Jeep Models Crippled By Buggy Software Update

Over the weekend, an over-the-air (OTA) update ended up wreaking havoc on a bunch of hybrid Jeeps. Owners of the Wrangler 4xe PHEV seem to be the worst affected, with customers reporting instances of vehicles becoming inoperable.

While the Jeep forums are loaded up with aggrieved Wrangler customers, The Autopian looks to have been one of the first automotive outlets to cover Jeep’s software snafu. The OTA update (first issued on October 10th) was supposed to pertain to U-Connect. However, it ended up sending some Jeep models into a general frenzy. Customers reported an array of warning lights activating along the dashboard, losses of power while on the highway, and even vehicles completely deactivating themselves in traffic.

Reddit and Facebook likewise have numerous instances of Wrangler and Grand Cherokee 4xe owners saying that their Jeep issued numerous warnings to park and restart the vehicle after the software update. However, upon doing so, the hybrid became totally non-compliant. There are now clips of the issue circulating online. In most cases, the Jeep issues a bevy of warnings before losing power. Sometimes it refuses to start.

The Stack also published numerous customer testimonials that help underscore just how bad things became for some drivers.

The general consensus among 4xe owners was to not agree to the software update issued on Friday and not to drive your Jeep if you already have. Jeep is very obviously aware of the issue and is apparently in the midst of offering a solution, having already discontinued the ability to download the glitchy software.

They’ve clarified that the update pertains to the telematics box module (the device that shares your driving information with the manufacturer). A fix was reportedly reached over the weekend, with the official rollout happening on Monday. Impacted vehicles will need to be in an area with good cellular coverage and install another update that will allegedly undo the damage. Alternatively, vehicles can be towed to the nearest dealership to have the necessary updates completed.

But it really shouldn’t have happened in the first place and stinks of the company not bothering to test the software on control vehicles before pushing it out to customers. Something most automotive outlets seem to agree with. However, this was presumably unavoidable as every automaker now fancies itself a tech company desperate to pivot to “software defined vehicles.”

A lot of what we’ve started to see within the automotive sector has been an issue for other industries for decades. Video games and other forms of computer software probably offer the best examples. In the early days of home computers and gaming, customers had to purchase physical copies of the software they wanted to run on their systems. If that included a few bugs, the purchaser basically had to live with them.

The internet would eventually provide companies with an opportunity to correct those mistakes. Downloadable updates offered fixes for bad code long after the software had been purchased. This not only opened up the door to solve wonky software but it also let companies add features. However, it wasn’t long until businesses realized that they could charge for the privilege of adding them. Downloadable content (DLC) meant new levels for gamers while perpetual updates helped keep all types of software relevant.

Sadly, this also introduced code bloat. Software was getting increasingly complex as things were repeatedly patched or updated and then used as the foundation for an entirely new program. Code was becoming wasteful, resulting in overly large file sizes and unintended glitches. This also resulted in companies releasing unfinished products on the grounds that it could always be fixed later via downloadable patches — and the automotive industry looks to have placed itself on a similar trajectory.

Connected vehicles have allowed for new ways for automakers to make money. Data can be harvested and then sold to third parties; over-the-air updates likewise allows companies to gatekeep features already equipped to a vehicle; and any unpleasant software gremlins can be tackled after a car has already been sold.

Ever notice how the first step to a lot of modern recalls involves a software update? That’s not a coincidence. Software has become a major issue as vehicles are built to be increasingly reliant upon code and less mechanical. But, even when the defect is wholly physical, opening up with a “software update” is a good way to buy yourself some time by convincing regulators that you’ve addressed the problem. Software solutions are also much cheaper for manufacturers to conduct than having to repair hundreds of thousands of physical components.

Let’s also not forget that it was the industry that introduced automotive connectivity and software defined vehicles, with Tesla leading the trend. Customers have continued to signal that they’re not overly interested in technological features if they make automobiles more tedious to interface with or less reliable than their predecessors. Permanently connecting vehicles to the internet simultaneously opens up customer vehicles to malicious actors. There’s no shortage of groups trying to scrape data for the purposes of criminal gain and corporate espionage is likewise on the rise. We tend to think that rival companies enjoy friendly competition. But the truth is often a little darker, with billions of dollars being on the line.

That said, most of the problems we’ve seen from automotive software updates seems to be the fault of the manufacturer. Rivian had an issue in 2023 where updates simply refused to finish installing. The vehicles could still be driven. But it remained an inconvenience for drivers.

Tesla has had a few issues where it was believed updates created issue of phantom braking and there reports of select Cybertrucks becoming inoperable until another update could be issued in 2024.

Earlier this year, General Motors saw a host of vehicles suffering from buggy infotainment systems and vehicle displays. While there were claims that these vehicles came from the factory with glitches, many customers were convinced that they only manifested after an update. Ford also recently had to cope with an NHTSA investigation into the Bronco Sport and Maverick stemming from complaints that an update was forcing vehicles to lose power and experience electrical system failures.

There are also instances where over-the-air updates were promised to solve a problem and then didn’t. For example, Volkswagen took criticism for launching the ID.4 with issues and vowed they could be addressed via OTA updates. But it took years before any comprehensive solution could be delivered and many customers still had to take their cars into the dealership to have everything dealt with.

The above are relatively recent examples and should help drive home the point that remote vehicle updates seem to be creating as many problems for customers as they’ve solved. But it’s hard to pin down why. Code bloat is assuredly a factor and something all industries seem to be coping with right now. However, there is likewise a sense that modern vehicles have been made too complex and the necessary quality assurance is not being conducted whenever software is at play.

[Images: Jeep]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.