How long will Jeep offer the 392?

[developerlaw]

Large powerplants that are loud and suck fuel are going to be short lived for vehicles under 6,000 lbs. Would love to see the 392 production last a few years and maybe even have a refreshed version (I need ventilated seats) but I assume that is highly unlikely. Jeep is more likely to produce a high powered electric Wrangler, which I find as exciting as the thought of having sex without sensation or feeling, you will know something is happening but it just isn't the same.

Sponsored

 

[CTMopar]

Any 2021 order for a Wrangler placed after 8/4 no matter if the order banks are open or not will be changed to a 2022 model when the order banks open.

I ordered 8/31 and the year on my VIN is 21

 

[Young04]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today. There where many options for more power than a normally asperated V8 lump. I lived and drove in the mucle car era but that was 45/55 years ago folks. Gas was 50 cents and 10/12 MPG was the factory HP V8 norm. Soon the 392 will quickly fade and be seen as what it is, a dinosaur for the museum.

As much as I love my 392, I often wonder how much better served it would be with a V8 from BMW or AMG.

 

[guarnibl]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today. There where many options for more power than a normally asperated V8 lump. I lived and drove in the mucle car era but that was 45/55 years ago folks. Gas was 50 cents and 10/12 MPG was the factory HP V8 norm. Soon the 392 will quickly fade and be seen as what it is, a dinosaur for the museum.

My M5 got 11....the current generation. My buddy's AMG gets 13. At some point when you're mixing a brick with any type of decent power from a gas-only engine it is what it is. I think the 392 will do pretty well though -- it's nostalgia, just like classic cars do well, so will the 392.

Only decent option is hybrid or diesel at the moment, but I'd prefer hybrid.

 

[SSWIM]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today. There where many options for more power than a normally asperated V8 lump. I lived and drove in the mucle car era but that was 45/55 years ago folks. Gas was 50 cents and 10/12 MPG was the factory HP V8 norm. Soon the 392 will quickly fade and be seen as what it is, a dinosaur for the museum.

I LIKE dinosaurs.

Sam

 

[guarnibl]

I LIKE dinosaurs.

Sam

Yes, and as we know, Jeep and dinosaurs go hand in hand.

 

[flot]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today.

I sold my 2020 3.6 JLUR with 5000 miles on it and ordered a 392.

I never reset "trip b" in the gauge cluster - my lifetime fuel economy average with the 3.6 was 12.4 mpg. I would be thrilled to get 14/15 mpg.

 

[Bocephus]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today. There where many options for more power than a normally asperated V8 lump. I lived and drove in the mucle car era but that was 45/55 years ago folks. Gas was 50 cents and 10/12 MPG was the factory HP V8 norm. Soon the 392 will quickly fade and be seen as what it is, a dinosaur for the museum.

You can argue that Jeep shouldn't have built it, or that its silly (opinions), but sh*t the bed means failure (right?)...and I think Jeep scored a runaway hit for their intentions.

Obvi the 392 was not Jeep's attempt at a modern economy power dose for the platform. The PHEV may be that (and more!) - which I think is the second most powerful in the lineup.

The 392 came with the attempt at being a little loud, dramatic, even romantic - big old NA v8. And they stole the show. Its the spirit that sets FCA brands apart, from every other boring US brand (save Tesla) imho. It is definitely not logical / economy power, but it's also not the wrangler for the masses or even very many.

Celebrate that lovely dinosaur if you can afford to (to your point, affordability is certainly an issue). This is a last hurrah - that big loud lovely lump. Next car will be a stupid Tesla, it will be awesome, I'll probably hate it.

In fairness, you may have more of a been-there / done-that sense of it all, having grown up with muscle cars. For guys like me, the most modern / economic power option isn't the complete appeal.

In any case, more power to you bud!

 

[@minutemen]

I think it's not so much about resell as much as it is about whether one needs to spring for the 392 now or can wait a year (or more).

This. I want one but was planning on keeping mine until the warranty runs out. Would love to still see them available in a year or two. Otherwise, a swap may be on the table

I sold my 2020 3.6 JLUR with 5000 miles on it and ordered a 392.

I never reset "trip b" in the gauge cluster - my lifetime fuel economy average with the 3.6 was 12.4 mpg. I would be thrilled to get 14/15 mpg.

I heard they get better with age but here I am still averaging less than 14 mpg on a 3.6

 

[JJMalone]

Huh, another opinion thread. IMHO FCA shit the bed with the 392. Some guys are reporting 14/15 MPG or lower which just isn't logical today. There where many options for more power than a normally asperated V8 lump. I lived and drove in the mucle car era but that was 45/55 years ago folks. Gas was 50 cents and 10/12 MPG was the factory HP V8 norm. Soon the 392 will quickly fade and be seen as what it is, a dinosaur for the museum.

I can't figure out whether to agree or disagree. I love my 392 and make excuses to drive it; such as going to lunch in small towns a couple hundred miles away. I guess I agree because I'm also a dinosaur but I'm going to burn as much gas as I can with it while I'm able! I also lived through the muscle car era and had several. They were not the same. This Jeep can give a decent account of itself just as a jeep but you'd be hard pressed to make one of those old "muscle car era" cars compare for straight line muscle.

 

[2nd 392]

You can argue that Jeep shouldn't have built it, or that its silly (opinions), but sh*t the bed means failure (right?)...and I think Jeep scored a runaway hit for their intentions.

Obvi the 392 was not Jeep's attempt at a modern economy power dose for the platform. The PHEV may be that (and more!) - which I think is the second most powerful in the lineup.

The 392 came with the attempt at being a little loud, dramatic, even romantic - big old NA v8. And they stole the show. Its the spirit that sets FCA brands apart, from every other boring US brand (save Tesla) imho. It is definitely not logical / economy power, but it's also not the wrangler for the masses or even very many.

Celebrate that lovely dinosaur if you can afford to (to your point, affordability is certainly an issue). This is a last hurrah - that big loud lovely lump. Next car will be a stupid Tesla, it will be awesome, I'll probably hate it.

In fairness, you may have more of a been-there / done-that sense of it all, having grown up with muscle cars. For guys like me, the most modern / economic power option isn't the complete appeal.

In any case, more power to you bud!

AMEN !

 

[Jeepfamilia]

I cannot see how the 392 will be available for more than two to three years.

If you have one/will be ordering one hold on to it.

To keep up with the HP race and meet emissions standards it is more likely that we will see a 2.5/3.0 turbo version in the future. I will not be surprised if the Ferarri based 2.9 turbo power plant, that is currently used in the Alfa Giulia QV, are used in future Wranglers. The Alfa 2.9 twin turbo produces 505 Hp and 443 Fp torque, it will scare any Ford produced Bronco for quite some time.

I love that engine
I had a Giulia Qudrafoglio then it was stolen :/

 

[Deb3667]

I’m late to the game. I had been on the Bronco trail… but I think I’m over it. Anyone order a 392 in last few days? I intend to contact dealer tomorrow.

 

[ValkyrieFalling]

Yes, and as we know, Jeep and dinosaurs go hand in hand.

 

[multicam]

Bottom line is I'd rather have a I-4 with 150 hp than a Wrangler with a gas-powered turbo.

I can relate to this. My first wrangler was a TJ with the 2.4L i-4 which had 147 hp. It served honorably.

Sponsored