Help me understand the Diff between trailer tow package and Max Tow Package

[ShadowsPapa]

Or stated another way, I think the max tow package borrows some beefier bits from the Mojave and Rubicon to maximize the platorm tow rating (to be able to advertise against other similar segment vehicles)

Max Tow came first - way first. So it can't borrow from Mojave.
Mojave is a beast that can't be beat if you compare what it's made for vs. almost anything else in that area. If I lived where it could be useful, maybe AZ or some other areas, no doubt I'd have Mojave. You can take it out in the places it's meant for and I'd like to see something else take the beating and ride and handle like it does.
It's a good balance of things in other places, but each level has a main purpose, and blends into other areas without much compromise.
Mojave came out way after the basic Sport JT - or the max tow package.
It has a different audience and aim. FCA knows that each person goes in with a main consideration for purpose and aimed each in those varied directions, but made sure they overlapped as much as possible.

Just an FYI - GOD did create the Mojave!!!!!! You sound a little BIASED towards the Mojave. there is no "hype" - its called people's opinions, just like you've stated yours. Just get over it Mojave owners love their Mojaves! - and be happy for them, we are ALL Jeep owners. If you re-read your post and think you don't sound "bias" well then you are lying to yourself. Listen, we are in the SAME BOAT, My Mojave is considered a step down from a Rubicon just like your Overland is considered a step down from Mojave. I get the frustration and I don't give a rats ass on someone else's opinion when I know I chose the right model for my needs - just like you did.

Yes, and no. Some is put out there as opinion and that person has bought the perfect truck for themselves and their use - others will come up with all sorts of half-truths or just plain mistaken notions to talk others into things, or more likely, try to get validation for their own choice. Face it, that's what a lot of social media is - getting validation and/or proving to everyone that they made the perfect choice and anyone else that doesn't make the same choice is making a mistake.
That's why I suggest - pick the primary purpose. If towing is a big deal, maybe not primary, but it's important, then look at the load to be towed. 4-5,000 pounds? Then don't count Mojave out. It will do great. It will have an advantage over some because of the wider axles so put that in the plus side. Consider money if you need to. The only wrong answer is one that someone let themselves get talked into by some of the stretched truth out there.
Advanced frame? Marketing. Stronger frame in the right areas for its purpose. But it won't make a lick of difference to anyone so why even consider that unless you plan on taking it to the dunes or running it hard in rough sand. Scratch that as a pro or a con.
Wider axles - pro.
Appearance - pro (IMO, some like it, some don't, I like it)
Towing capacity - middle of the road.
Softer ride than any of the others? Not all of them........ Sport - yeah (springs for payload and towing under the sport and look at the name) better than Rubicon? Yeah, I'd say so. Smoother/better ride than Overland? Comparable, not better. I'd say about the same.

But if one is concerned about the tow rating differences - maybe Mojave isn't right - on the other hand, if the load is only 5,000 pounds, it's a winner and good choice. I'd say it would do very well even at 5,500 pounds (one should not tow up at their tow rating, that's just foolish)
If you were needing to tow 5,500 pounds I'd say if one was interested in a Mojave, it would be a good choice, I'd do it. I figure the Overland does extremely well at 5,000 pounds, the Mojave is a tad wider on the axles, a bit heavier truck, so it would handle 5,500 pounds without issue and I'd have no reservations about it at all.

If you only tow 5,000-5,500 pounds, the max tow is likely wasted and you get better ride and handling with Mojave, I'd count on it.

I'm not biased for or against any of them - only against the sort of bunk that's out there trying to convince people of things that either aren't so, or don't matter.
I'm for people making choices based on reality, fact, and then once you have it narrowed down a bit, the final choice on what makes you feel good about it, even if it's down to how it looks.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I agree with ShadowsPapa on this - Do yourself a favor, take everything ouve found out from your research and decide for yourself whats best for you. For me, usually a "pros and cons" list spells it out for me to make my decision. ONE LAST THING TO CONSIDER - Mojave is sort of a "step child"- meaning like 70% of the parts that fit a Gladiator are specific to a Rubicon, so most of those parts do NOT FIT Mojave's. You have to find parts listed exactly for a Mojave or 392.

