Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    FCA Files A Complaint Against Mahindra For Their Jeep Lookalike ATV

      A fair amount of their complaint deals with the design 

    Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is none too pleased with the Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd as they're planning to sell an off-road vehicle that looks very much like the original Willys Jeep.

    Bloomberg obtained a complaint filed by FCA to the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 1st. The document claims that Mahindra's Roxor infringes key characteristics of Jeep's signature design - namely the “boxy body shape with flat-appearing vertical sides and rear body ending at about the same height as the hood.”

    “They are a nearly identical copy of the iconic Jeep design. In fact, the accused product was ‘modeled after the original Willys Jeep."

    The Roxor is a small, two-seat off-road vehicle. There is a lot of resemblance to original Jeep design and there is a reason for that. Beginning in 1947, Mahindra got a license to build the Willys CJ3 for the Asian market. They would do so until 2010. At this point, Mahindra introduced an updated model known as the Thar that meets India's road going passenger vehicle standards and looks like a 1990's Wrangler.

    Now the Roxor isn't being sold as road-legal vehicle. Instead, Mahindra is selling this as a side-by-side off-road utility. That means its not road legal. Which brings us to the next key part of FCA's complaint. The company is arguing that Roxor imports "threaten it with substantial injury as they are underselling Jeeps." This is due to Mahindra manufacturing the parts and creating a knock-down kit, which is then shipped to a plant in the Detroit area for final assembly. We're not sure about this partly due to the arena the Roxor competes in, but also the price. The model begins at just under $15,500. Comparable models from Polaris and Honda begin at under $10,000.

    While Mahindra has had some success in the U.S. with tractors, they haven't had the same when it comes to automobiles. Previously, the company was planning to offer a diesel pickup through a distributor. But plans were scrapped and Mahindra would find itself in a lengthy court battle. The Roxor is the next attempt at possible entry for Mahindra to enter the automotive market. They have spent almost a quarter-billion dollars for a new assembly plant where they currently employ around 300 people. Last November, the company announced a $600 investment and plans to employ as many as 670 workers by 2020.

    Source: Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Mahindra, welcome to the US legal system where you will find that Piracy is not allowed unlike in India and China. Good Luck with paying big time for your stealing ways. America.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    They've looked like Jeeps for a while. Not sure what the sudden protest is about

    Better to crack down now that wait for massive sales for Mahindra at the expense of the new Wrangler.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My understanding is that they have been building the same basic vehicle since the end of ww2 by license and this is not certified for hiway use. Now if they have violated the license agreement then FCA has a case if not it's just sour grapes. FCA is in the business of on road passenger vehicles not side by side off road toys. CJ3's are not in FCA's business plan last I've read.

    • Thanks 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 8/3/2018 at 9:21 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

    They've looked like Jeeps for a while. Not sure what the sudden protest is about

    Yep, and betting there will be others I'm sure.....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
    • Hummer EV (and Silverado EV) are much bigger and truckular...so they have a lot more space underneath for the dirty bits.   The Lyriq isn't a high riding 4x4, so it has to use space for the electric motor(s), power brake system, HVAC, radiator, etc under the hood...
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      (39 years old)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...