Consumers Ignorant, or Self-deceiving?
 

I found these statistics very interesting from a JD Power survey of Jeep Wrangler owners vs the average compact SUV buyer:

https://www.jdpower.com/cars/expert-...etorque-review

30% of Wrangler owners say fuel economy is a first consideration, and they chose a Wrangler? 90% say reliability and 81% say maintenance costs are a first consideration.

Are these owners ignorant, or do they deceive themselves into thinking other vehicles in the segment don't get better fuel economy or have better reliability? I wonder why off-road ability wasn't mentioned, because that might explain the answers, assuming top off road performance was a first consideration and fuel economy and reliability are first after that.

As a disclaimer, this isn't a knock at people who enjoy owning a Wrangler. If you know me, I'm perfectly fine with any reasoning for people wanting what they want. I just wonder if there are many uninformed, or many that are willfully blind? I'm not singling out Wrangler owners either, but more wondering in general if consumers say they value one thing, but actually value another over that?

Yes.

I guess fuel economy is more important to people who get bad fuel economy. It's kind of always in your mind when driving a Jeep.

Shame they didn't ask how many take their vehicles off road vs the segment average. Given the lack of competition, the Wrangler might just be the most economical vehicle of it's type you can buy in the US. The only thing in the US that would come close to a factory Rubi would be a G Wagen - the economy on those is even worse.

60% vs 15%:

https://www.google.com/search?q=perc...utf-8&oe=utf-8

That median income stat though, yikes! And that's in real dollars. No wonder the latest Wrangler costs so much.

Reliablity? My Jeeps been 100% perfect. My Fiat has been let down by all the German made parts...

Suzuki's Jimny is the exact same size as a TJ Wrangler (other than a shorter hood since it's a 4cyl). I've got one on order to replace my TJ since Jeep have abandoned the idea of small, nimble and affordable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4xTph-_RVk

18mpg will become ~40, so no need for another car to actually drive. There are surprisingly few high mileage TJ's out there considering their age and general robustness.

They're probably more interested in how they are perceived than anything else.

Jeeps are unreliable fiat owned junk.
I saw a 2016 study of 30 manufacturers, jeep was at the bottom with about 200 problems per 100 "new" vehicles.
These thing are about as off road ready as my riding lawn mower.
Fuel economy suxks.
People buy them because they think they are rugged (which they're not) and cool.
The parts are kind of cheap because everyone makes them, because there is so much demand.
All the Jeep people I know their, automotive knowledge scares me.

Yep. That's exactly what I think of people who drive Wranglers. I also think people who own ARs know a great deal about guns. I think McDonald's customers know a great deal about food. I think Nickelback fans know a great deal about music...

I came across that JD Power link while researching the new mild-hybrid Wrangler. Apparently the 48v system is good for a 2 MPG improvement, which sounds not spectacular until you realize that's a 10% improvement on what is normally a 20 MPG vehicle.

The original thread was about an EV owner that pointed out to a Wrangler owner that the parking spot they took was for hybrid and alternative vehicles only, to which the owner responded that their Jeep was a hybrid.

I owned a 2002 Jeep Liberty for about 3 years. Maybe I averaged 20 MPG even though I'd drive at the slowest speed that the top gear would lock up in, which was 60 MPH. It developed a evap leak which was easy to fix with some tubing, and the 4WD sensor stopped working and it ended up being fairly easy to replace. I consider myself lucky that those were the only issues I had to deal with. I found a 9mm bullet in the wheel once from being parked at a trailhead. Either people didn't like Jeep, or they just shoot at tires indiscriminately.

I see some people on EV forums saying they bought a Tesla M3 or a new Chevy Bolt to save money. I suppose buying a Chevy Bolt saves money if the other consideration was a Porsche. I would just be suspicious if their top priority in a vehicle is to save money. You don't buy a new $40k vehicle to save money.

Perhaps people have a narrow interest in what they want to purchase, and among those few choices, the one they end up with is more fuel efficient or reliable than the alternatives they were considering?

No.

I doubt most people have ever sat down and calculated their total cost of ownership for any car they've owned, let alone expected cost for a new purchase. So in their minds, they think they are saving money. But as you pointed out in another thread, we tend to think a lot of things that aren't true.

I'm sitting at $0.38 per mile at just over 80,000 miles. If my fuel and insurance costs remain roughly consistent over the next several years, I'll be at $0.25 per mile at 150,000 miles. Compare that to the cheapest Jeep Wrangler (and leaving out taxes, consumables like tires, etc., which I included in my Prius spreadsheet--so this is giving advantage to the Jeep): at $28,295 and 25mpg highway, $2.51/gal (average I paid this year) and same insurance rate, the Jeep would be sitting at $0.50 per mile at 80,000 miles and $0.34 per mile at 150,000 miles. Tires and taxes will add a couple cents per mile to those. I doubt most drivers who buy a new vehicle keep it long enough to see those figures, though.