Good review of Roxor and the current litigation

oldgreybull

oldgreybull

Member
Lifetime Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
88
Points
18
Location
Hernando, Fl USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
5136
American Spectator - Eric Peters
You searched for Roxor | The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Affordable Jeeps are coming back!

Just not from Jeep.

Mahindra, the manufacturer of the Roxor — which looks, and is, a lot like the Jeeps you used to be able to buy for about half the cost of the Jeeps you’re forced to buy today — is apparently going to resume manufacturing them this coming year.

Earlier this year, Mahindra was forced by the U.S. International Trade Commission to stop selling Roxors in the U.S. on account of trade dress infringement. Fiat Chrysler — which owns the Jeep brand — argued that Roxors were essentially knockoffs of the classic CJs Jeep hasn’t sold since the 1980s.


Today, Jeep sells the Wrangler, and the 2020 model has a base price of $28,295.

A Roxor stickers for about $16,000 — precisely because it is a knockoff of the old CJs Jeep hasn’t made since the 1980s.

Mahindra’s North American CEO, Rick Haas, admitted as much, openly: “Everyone understands that our vehicle is a CJ.”

By which he was saying that the Roxor is what a Jeep used to be.

That isn’t so much a trade dress problem as it is another kind of problem.

The Roxor is affordable because it is simple — which modern Jeeps like the Wrangler aren’t.


It has no air bags. It’s not designed to pass current federal bumper impact, rollover, or other such “standards.” It lacks a direct-injected, computer-controlled engine with variable valve/cam timing, cylinder deactivation, and Automatic Stop/Start (ASS).

It does have a mechanically injected 2.5-liter diesel engine that doesn’t even need a battery to start it — if you roll the thing down a hill and let out the clutch — that’s capable of averaging 50 miles per gallon. That’s about twice the average you’ll get out of a new Wrangler.

It also has manual locking hubs, low-range gearing, and everything you need to go off-roading.

Without all the rest of it.

That’s why it’s affordable — like Jeep CJs used to be.

The current Wrangler isn’t affordable — because it has all the rest. In part that’s because Jeep obediently builds it to be “compliant” with all the things federal bureaucrats say a new vehicle must comply with, including some things that only a busybody could claim are anyone’s business except the buyer’s — such as how much damage the vehicle can withstand in the event of a crash. But this has nothing to do with whether a vehicle is likely to crash.

Such edicts are the vehicular equivalent of government busybodies issuing fatwas decreeing how many calories you’re allowed per day.

We can still choose to eat bacon cheeseburgers rather than soy patties — though probably not for long.

But federal fatwas are only part of the reason for the Wrangler being almost as expensive to buy — and insure — as an entry-level BMW.

The Wrangler is more expensive than it has to be — due to compliance costs — because Jeep won’t sell you one without AC or power windows or a touchscreen and other such things it isn’t forced by fatwa to install but has made standard.

Why have they made them standard? Because it makes Jeep more money, since you can’t avoid paying for former “extras” like AC, power windows, and so on.

All the car companies do this now, because of financing schemes that make it possible for buyers to spend more than most of them can afford. An almost $30k-to-start Wrangler represents an expenditure equivalent to about half the average American’s annual family income — and for that reason is unaffordable on the face of it — but it’s made to appear “affordable” through six- and seven-year loans.

This has made it impossible for people who’d like to live within their means, or even below them, to find even a relatively simple new vehicle — one that is “compliant” with the various federal fatwas — but doesn’t cost almost $30k to start because of all the standard features.

Plus tax — as Elvis used to say.

It’s a form of regulatory capture — making it too expensive for a newcomer to compete by making regulatory compliance costs too high — without the regulations. But with the low-low financing. Which people sign up for because what choice do they have?

And that’s why the $16k Roxor is such a threat to the established order of things.

The trademark infringement case wasn’t really brought because Mahindra was trading off the Jeep name but because the Jeep name no longer means what it used to — and because Roxor was reminding people of that.

The Roxor does not compete directly with the Wrangler. It offers an alternative to it. A simpler, much more affordable alternative that doesn’t require signing up for a six-or-seven-year debt indenture and also thumbs in the eye this business of government busybodies forcing people to finance what they could otherwise not afford.

