Jeep Wrangler JL/JLU EcoDiesel First Drive Reviews and Performance Specs

[DadJokes]

I think this will be a short- lived production run, due to the impending extinction of diesels for emissions penalties. They are being banned in many cities, and the expense getting them to pass emissions, and still perform as advertised has been a painful process.
As a niche vehicle, for military and off-road use, the torque numbers are fabulous. Overlanders will like this, 500 miles to a tank of fuel...
The electric drive train will deliver the torque, battery technology is advancing fast, electric pickups are in the near term, so this will probably be a short term run, in my opinion.
Now, about that electric Wrangler...

What’s the latest battery tech capacity advancement in the last 3 years?shrug

Sponsored

 

[NFRs2000NYC]

I tried (and failed) to find an old thread from way back when the JL was just about to be released by some diesel nuts claiming how much quicker the diesel version would be. If only I could find it now and link those articles above.

Load it up with massive tires, 1000lbs of winch, armor etc, passengers, gear, blah blah blah, and then see how it does against a gas motor.

 

[American Adventurist]

Actually the 3.0 is 80% new. FCA is calling it the third generation EcoDiesel

Source?

 

[SecondTJ]

Source?

Basically every review of the Ram EcoDiesel talks about it, but here is the FCA press release.

https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/newsrelease.do?id=20851

 

[Dalma]

Source?

The engineer who developed this Gen 3 engine has been on at least 2 youtube videos in the past 4 weeks describing the significant changes made to this engine. It was initially released for the 2020 Ram and then this version for the wrangler. The engineer is an Italian gentleman named Mauro Pulglia

 

[chrcal14]

I think there's no manual due to FCA's perceived low demand for it and I'm not hearing Jeep folks say the current M/T can't handle the torque - it's all about market demand. If this is really the only thing holding it back then that makes me sad....it's a deal killer for me if I ever want to move over to the diesel. I honestly think FCA is underestimating the demand for an M/T...I've read a lot of comments from all generations of Wrangler owners who would jump at the chance to own a diesel with the M/T. I'll keep waiting and hoping.

Love to give a diesel a go... but not without a manual.

I think they're made for each other as far as the target audience, the cost and risks are outweighed by the joy of the experience. Making a diesel handling manual would also likely solve the Gladiator manual towing restriction. Win win, and adds a bit of incentive to do it that way as it would also apply an upgrade to the gas engines with the manual, provided they would all happily bolt up.

I'll join your waiting and hoping club.

 

[Sol]

...

The plug in when/if it happens will be offset by tax breaks...

With the current climate change-denying administration, tax breaks/credits for EV adoption and other “green initiatives” are threatened making it doubtful that the above statement will be true in the future @DocTwinkie imagines.

I’m on the fence with diesel:
Pro: TORQUE!!! Gimme more twist! Feed my low-end torque addiction in ways the 3.6 will never satisfy.
Unknown: Reliability. Time will tell - diesels tend to get their good reputation made only when they go 200K+ miles.
Unknown: Overall cost. I’m thinking that operating cost is close to a wash compared to a gas engine. I’d accept the argument that the higher up-front cost is offset by higher trade-in - but only if the diesel’s reliability is proven.
Con: The smell of diesel, raw or burned, makes me queasy.

 

[JLURD]

I tried (and failed) to find an old thread from way back when the JL was just about to be released by some diesel nuts claiming how much quicker the diesel version would be. If only I could find it now and link those articles above.

Yea it was me. Take the same testing protocol from a company that does more consistent 0-60 runs than anyone (Car and Driver) and you’ve got 6.5s for the 2.0, 6.7s for the 3.0, and 6.8s for the 3.6. Turns out they went to the extreme on the efficiency tune for the diesel, with a >30% increase in highway mpg’s and mid-pack 0-60 as a result. The drop in torque from the 1500 is an obvious indication of the JLU tune beyond the scarcely believable mpg’s, but even the 1500 3.0 is set up for efficiency first. Let these things breathe and there’s no contest in 0-60. The 2.0 on the other hand is not going to be squeezed for significantly more power or torque when they’ve already pushed it to keep up with the 3.6.

 

[DocTwinkie]

With the current climate change-denying administration, tax breaks/credits for EV adoption and other “green initiatives” are threatened making it doubtful that the above statement will be true in the future @DocTwinkie imagines.

I’m on the fence with diesel:
Pro: TORQUE!!! Gimme more twist! Feed my low-end torque addiction in ways the 3.6 will never satisfy.
Unknown: Reliability. Time will tell - diesels tend to get their good reputation made only when they go 200K+ miles.
Unknown: Overall cost. I’m thinking that operating cost is close to a wash compared to a gas engine. I’d accept the argument that the higher up-front cost is offset by higher trade-in - but only if the diesel’s reliability is proven.
Con: The smell of diesel, raw or burned, makes me queasy.

I think it has a lot to do with what you plan on using your rig for.

I’m keeping stock 33s on the rubicon. No lift. My bumpers will be aluminum to cut weight. I may do a full belly skid but would be aluminum to cut weight. I think that will serve my off road needs.

Now if you plan on putting as one called it 1000lbs of armor, people, and stuff you’re probably overloading the max weight capacity of the suspension anyway. But in that situation you can really kiss your gas savings goodbye anyway. If you’re off-roading he’s go for it. But just ask what you’re gonna do with it.

For me I live in the Midwest so mud and trails. No big rock crawling (though even a stock rubicon can have fun on said rubicon). Lightweight armor that is basically weight equivalent to the plastic trim.

