJ. Not by more than a few hundred bucks, but he had to bring cash to the bank on top of the purchase price to get the lien released. Selling it and getting the Leaf probably saved him $200-$250/month I'd guess.
downthepines
TJ Enthusiast
Two door Gladiator (J6) and a v8 and you won't see me anymore, Id be living it up in that thing,
Titus
New Member
I've been driving used pick-up trucks for 25 years. I currently have a '16 Tundra and a TJ. Pick-ups used to be for functionality like hauling things. My first Toyota 4x4 p/u (pre- Tacomas) was a 2 seater and I had to manually lock the hubs. I sold it with close to 200k miles and the original clutch. When I see people paying 50-70k for a pick-up truck I can't wrap my brain around it. Wouldn't pay 50k for a Jeep, or any vehicle. People have becomes used to ridiculous prices.
Agreed. Vehicles are not investments. If I only count the 3 of my vehicles that I plan to keep (having 2 Jeeps is a temporary situation), my vehicles don't add up to a third of my gross yearly income.
Starrs
TJ Guru
Same here. August we made our last mortgage payment. Crazy how quick wealth grows without a house payment lol
It's a huge marketing statement is what it is. ...but
First , it makes me mad about all the lies..."we can't do a V8 for safety reasons, crush zones "....then the Bronco comes out and a 392 hits the market. Here's a good business rule- Don't lie to your customers. The ice cream machine isn't broken at McDonald's, and yes, a V8 can fit in a Jeep. Makes me sick. Years of marginally powered vehicles and then it gets a whopper the second they feel threatened.
Secondly , it's gross overkill. 0-60 in 4.5. Wheeling Saturday Bob? "Nah, guess I'm headed to the drag strip again. Won money last weekend"
A big inline six with a turbo, a small V8, something people aren't afraid of would be a great across the board option. The 392 will attract the macho male buyer, but it's not practical across the board...or really even needed. What they do need is an engine that can roll a 35 or 37 inch tires. 325-360 cubic inches would be plenty.
is it awesome, fabulous , great? Absolutely. They will practically be collectors items like the Chevy 454 SS trucks.
Ultimately, we should see some better engine options and more capable/buildable packages from Jeep, and overall I think it's a good thing...far beyond the 392, I think it has the potential to awaken FCA to the reality that their customers want more power, and they need to listen. The TJ would have been great with just 40-50 more horses, rather than a bland engine that won't wear out so you can scheme up an upgrade.
Are you sure they "lied"? Do you have info regarding design changes, or lack thereof, to accommodate the 392?
No, it's a huge marketing statement is what it is.
The 392 is a readily available engine and has the marketing appeal of big numbers that Bronco can't match.
A less expensive 5.7l option may become available in time. We shall see.
To be fair, what percentage of the TJ market put on 35s and heavy accessories? A very small percentage. The 4.0l is adequate for a showroom stock TJ. It's only a POS once you move to bigger tires and/or heavy aftermarket accessories.
If you want to tear a post apart you're welcome to... But I stand by what I said... A 392 is too much engine for a four-door... I know why they did it but it's not practical and it won't be a mainstream power plant.... It will be a specialty.
And yes they lied....we were told point blank that it could not be done...you don't have to look far on this forum or anywhere in the Jeep world and see that Jeep people want more power.
If design changes could have been done to accommodate the engine then why were we told it could not be done... And obviously there were no radical changes to the design.... It's a steel frame vehicle...they get so much impact protection from that that the story that it wasn't safe to put one in it was never believable...
I'm not criticizing that they did it .. I'm glad... At the same time they should have done something better than a v6 a long time ago.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Disagree. It makes 470 at the crank. But after transmission power loss, transfer case power loss, larger diameter tires, and bigger axles, I think everyone would be surprised how much power is actually making it to the wheels. I could be wrong.
Add even bigger axles, bigger tires and youre taking robbing even more power and tq from the factory engine’s 470.
These things will be sought after and they will be loved... And hopefully it will bring about change in terms of some bigger power plants... But do I think the 392 will be a mainstay.... I'll be very surprised. If I'm wrong... It will be because the jl off-road Market is bigger than I may think and the big tires and power train will mellow it out .. And if it is extremely well received it will bring about a lot of trade ins..
I love it.
I'm not sure how it's going to play out but I think ultimately you're going to see something a little smaller but bigger than what they have now....
What I'd really like to see is some offers to sell more platforms In a special order format ....ok, we want a Sahara, 44 up front , 35" tires, 392 and lockers.
Or some base packages that would be great to build out
Either way...I'm 1000 percent for this .. it just seems like they are hitting an elephant with a cruise missile.
I understand to react quickly they had to use what they had available... And have been toying with the concept for a long time.
Ford has embarrassed them some ....got a lot of attention fast.
Last edited:
There is a rumor that there may be a rubicon package option rolling out for sport s trim levels and up which will add the 4.0 transfer case and Dana 44’s front and rear with air lockers.
At this time, its just a rumor.
I can see that ...Ford offered way too many options in my opinion.... And I still don't see Bronco doing everything they anticipate.
I like that jeep got fired up
Good luck with that. All vehicles should be sold that way, yet none are. Too much money to be bilked from the consumer with "packages".
As for the 392, I'm glad it exists for those who want one. Unfortunately, it isn't available in any combination I'd be interested in - packages again - but its cool!
I like the way FCA does it. All or nothing with their SRT Cherokee, Hellcat, and TRX. They go full bore.