By on January 4, 2021

2021 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392

We know the 2021 Jeep Wrangler 392 Rubicon and its 470 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque is on its way to market. Now we have an inkling on price.

The gang over at Jalopnik has screenshots of a forum post showing an order sheet that lists the order code as “27X” and the MSRP at $77,055.

Apparently, this Wrangler also has the dual-top and towing packages. It’s unclear if this price is a base price or just for this particular unit as configured.

If that pricing turns out to be accurate, it’s not all that surprising. Wranglers aren’t cheap, especially when laden with options, and a Hemi-fied (Jeep won’t use the word “Hemi” for corporate reasons, but it’s a Hemi) Wrangler will fetch a pretty penny.

People will pay for muscle, especially if they also think the vehicle has future collectible value. It’s not a direct comparison, obviously, but the last Hellcat Charger I drove cost around $80K.

If you want power, it will cost you.

[Image: Jeep/FCA]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

37 Comments on “Report: 2021 Jeep Wrangler 392 Rubicon Priced at Nearly $80K...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m not so sure such vehicles have future collectible value.

    People paid hefty prices for the first Hellcats, only to see them eclipsed by improved Hellcats and then Demons. The stream of ‘collectible’ cars never seems to end, or have clear definition. This is especially true when the mfr announces after the first ‘limited edition’ that they will actually produce more ‘limited edition’ cars because they were so popular.

    IMO, FCA/Stellantis is actually detracting from the collectability of such vehicles by producing so many of them. This 392 Rubicon is surely just the first of several hot Wranglers.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      That’s why I said if people “think” it has future collectible value. It might not. But I suspect some early buyers will think it will, even if Jeep doesn’t limit production.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        I don’t see it as being collectable. That has to be left to father time. Case in point, early Bronco’s were not seen as collectable until recently. That’s a new trend not one started when they were first made.

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          Lou_BC,

          “That has to be left to father time.”

          Yes. I’m not sure exactly when manufacturers started trying to convince people of their products collectability, but that’s putting the cart before the horse (probably the wrong idiom, but…). I do remember in the late 90’s the Pokemon craze and how the people who made the cards had the chutzpah to also tell you what each cards “value” was as a collectible. Talk about BS.

      • 0 avatar
        Syke

        What’s the old saying? “If it’s sold as a collectible, it isn’t.”

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I don’t think these V8 Wranglers will just be “collector cars”, there are many out there who will actually crawl their Jeeps, which is why American Expedition Vehicles has done so well with its after market mods on Jeeps. Jeep wants some of that money back by offering internal mod services with factory-authorized parts AND a full factory warranty on the modded vehicle if performed by Jeep’s own shop.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Certainly, not all collectible cars started out as being “collectible.”

      Anyone that bought a fire sale Chevy SSR new is getting a chuckle now. The trucklet was beyond undesirable at a time.

      The Holden Monaro based GTO was about as exciting as paint drying, with Cavalier looks and only a moderately better interior. They sell for ridiculous money today.

      I believe that orphans, oddballs, and bizarre design will be the fodder of the future – outside of the obvious limited production keystone vehicles (2020 Corvette for example but largely due to COVID)

      My opinion – future collectibes

      Nissan Cube
      Pontiac Aztek
      First Gen (U.S.) Toyota Prius

      I also think that manual transmission cars will hold a special place in 20 to 30 years, as row your own dies out. So where I would say a Chevy SS or a Challenger will be meh – manual versions have potential because of the oddity of the manual transmission to come.

      The big issue ahead for any “collectible” especially for say an econobox like the Cube is going to be parts availability. The days of stockpiling massive piles of replacement parts are over, and LEAN manufacturing and inventory does not support the restoration industry.

      3D printing will be the future for certain parts as it scales out and gets better/cheaper. I know dashboards are a huge issue for people trying to restore 80s iron right now.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    By far, the best test of an item’s collectibility is based on a pair of criteria;
    -whether the item has an unique feature or style which hasn’t been produced before. A game changer.
    -the scarcity of said item.

    Please note that by “item” it could be an auto, a computer, a game. Almost anything.
    The same rules apply.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Also, someone *else’s* agreement that it is collectible, and with a willingness to pay.

      I could produce a unique, scarce item that is worthless to anyone else. Hence the term “starving artist”.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Yep. I have a friend that payed a metric butt ton for a mindspring computer…a wierd sort of DOS compatible 8 bit computer that had very advanced graphics and no sales. He also spent more than I’ve spent on some project cars restoring an Altair.

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    Report: People who pay 80 grand for an army truck are nuts.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      You mean, the army?

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The army has probably paid that much for trucks, but not that one. It would need about 500 lbs. of armor, run flat tires, be flex-fuel ready, and need several mounting spots for equipment.

        Every once in a while a bean counting politician will advocate base vehicles and off-the-shelf tech, but that stuff doesn’t last long in regular use, let alone on a modern battlefield.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      How is a modern Wrangler with a giant V8 an “army truck”?

      It has very little in common with a Willys MB from 1941 apart from the basic shape (and arguably less with an M151, as the M151 is unibody!).

      (They’re loud and kinda dumb, absolutely, but they’re no more an “army truck” than a G-class is, despite the G-class being made for the military and utility market *right now*, and the Jeep having been out

      Yeah, with different sheet metal and a far nicer interior than the military model, but the working bits seem to be identical.)