It's one of those levels where you can buy it and drive it and wait on some of the mods people feel a need to do on other levels.
That's another consideration - if you are into appearance mods - then you are already a step ahead because the looks, at least IMO, are already there.
Lifts can wait - it's already got a better stance than some.
You've got shocks that blow all the others away already - Rubicon Fox shocks are a joke - Overland stock shocks are actually better, at least for the first year, IMO. I'd never put Rubicon shocks back on my Overland. New ones bounced as badly as my worn Overland shocks bounce now so why bother? I've not seen people complain about Mojave shocks.

So it's another area one needs to list things out - any mods in mind? Maybe some can wait, depending on the level of JT you choose.

 

[Toro34]

So you gotta take the hype into account as well - those who own Mojave swear it's the second coming, it's begotten from God himself. Appearance-wise, I can appreciate it. Ride-wise - I see no difference between it and what I have. Do i need the extra height and expense?

Sometimes I feel like Jeep planted Mojave moles on the forum, just to push this model.

They charge same price as a Rubicon, and pocket the money they save on the front locker and auto sway!

Kidding aside, very few of us will push these trucks to the edge of their intended limits, with the exception of towing. But in that vein, if you need to tow regularly, or carry a larger payload, you should probably be shopping for a full size truck.

It also baffles me when the ride is compared to a luxury SUV/car (sans solid axles) that is designed for a life on highways and paved roads. Confirmation bias is a real thing, no one wants to be told their expensive super truck cant be the best in every aspect of use

 

[JarHeadLV]

Sometimes I feel like Jeep planted Mojave moles on the forum, just to push this model.

They charge same price as a Rubicon, and pocket the money they save on the front locker and auto sway!

Sure, because Jeep didn't spend ANY MORE $$$ on the Mojave for better front seats, stronger frame, BETTER Fox shocks, higher ground clearance, thicker rear axle, hydraulic dampers, engage the rear locker in high range, etc..... this shit was all FREE.

 

[Dougstdig]

Sure, because Jeep didn't spend ANY MORE $$$ on the Mojave for better front seats, stronger frame, BETTER Fox shocks, higher ground clearance, thicker rear axle, hydraulic dampers, engage the rear locker in high range, etc..... this shit was all FREE.

Well, to be fair, the ability to engage the rear axle in Hi range may have cost $150 in the initial programming / the number of Mojave’s on the road = almost free. Seats…it still has to have seats…and there’s just a little more bolstering. Cost would be negligible. Not sure the axle is any different than what comes in a Rubicon.

Frame…yep. I think we’re finding the Fox Shocks to have hype value. At least the ones specked by Jeep. If modding the suspension, that’s a big bummer since one would be limited to shock extensions and stock range of motion from those same shocks. At 50 to 100k, I’d hate to have the rig parked while the shocks and bump stopped were sent off to be serviced…or waste the money spent on the shocks if having to replace them.

It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[JarHeadLV]

Well, to be fair, the ability to engage the rear axle in Hi range may have cost $150 in the initial programming / the number of Mojave’s on the road = almost free. Seats…it still has to have seats…and there’s just a little more bolstering. Cost would be negligible. Not sure the axle is any different than what comes in a Rubicon.

Frame…yep. I think we’re finding the Fox Shocks to have hype value. At least the ones specked by Jeep. If modding the suspension, that’s a big bummer since one would be limited to shock extensions and stock range of motion from those same shocks. At 50 to 100k, I’d hate to have the rig parked while the shocks and bump stopped were sent off to be serviced…or waste the money spent on the shocks if having to replace them.