If Jeep still built Jeeps — affordable and simple vehicles without all the cost-padding standards — the Roxor would be irrelevant. People would buy the real thing, not the copy of it. But it’s Roxor that makes the real thing now — and that’s the real problem.

For Jeep, and for all the major players.

Eric Peters The American Spectator

fordable Jeeps are coming back!

Just not from Jeep.

Mahindra, the manufacturer of the Roxor — which looks, and is, a lot like the Jeeps you used to be able to buy for about half the cost of the Jeeps you’re forced to buy today — is apparently going to resume manufacturing them this coming year.

Earlier this year, Mahindra was forced by the U.S. International Trade Commission to stop selling Roxors in the U.S. on account of trade dress infringement. Fiat Chrysler — which owns the Jeep brand — argued that Roxors were essentially knockoffs of the classic CJs Jeep hasn’t sold since the

That isn’t so much a trade dress problem as it is another kind of problem.

The Roxor is affordable because it is simple — which modern Jeeps like the Wrangler aren’t.


It has no air bags. It’s not designed to pass current federal bumper impact, rollover, or other such “standards.” It lacks a direct-injected, computer-controlled engine with variable valve/cam timing, cylinder deactivation, and Automatic Stop/Start (ASS).

It does have a mechanically injected 2.5-liter diesel engine that doesn’t even need a battery to start it — if you roll the thing down a hill and let out the clutch — that’s capable of averaging 50 miles per gallon. That’s about twice the average you’ll get out of a new Wrangler.

It also has manual locking hubs, low-range gearing, and everything you need to go off-roading.

Without all the rest of it.

That’s why it’s affordable — like Jeep CJs used to be.

The current Wrangler isn’t affordable — because it has all the rest. In part that’s because Jeep obediently builds it to be “compliant” with all the things federal bureaucrats say a new vehicle must comply with, including some things that only a busybody could claim are anyone’s business except the buyer’s — such as how much damage the vehicle can withstand in the event of a crash. But this has nothing to do with whether a vehicle is likely to crash.

Such edicts are the vehicular equivalent of government busybodies issuing fatwas decreeing how many calories you’re allowed per day.

We can still choose to eat bacon cheeseburgers rather than soy patties — though probably not for long.

But federal fatwas are only part of the reason for the Wrangler being almost as expensive to buy — and insure — as an entry-level BMW.

The Wrangler is more expensive than it has to be — due to compliance costs — because Jeep won’t sell you one without AC or power windows or a touchscreen and other such things it isn’t forced by fatwa to install but has made standard.

Why have they made them standard? Because it makes Jeep more money, since you can’t avoid paying for former “extras” like AC, power windows, and so on.

All the car companies do this now, because of financing schemes that make it possible for buyers to spend more than most of them can afford. An almost $30k-to-start Wrangler represents an expenditure equivalent to about half the average American’s annual family income — and for that reason is unaffordable on the face of it — but it’s made to appear “affordable” through six- and seven-year loans.

This has made it impossible for people who’d like to live within their means, or even below them, to find even a relatively simple new vehicle — one that is “compliant” with the various federal fatwas — but doesn’t cost almost $30k to start because of all the standard features.

Plus tax — as Elvis used to say.

It’s a form of regulatory capture — making it too expensive for a newcomer to compete by making regulatory compliance costs too high — without the regulations. But with the low-low financing. Which people sign up for because what choice do they have?

And that’s why the $16k Roxor is such a threat to the established order of things.

The trademark infringement case wasn’t really brought because Mahindra was trading off the Jeep name but because the Jeep name no longer means what it used to — and because Roxor was reminding people of that.

The Roxor does not compete directly with the Wrangler. It offers an alternative to it. A simpler, much more affordable alternative that doesn’t require signing up for a six-or-seven-year debt indenture and also thumbs in the eye this business of government busybodies forcing people to finance what they could otherwise not afford.

