2.0L turbo 4 cylinder Hurricane engine

[digitalbliss]

I am speaking truthfully. What have said that comes off as dishonest?

The idea that the diesel will be faster than the Pentastar is a start. I dont think you are being dishonest, but maybe overly optimistic in a way that puts a diesel variant JL expectations to a level that is not realistic.

Sponsored

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Don't be a dique.

Don't make it personal !

You claimed something that factual quotable data doesn't back. We aren't trashing the ecodiesel or the uses where I said long before your post that it will do well, but don't try to counter that with fanboism and unsupported claims.

I've supported everything I've written, and stated why I think things will likely be the way I said based on relatable examples without bias. I don't think you can say the same about your claims.

 

[Billy]

The idea that the diesel will be faster than the Pentastar is a start.

From my experience, it IS faster. (My om642 CRD compared to JKs with 3.6 I've test driven. And the 3.0 VMI has more HP & torque, with an 8 spd). Plus gets better mpg. I couldn't be more honest if I tried.

Your anecdotes don't override data/facts. It's not a Trump Diesel.

Where is your supporting data, other than the data dump in the seat of your pants?

Not making anything any more personal than you are with your passive/aggressive comments like these.

Sorry guys, I have my opinions, you have yours, I haven't lied, and other than threatening (tongue firmly in cheek) to start a meme war, don't believe I've said anything inflammatory.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

From my experience, it IS faster.

But objective testing by MotorTrend/TruckTrend (same publication) and others show that to be incorrect.
And FCA's own published data show the CRD to not have a huge advantage over the Pentastar for fuel economy, despite the 15% advanatage just from the fuel source.

Also, WXMan's experiences with his CRDs and JKs also contradict yours.
So at best it's a case of "he said / he said", without external verifiable support.

Like I said, post something objective and supported from a relaible source that is published and critically reviewed that shows anywhere near what you are claiming as a subjective 'experience', or at least supports a logical step/leap to your suppositions.

 

[digitalbliss]

From my experience, it IS faster. (My om642 CRD compared to JKs with 3.6 I've test driven. And the 3.0 VMI has more HP & torque, with an 8 spd). Plus gets better mpg. I couldn't be more honest if I tried.



Not making anything any more personal than you are with your passive/aggressive comments like these.

Sorry guys, I have my opinions, you have yours, I haven't lied, and other than threatening (tongue firmly in cheek) to start a meme war, don't believe I've said anything inflammatory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but horsepower is work done over time. If a JL 3.6L gasser vs 3.0L diesel race were to happen. How would it turn out? Assuming all things were equal, except engine components and the resulting weight of those components. Considering the Gasser has more horse power and weighs less, how would it be slower than the diesel? How could the diesel JL do the same amount of work (work = force x distance) in LESS time with less horse power (Work/Time)? In fact, because the gasser should be about 500 lbs lighter, it should do less work which will result in an even faster time.

As far as the MPG is concerned... ive already covered it. Modern diesel trucks do not get the kind of mileage you are hoping for.

Back in 2014, automotive site Edmunds.com bought a 2014 Ram 1500EcoDiesel to document its performance and livability over 50,084 miles. They liked the truck, but more interestingly, they got some great insights on its real-world fuel economy in all kinds of conditions.
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/ram-ecodiesel-real-world-fuel-economy-over-50-000-hard-1762998445
Lifetime MPG, towing excluded: 22.9
The particular Ram EcoDiesel Dan Edmunds and his crew adopted had 4WD and a 3.55 rear axle ratio.

Putting a 3.73 rear end in your Jeep will reduce that number even further.

 

[myfirstjeep]

Lol, maybe a separate thread should be created to pull this diesel talk information on to there.

We still haven't heard any more info on this new turbo 4

 

[Vegas_Sirk]

Probably not, as stated many times, the EcoDiesel likely doesn't arrive until mid 2018, despite being in the order banks. But we'll see.

They may not be available till summer 2018 but I bet $ specs will be out way before then. If not LA Auto, show then Detroit Autoshow as the 2nd Gen EcoDiesel will be used in the 2019 Ram 1500 and that will be on revealed then.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

The reason I say probably not, is that with late JL abailability, EPA testing probably doesn't even start until next year. They are notoriously slow to certify to begin with, delaying some tests last year by almost 9 months on new model diesel cars, and those weren't even on their watch list.

I have a feeling EPA MPG numbers won't be out for LA nor Detroit, but likely if the EcoDiesel Wrangler does break PR cover at those shows, then it will have an 'expected' or 'estimated' number from FCA, but not backed by the EPA, NAVCAN, which will be even more questionable than the EPA's generous testing methods.

 

[Vegas_Sirk]

Grape,

Also I know you like to say the in the GC there isnt much of a difference, but then you argue that it will be worst in the Wrangler. With that said you cant have is both ways. In general, I don't think looking at GC numbers makes sense because as you said the Wrangler is a box on wheels and aero wise its way worst. In that case I think the in Wrangler you will see even a larger difference as its the TQ thats going to make the difference of push the box through the resistance.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Grape,

Also I know you like to say the in the GC there isnt much of a difference, but then you argue that it will be worst in the Wrangler. With that said you cant have is both ways. In general, I don't think looking at GC numbers makes sense because as you said the Wrangler is a box on wheels and aero wise its way worst.

I use the GC for like to like comparisons about the engine, where weight, transmission, transfer case and even axle ratios are the same; not apples to oranges comoaring different platforms. If it's just about Pentastar vs Ecodiesel that GC comparison is as equal as you're going to get, from that you can extend what factors influence the results.

In that case I think the in Wrangler you will see even a larger difference as its the TQ thats going to make the difference of push the box through the resistance.

Actually no, that's incorrect, especially not to overcome resistance, Torque overcomes inertia primarily, HP overcomes resistance.
Torque overcomes inertia and accomplishes initial acceleration (which is why I say 'up to ~15MPH'), whereas HP is what continues acceleration and maintains speed.

Torque is definitely involved in acceleration 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile, as is HP, but torque is mainly early on. However to maintain a given speed and overcome rolling resistance and wind resistance/drag, it's really only HP that matters to keep things rolling, with torque only mildly asisting for speed changes, but otherwise inconsequential.
Which is why the MPG numbers will not be better on the Wranglers when it's a giant kite in the wind compared to other vehicles, like the GC, using similar engines. Heck the RAM has less drag than the Wrangler. So does that resistance/drag pose enough of an issue to change the HP requirements and put the diesel, or as I mentioned early the TinyTurbo4, into boost just to generate enough HP to overcome that resistance/drag?

I think those two boosted engines will need to work harder in the Wrangler than they do on other platforms, and thus will get lower than expected test results and even lower real world numbers.

 

[Billy]

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how far you move the wall.

I interpret that as HP will get me to 75mph faster, Torque will keep me there (at lower RPM, which equals better MPG, in MY opinion).

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Nope.

Even the basic HP calculators take torque rating and multiply it by a factor of the RPM to obtain HP, not vice versa.

But to overcome air resistance and rolling resistance it takes X amount of HP not torque.

Basic Drag forces (see the power section) just for basic drag/resistance increase relationship;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

In Depth;
http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Quick Calculator;
http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculate HP For Speed.php

Thorough Calculator with MPG estimator but requires you to know a lot of factors, like the vehicle's coefficient of drag (which for the Wrangler is around 0.50 +/- [often quoted in reviews as 0.495]);
http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

(edit: PS, the RAM 1500's coefficient of drag is quoted as the lowest of full-size trucks @ 0.360 [F-150 is 0.4 after their 2015 slim down from 0.43], and the Grand Cherokee is 0.371 [SRT8 0.390] so GC has more drag than the RAM, but far less than the Wrangler brick, which still isn't as bad as the Hummer was at 0.572)

 

[DarthMall]

This thread turned from a discussion about the Hurricane 4cyl into a full fledged flame war about Diesel. Should we change the thread title now?

 

[SoCalRubicon]

My reason for wanting a diesel isn't to tow some gargantuan trailer, but to have a Jeep that can get out of it's own way, which the current models cannot do.

Your profile says that you have a 97 TJ and an 08 WK, neither of which are "current models". What's you experience with 2012+ Wranglers with the 3.6L Pentastar?

 

[WXman]

So, we've already established the FACT that the Pentastar is a faster engine with more "get up and go" on the highway compared to the diesel. But here's another shocker... the 2.0L Hurricane engine will start getting tunes, much like Ford's little 4-banger turbo gets for the Mustang cars, and then the 2.0L will be faster and more powerful than BOTH of the other Jeep engines! Crazy, eh? To think that the FACT is that the diesel will be the slowest most painful to drive engine option on a 4x4? That's just crazy. Times are definitely changing.

Stats show us that people cross shop the Wrangler and Mustang. Odd? Yes... but it's because both are convertibles. And using the Mustang example, a 4-cylinder turbo with nothing but a plug in tuner is faster than the V8 on the race track. It's been proven time and time again.

So getting this thread back on topic.. the Hurricane engine option for Wrangler is going to be very interesting. And I predict that it will be the biggest seller in the lineup because of it's ability to be tuned for power and it's fuel economy.

Sponsored