It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

well, to be "fair" as you put it, $150 x (x number of Mojave's sold) is NOT "negligible, all costs add up and this is WHY manufacturers dont do what seems like simple stuff to us because of the magnified costs. Either way you cut it, the add on to both the Mojave and Rubicon COST MONEY. Sure, the seats in the Mojave just "appeared" out of the blue, there was no designers involved in their time to design the new look and feel of the seats to make sure they were good to go (and small, but extra material needed) .....again, NOT FREE

if you think the Fox shocks on the Mojave are "hype" that's your opinion, but in MY experience running over desert terrain in a Mojave and then do it in a Rubicon Gladiator.....BIG difference bro, BIG Difference

 

[Toro34]

well, to be "fair" as you put it, $150 x (x number of Mojave's sold) is NOT "negligible, all costs add up and this is WHY manufacturers dont do what seems like simple stuff to us because of the magnified costs. Either way you cut it, the add on to both the Mojave and Rubicon COST MONEY. Sure, the seats in the Mojave just "appeared" out of the blue, there was no designers involved in their time to design the new look and feel of the seats to make sure they were good to go (and small, but extra material needed) .....again, NOT FREE

if you think the Fox shocks on the Mojave are "hype" that's your opinion, but in MY experience running over desert terrain in a Mojave and then do it in a Rubicon Gladiator.....BIG difference bro, BIG Difference

I could be wrong, but I THINK a lot of the Mojave parts are rebranded 392 parts as well? The steering wheel, the seats, the hood, the cowl? IMO the Mojave should have had a 392 option

 

[JarHeadLV]

I could be wrong, but I THINK a lot of the Mojave parts are rebranded 392 parts as well? The steering wheel, the seats, the hood, the cowl? IMO the Mojave should have had a 392 option

Agree - I think Jeep is missing a HUGE opportunity by not offering a 392 Hemi in the Gladiator, a limited edition would absolutely sell out.

 

[Toro34]

Agree - I think Jeep is missing a HUGE opportunity by not offering a 392 Hemi in the Gladiator, a limited edition would absolutely sell out.

Sadly, i think the v8 is on its way out faster than many ppl would like. Because of this, I was really hoping the Hurricane would debut in the Mojave, even if it was only in the Standard Output trim

 

[JarHeadLV]

Sadly, i think the v8 is on its way out faster than many ppl would like. Because of this, I was really hoping the Hurricane would debut in the Mojave, even if it was only in the Standard Output trim

Jeep needs to WAKE UP - the competition is offering more value for less price. Jeep would be screwed if they didnt have a "cult" like following

 

[FloridaMan655321]

392 + a manual and I'm trading in today.

 

[troverman]

The "Max Tow" package has a much longer list than the "Tow Package" and makes a buyer think they are getting a lot more. But in reality, the only thing they are getting that enhances towing is the wider axles and the 4.10 axle ratio. They get the limited slip rear axle, which is nice, but won't enhance towing. You get it because that's just the way these axles are made. "Daytime running lamp system?" Lol, that should help towing a lot, along with the black fender flares.

In my opinion, towing 7500lbs with a Sport Max Tow would be a struggle on hills. The Pentastar doesn't make loads of horsepower and torque. The engine temps would be hitting some high peaks. Obviously, Jeep also wants you running the skinniest and shortest tires possible (245/75/17 which is 31.5" tall). This effectively gives you an even more advantageous axle ratio, as opposed to the Rubicon with 32.8" tall tires or even an Overland with 32.1" tall tires.

And finally, I'm in the camp that the Mojave is basically a de-contented Rubicon that Jeep marketing hypes up and then pockets the savings on what isn't on that model but is on a Rubicon. @JarHeadLV misunderstood what @Dougstdig said. The rear locker option on High programming doesn't cost $150 per vehicle, it cost Jeep $150 ONE TIME divided by every Mojave model sold, so yes, essentially free for Jeep. It actually costs Jeep more to make a custom red lower bezel in the Mojave that LACKS the front locker and sway disconnect which the Rubicon has then to add free programming to make the locker turn on in high. As for the "advanced frame" I'm still laughing. It has a couple of very minor additional weldments to prevent it from bending or breaking if someone jumps it in the dunes. Jeep learned well from Ford's bad PR with the original Raptor. Ford also marketed a unique "heavy duty" frame specific to the Raptor for the Gen 2 model, and the differences between it and a normal F-150 frame were as minimal as the Mojave. I don't even think the Mojave is a very good desert truck because it lacks horsepower. For sand, you need big tires aired way down to just a few PSI. Soft sand will sap horsepower more than anything else. 285HP and 260lb-ft is just not that great. For comparison, a new crew cab Ford Raptor only weighs about 700lbs more than a Mojave Gladiator but has +165 HP and +250lb-ft.