  • avatar
    Tim Healey

    That’s why I said if people “think” it has future collectible value. It might not. But I suspect some early buyers will think it will, even if Jeep doesn’t limit production.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      The main sales will be people who have to be first with the newest. After that, the market will be limited. If worst comes to worst, the 392 will retain its value longer than the jeep itself.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Too bad the 392 won’t be available on lesser trims. Hemi swaps in Jeeps appear to be fairly popular. A buddy of mind had his V6 fail in his Jeep. After he had a rebuilt V6 installed he found out a hemi swap would have been comparable in price. I know another guy who rebuilt his Jeep with a 5.7.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Considering how rarely Jeep (under any OEM) has offered a V8 under the hood AND the fact that almost all cars and SUVs will be battery- or hydrogen-powered within the next decade or two, these V8 Jeeps will almost certainly become collectors items, in a fraction of the time of their predecessors, I’m sure.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Actually, I drove a v8 JGC – is nice

  • avatar
    Nick_515

    Freedom ain’t cheap, ya know?

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    So I recalled reading an article that I found again and referenced below. Klaus Zellmer, CEO of Porsche NA said that people were trading in their Porsches for… Jeep Wranglers.

    So the real question is if you are in marketing, and you know you have customers who are willing to spend 100k for a plaything car, how can you not give these customers an excuse to spend more on your product?

    It’s ‘crazy’ if you don’t have the disposable income for this and your leveraged to the hilt for appearance sake, but if you’ve got the money it makes as much sense as any other expensive toy car. At least you can drive it in winter and carry a weeks worth of groceries.

    https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/people-are-swapping-their-porsches-for-jeep-wranglers-this-is-carmakers-bizarre-response.html

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I have no doubt it will sell well.

      My doubts about collectability aside, we really do live in a golden age of cars. A 392 Rubicon sounds like great fun.

      The mfrs know that there is an upper segment of society with money to spend on such frivolities, so they may as well build what people want while turning a nice profit.

    • 0 avatar
      teddyc73

      So, I saw an article stating starting sentences with “so” is not necessary. So…..

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Don’t be surprised if Porsche doesn’t try to put out a Jeep Wrangler equivalent in the next few years, even if it is a hydrogen- or battery powered version.

    • 0 avatar

      When I worked in insurance 2 out of the 3 VP’s I worked with had wranglers as their fun car. The third had 3 series convertible.

      Jeep people also seem to like having the coolest toys, when the JL came out one of the boating forums I’m on had ton’s of posts from guys with houses in FL and 30′ center consoles so excited to buy a loaded Rubicon with 10k in dealer installed bling.

  • avatar
    Ol Shel

    They should call all of these Hellcat-ish FCAs the P.T. Barnum Edition.

    But, as an old boss said to me as he held up a twenty, “Do you see any instructions on here?!”

    • 0 avatar
      teddyc73

      If people are buying them and it’s making money for the company why does it matter to you? People are free to do what they wish with their money. At least until the Democrats control everything and it all becomes the government’s money.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Overpriced. But you know there are those who will pay it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      $78,000 today was about $8,900 in 1960. That would buy you a model 75 long wheelbase Cadillac sedan. In 1976, that was about $16,500, the cost of a Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman.

      Of course, the top of the line Cadillac and the Jeep Wrangler are usually not considered comparable vehicles, but neither had a 475 HP engine – until now.

  • avatar
    MoDo

    I hope they follow this up with a more sanely priced 5.7 hemi version as they have with most every other 6.4 car/suv/truck. 5.7 wranglers would fly off the shelves.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Even the 5.7 is a rather expensive engine to make. I’m surprised they didn’t give the modular 3.6 V6 a long look and consider making a 4.8 V8. Even a cut down 2.4 V4 could be better than the 2.4 inline 4 they have now.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Cool. Silly cars are fun. I don’t see this being any more absurd than the G-Wagens, Porsche’s nearly $200k grocery getters, etc.

    I think the Slingshot is in this category too, but it’s much less expensive. Still crazy to contemplate though.

  • avatar
    markf

    Seems to me collectibles have 2 common factors, nostalgia and “stealth” By stealth I mean vehicles people bought not thinking they would be collectible one day. Land Cruisers and early 90s/2k Acura’s come to mind. If anyone thought those Acura’s would be collectible they would not have turned 90% of them into Boy-Racer mobiles ruining the suspension and sticking Fart cans on all of them.

    I don’t really see anyone getting nostalgic for this Jeep (I could be wrong) as it looks like every other Jeep made in the last 25 years. And as soon as an OEM sticks “limited edition” on it, 9 times out of ten it is not.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      I had an FJ-40 pickup late in the last Century. It was a rattletrap rust-bucket that had panel gaps that would accommodate a hand – in the door frames, mind. Top speed was 85 Km/h. First gear would get you into the crosswalk in front of you, then it was time to change gears. I cannot believe that they are desirable now. I couldn’t wait to get shot of that utter mess of a vehicle.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: Oil filters won’t be going away in the EV era. Tesla has started using them to filter gearbox oil:...
  • dal20402: This subject is largely religion, not science. If you want your engine to last, focus on the oil itself:...
  • EX35: I drive our fleet Tahoe 5.3s quite a bit so I am basing my experiences comparing those to my Armada and with my...
  • dal20402: Normally I get exposure to cars in this class either through rentals or airport shuttle rides. COVID means...
  • beachy: I converted a mountain bike to an e-bike, with saddle bags on a rack in back as well as foldable baskets....

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber