4xe Rubicon Weight and Off Road Performance

[Overland Utah]

The 4xe is really appealing to me for a number of reasons beyond the better MPG's.
-Tax Credit
-I visit the mountains often (to ski, jeep, mtn bike, etc) and could utilize the regenerative braking.
-I also commute less than 30 miles each way and have charging stations at my work

My ONLY hesitation with the 4xe is the additional weight, which is substantial when comparing it with a standard Rubicon. The 4xe Rubicon curb weight is 5222 pounds, which is 772 pounds heavier than a standard rubicon's 4450 curb weight. The additional torque makes up for the weight, but that is also assuming that there is enough power for the electric engines. I wanted to start a discussion on how you guys think the weight will impact the 4xe's off-road performance.

Sponsored

 

[PunkSnyper]

I have been asking myself the same question as I’m looking to replace my 2019 JLUR 2.0 e-Torque. I have been really impressed with the 2.0, it feels light and nimble. Only reason I’m even looking is to change color and pick up a few options such as sky one touch top and advanced safety group.

After being disappointed by the eco diesel, I turned my sights to the 4Xe as a high torque alternative. With the lack of driving reviews I was left to look to specs for insight. Looking at 0-60 times between the 4Xe and the standard 2.0 is 6.0 sec vs. 6.25 sec respectively. I’m sure that is with a full charge which would make that a best case for the 4Xe. So, that leaves the novelty of having a cool 140 HP golf cart with a 25 mile range and warranty-end anxiety.

Now, add in the fact that you get the selec-trac (soccer mom?) transfer case vs. the standard Rubicon rock-track unit. That goes for the Hemi also right?

How does the extra weight affect the axles also when you add all the other off-road kit?

In the end, I’m probably going to order or locate a standard 2.0 tomorrow.

 

[bjm00se]

Now, add in the fact that you get the select-trac (soccer mom?) transfer case vs. the standard Rubicon rock-track unit.

Is there a downside to this transfer case I'm not aware of? It still has a 4:1 4-lo for the Rubicon.

 

[PunkSnyper]

Is there a downside to this transfer case I'm not aware of? It still has a 4:1 4-lo for the Rubicon.

I don’t think it is 4:1 is it?

 

[bjm00se]

I don’t think it is 4:1 is it?

Yes it is, according to FCA specifications sheet:
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/download.do?id=22140&mid=1

Half way down page 3, you'll find the following:

"TRANSFER CASE: MP3022OR ROCK-TRAC (Rubicon 4xe)
Type Full-time Operating Modes 2WD High;
4WD Auto;
4WD High;
Neutral;
4WD Low Low Range Ratio 4.0:1"

 

[Overland Utah]

Is there a downside to this transfer case I'm not aware of? It still has a 4:1 4-lo for the Rubicon.

I don’t think it is 4:1 is it?

If it is a Rubicon then it will have the 4:1 ratio in the transfer case, regardless of if it is Selec-Trac or Rock-Trac.

From what I could find, there have been a few threads of someone knowing his buddy‘s neighbor’s best friend that might have had an issue, but there is not a lot of hard data to support the claim that the Selec-Trac is weaker than the standard tcase. I think only time will tell, especially as the 4xe and 392 come out utilizing those transfer cases with the additional torque.

My largest concern is the strength of the axles/housings holding the additional weight as well as larger tires (37“s), gear, etc.

 

[Bill Reiter]

As a general rule, a lighter vehicle will fare better in mud and snow than a heavier vehicle with same power-to-weight ratio.

 

[Oilburner]

The 4xe Rubicon curb weight is 5222 pounds, which is 772 pounds heavier than a standard rubicon's 4450 curb weight.

Yet the towing & payload are not decreased. Wonder how they managed that?

 

[JDaPP]

I believe the difference in transfer cases is clutch vs chain driven.

I think it will only be an issue if you are truly a hardcore offroader. You can see the same/similar arguments on NP241 VS NP242

 

[mgarciaknight]

If the 4xe came with 3.6 as an option, I would be all in! Why doesn't FCA do it?

 

[Sboden]

If the 4xe came with 3.6 as an option, I would be all in! Why doesn't FCA do it?

2.0 has better gas mileage, more torque and I'm guessing smaller motor than 3.6.

 

[mgarciaknight]

2.0 has better gas mileage, more torque and I'm guessing smaller motor than 3.6.

2.0 just one mpg better, and has 35 ft/lbs more torque. 3.6 has 15 more horses. But to me the bigger difference is naturally aspirated versus turbo. I have the 3.6 etorque so already a mild hybrid with extra battery. Why not just make the battery bigger, stick a plug on it, and give a 4xe engine option.

 

[Sboden]

2.0 just one mpg better, and has 35 ft/lbs more torque. 3.6 has 15 more horses. But to me the bigger difference is naturally aspirated versus turbo. I have the 3.6 etorque so already a mild hybrid with extra battery. Why not just make the battery bigger, stick a plug on it, and give a 4xe engine option.

I'm guessing it is a little more complicated than the etorque system. It is all about torque and not HP in a wrangler imo. 35 ft more torque is quite a bit more. Again (complete guess) but they probably needed some space and the 2.0 is most likely smaller allowing for that. I'd be fine with the 3.6 also as that is what I chose for my current jeep over the 2.0.

 

[mgarciaknight]

I'm guessing it is a little more complicated than the etorque system. It is all about torque and not HP in a wrangler imo. 35 ft more torque is quite a bit more. Again (complete guess) but they probably needed some space and the 2.0 is most likely smaller allowing for that. I'd be fine with the 3.6 also as that is what I chose for my current jeep over the 2.0.

BTW, HUGE Chiefs fan here in Florida for over 33 years, since Christian Okoye (35). Go CHIEFS!

 

[Sboden]

BTW, HUGE Chiefs fan here in Florida for over 33 years, since Christian Okoye (35). Go CHIEFS!

Loved Okoye. It is going to be tough Sunday.

Sponsored