 

[JarHeadLV]

And finally, I'm in the camp that the Mojave is basically a de-contented Rubicon that Jeep marketing hypes up and then pockets the savings on what isn't on that model but is on a Rubicon. @JarHeadLV misunderstood what @Dougstdig said. The rear locker option on High programming doesn't cost $150 per vehicle, it cost Jeep $150 ONE TIME divided by every Mojave model sold, so yes, essentially free for Jeep. It actually costs Jeep more to make a custom red lower bezel in the Mojave that LACKS the front locker and sway disconnect which the Rubicon has then to add free programming to make the locker turn on in high. As for the "advanced frame" I'm still laughing. It has a couple of very minor additional weldments to prevent it from bending or breaking if someone jumps it in the dunes. Jeep learned well from Ford's bad PR with the original Raptor. Ford also marketed a unique "heavy duty" frame specific to the Raptor for the Gen 2 model, and the differences between it and a normal F-150 frame were as minimal as the Mojave. I don't even think the Mojave is a very good desert truck because it lacks horsepower. For sand, you need big tires aired way down to just a few PSI. Soft sand will sap horsepower more than anything else. 285HP and 260lb-ft is just not that great. For comparison, a new crew cab Ford Raptor only weighs about 700lbs more than a Mojave Gladiator but has +165 HP and +250lb-ft.

The point I dont get is WHY you guys think a Mojave is a glorified version marked up of a Rubicon. Clearly the Mojave was made for a specific purpose, albeit different than a Rubicon. The Mojave has upgrades (yeah, they still cost money) that the Rubicon does not have. I'm not arguing the point the Rubicon has things the Mojave doesn't have- but thats a 2 sided coin. I guess I'll just agree to disagree with you guys. I LOVE my Mojave.

here's where you're WRONG about the "minor" upgrades in the Mojave. (quoted from Motortrend) The Rubicon frame and suspension is pretty stout in its own right, but going fast and preunning through the desert is a whole different ball of wax. To cope with the rigors of repeated landings and impacts the Gladiator Mojave frame and suspension were bolstered in many areas as compared with the Gladiator Rubicon. For starters, the Mojave front upper control arms feature an increase in strength for greater buckle resistance. The front lower control arm mounting areas on Mojave frame are also strengthened, but the lower front and rear control arms themselves are the same between Mojave and Rubicon. The rear bumpstop cup on the frame is reinforced on Mojave, as are the transmission and engine mounts. Mojave and Rubicon use the same motor mount isolators and transmission mounts, but the metal on the crossmembers and frame to which they mount has been strengthened on Mojave. And the Mojave rear track bar has a larger outer diameter, larger bushings, and a higher strength tube than Rubicon. And finally, the shock towers themselves were reinforced and strengthened in Mojave.

You also confirmed what I said about Jeep's competition, although I wouldn't put the Gladiator and Raptor in the same boat.

 

[troverman]

@JarHeadLV don't take it as me saying the Mojave isn't an awesome rig. I'm driving an Overland with no lockers or sway disconnect or anything else other than the 34.5" tires I put on it, so who am I to say anything. I just feel the Mojave was a nice profit builder for Jeep.

 

[Rahkmalla]

It also baffles me when the ride is compared to a luxury SUV/car (sans solid axles) that is designed for a life on highways and paved roads. Confirmation bias is a real thing, no one wants to be told their expensive super truck cant be the best in every aspect of use

My boss has a Land Rover Evoque. I have a Mojave. We work on a street that is constantly under repair. Months back I had bruised my ribs. On my ride into the office i never really noticed how bad the roads were. Then my boss wanted to go out to lunch. He always drives. Every little road imperfection was absolute pain all across my side with the busted up ribs.

So that's my story comparing my Mojave to a luxury SUV. The mojave eats bumps better. Due to SFA things, there are areas where it's wonky. Slow turn over an iregularity only under one tire and the Mojave will do some side to side rocking the Evoque wouldn't do. But if i ever bust my ribs again and the boss wants to go out to lunch, I'm driving.

Sponsored