If you’re not gonna put that kind of weight on your rig save the money. You could buy an off road trailer for that dough or do like I am and put money into lighter armor.

 

[toolaide4fit]

Not hating on the Diesel Jeep, just pointing out pros and cons.
So let me get this straight, you berate those who don't like what the Diesel Jeep has to offer, and equate that with not having enough money? Then say if they want it, they should just buy it?
Then you said you wanted a Vette, but your wife wanted you to get the Jeep. Now, I'm just saying "Jackpot". I'm stopping, before well. Just going to stop.

First of all clearly your little feelings got hurt...I didn't respond directly to your message...it was a general statement.
I didn't berate anyone, stated it doesn't makes sense to justify the cost of a diesel...YOUR pros and cons are not valid! YOU ASSUME that it cost more for diesel...well I already own a diesel and this will SAVE me at least 30 percent of my fuel cost. The point is get what you want...IF you can afford it. Doesn't berate anyone...different strokes for different folks. When people talk about justifying the cost what the heck do you thing they are doing...they are making it all about COST. If you have to justify it maybe you can't afford it. Now YOU have been berated. People will say that a Sport can do everything a Rubicon can do...how can you justify it? It is because it is what people want. For me, there is not need to justify it! It is what I want. That is why I am getting it...I didn't hate on anyone that didn't get it...just made a general statement about the people that are so negative about it.

The cost of premium is about the same a diesel where I live. I own a Diesel Mercedes...NO emission problems! I have experience with diesels and if you maintain them, they are like any other car you won't have problems.

 

[toolaide4fit]

When I bought my 2012 JKU, the first year of the 3.6 it seemed to have all the haters out bashing it before it even hit the streets. I believe history is repeating itself. Haters are going to hate! That 3.6 of mine that has been good to me, i'll never buy another. Don't be mad that a new vehicle is coming out.

Amen brother. Not sure why people have to hate on things that don't impact them. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves. They are just negative people. They have absolutely zero facts on how it will work, but 100 percent sure it won't...based on no evidence. You are right, Haters are going to hate!

 

[rubileon]

The diesel is an odd ball. I agree. It’s made for hard core off road folks who need the biggest numbers and who don’t care about cost, pollution, or reliability.

I think hard core offroaders would care about reliability. I wouldn't go near a diesel if there's a gasoline option.

 

[DaltonGang]

First of all clearly your little feelings got hurt...I didn't respond directly to your message...it was a general statement.
I didn't berate anyone, stated it doesn't makes sense to justify the cost of a diesel...YOUR pros and cons are not valid! YOU ASSUME that it cost more for diesel...well I already own a diesel and this will SAVE me at least 30 percent of my fuel cost. The point is get what you want...IF you can afford it. Doesn't berate anyone...different strokes for different folks. When people talk about justifying the cost what the heck do you thing they are doing...they are making it all about COST. If you have to justify it maybe you can't afford it. Now YOU have been berated. People will say that a Sport can do everything a Rubicon can do...how can you justify it? It is because it is what people want. For me, there is not need to justify it! It is what I want. That is why I am getting it...I didn't hate on anyone that didn't get it...just made a general statement about the people that are so negative about it.

The cost of premium is about the same a diesel where I live. I own a Diesel Mercedes...NO emission problems! I have experience with diesels and if you maintain them, they are like any other car you won't have problems.

No feelings hurt here. I could have afforded whichever car or vehicle I wanted too. But, unlike you, I am not hypocritical. If you wanted the Corvette, you should have bought it. Me, I wanted a Vette, but am too tall, have too long of legs, and my shoulders are too wide. Not like my old Vette. I dont hate on the new diesels, but they aren't what they were. For me, and many others, decisions are made with their brains, not their wallets. I still have my 2006 Dodge 4x4 Cummins Diesel, and the resale value is great, not like the newer Diesels, because of the emissions add-ons. EGR and the DPF killed the reliability, and greatly increased the cost and maintenance needed to own a newer diesel.
Take all the emissions crap off the new Wrangler Diesel, and my mind might be changed. Too many issues with modern diesel reliability, due to emissions constraints. I will wait for others to be the guinea pigs, and test them out, and look forward to what aftermarket delete kits can do for power and longterm reliability.

.

 

[DadJokes]

Yea it was me. Take the same testing protocol from a company that does more consistent 0-60 runs than anyone (Car and Driver) and you’ve got 6.5s for the 2.0, 6.7s for the 3.0, and 6.8s for the 3.6. Turns out they went to the extreme on the efficiency tune for the diesel, with a >30% increase in highway mpg’s and mid-pack 0-60 as a result. The drop in torque from the 1500 is an obvious indication of the JLU tune beyond the scarcely believable mpg’s, but even the 1500 3.0 is set up for efficiency first. Let these things breathe and there’s no contest in 0-60. The 2.0 on the other hand is not going to be squeezed for significantly more power or torque when they’ve already pushed it to keep up with the 3.6.

I’d go check out the Giulia forums to read about tuning gains on the 2.0’s. I still do not know exact engine (is that true and available to see?) differences but if optimum performance is with 91, seems there’s at least more ceiling to be had if one could tune for and had access to 93 octane. Claimed gains are anywhere from 30 to 90 hp over there. No reliability issues due to tuning.

 

[Toycrusher]

I'd jump at it if they ever offered a manual transmission to go along with it. The weight gain wouldn't be as bad with the manual, plus, after deleting it, a good portion of that weight would be gone and can you imagine a Wrangler with 550 lb/ft and 300+ hp?

Sponsored