If Jeep still built Jeeps — affordable and simple vehicles without all the cost-padding standards — the Roxor would be irrelevant. People would buy the real thing, not the copy of it. But it
 
...................
S

SMF

Active member
Lifetime Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
114
Points
43
Location
North Carolina, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
800
It's worth remembering that, for obvious reason, Roxor was/is marketed as an off-road UTV, one which happens to come with Willys roots and seven decades of licensed Indian production experience. FCA doesn't make UTVs and never has. The litigation is all about "not in my backyard" protectionism at its worst. Their trade dress argument against Mahindra is silliness equivalent to asserting that, as a CJ look alike, the Tonka toy Jeep cuts into Fiat's bottomline. Of course, if true, one has to wonder what MANA was thinking by poking FCA in the eye in admitting that, "everyone understands our vehicle (Roxor) is a CJ." Getting into a verbal punching contest with Jeep may have a feel good aspect, but is probably best avoided. Nose job aside, the 2021 return should enable Roxor to speak for itself, hopefully once and for all.
 
C

Campyman

Active member
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
391
Points
43
Location
Bellevue, WA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
50 miles per gallon eh..... Well I got around 30 which was nice. But 50 is impossible. It's also not a mechanical injection system. Definatly an electronic injection. The author should have done more research
 
CJ2Rox

CJ2Rox

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
104
Points
28
Location
Clearfield, UT, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
6475
50 miles per gallon eh..... Well I got around 30 which was nice. But 50 is impossible. It's also not a mechanical injection system. Definatly an electronic injection. The author should have done more research
Disagree replace all fluid with a Good synthetic and you would be amazed what great lubrication can do..Just Running 0w40 increased my MPG by 6%. Next are the diffs.
 
WillysJeep

WillysJeep

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
49
Points
18
Location
New Meadows, ID, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
7212
CJ2Rox would you mind posting which brand of synthetics you are running/planning to run and viscosities for each application? It would be much appreciated. I started to look into it and my head just about spun off.
 
CJ2Rox

CJ2Rox

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
104
Points
28
Location
Clearfield, UT, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
6475
Amsoil 0w40 engine, 80w90 Amsoil gear lube
 
C

Campyman

Active member
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
391
Points
43
Location
Bellevue, WA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Disagree replace all fluid with a Good synthetic and you would be amazed what great lubrication can do..Just Running 0w40 increased my MPG by 6%. Next are the diffs.

So what you're saying is that even though the API service rating says that "energy conserving II" oil will achieve a 2.7 % improvement in fuel economy you believe it will actually achieve a 6% improvement and combined with synthetic oil for the gearboxes this could achieve an 80% improvement. 😳. Wow, just wow.......
 
CJ2Rox

CJ2Rox

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
104
Points
28
Location
Clearfield, UT, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
6475
So what you're saying is that even though the API service rating says that "energy conserving II" oil will achieve a 2.7 % improvement in fuel economy you believe it will actually achieve a 6% improvement and combined with synthetic oil for the gearboxes this could achieve an 80% improvement. 😳. Wow, just wow.......
Quality of oil is huge, just because it say synthetic doesn't mean it any good. I briefly ran Royal purple in my chevy and within 1k miles all engine seals started leaking. Truck has over 200k miles on it. Changed over to 0w30 Amsoil still no issues and MPG went up. Don't run 15w40 in the winter. The W in 0w40 means winter. Easier cold starts still a 40 weight oil just better for MPG and winter. I became a believer 10 yrs ago when my 02 chevy went from 14mpg to 17 just with the oil. Everything ran smoother. It will cause diesel engines to run much smoother. Less friction more lubrication converts. Up to 6% improvement.
 
B

Bhayarock

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
74
Points
18
Location
Taylorsville, UT, USA
50 miles per gallon eh..... Well I got around 30 which was nice. But 50 is impossible. It's also not a mechanical injection system. Definatly an electronic injection. The author should have done more research
Not challenging anyone,, I would say yea 50mpg is too much, no matter what oil or fuel you use, if it's just not a figure of speech..its not a prius. India where I drove a cousin of roxor for like 5 years with same engine on road, it gives you about 12-15kmpl =30-35 mpg. Offroad will be less but on road at 50mph or 80kmph..it gives the best mileage.
 
H

Haerterich

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
121
Points
43
Location
Caledonia, IL, USA
Roxor Ownership
Roxor Owner
Roxor #
738
Roxors are common rail fuel injection, not mechanical injection. And you need a battery
 
Top