2018 Wrangler 3.6 Pentastar Dyno

[JHJLUR]

I really don't care about the numbers, what I will tell everyone.... This engine, with this 8 speed auto is great. It's quick, it accelerates quick, it shifts smooth, it's not always looking for a gear, it's more quiet, and from any speed when you punch it, it goes! It's clearly better than previous model. I'm really not sure why anyone would wait for a first year Turbo if this motor was a dog, than maybe, but it's not!

I agree, this things feels and sounds fantastic compared to my JKs with the 3.6, it does everything I ask with no drama.... to be honest I was never a huge fan of the 3.6 in my JKs but I figured with the little work they did to it and the ZF it would be an upgrade, I am blown away by the difference.

Sponsored

 

[Matthew/E36]

202 lbs/ft is atrocious considering that it's 2018. Again, we were seeing numbers like that from V6 engines when I was just a boy decades ago.

LOL, pretty much looks like the dyno from my 1996 BMW!

Not that I'm looking for speed, but nothing about the engine has seemed really impressive to me yet.

 

[JHJLUR]

LOL, pretty much looks like the dyno from my 1996 BMW!

Not that I'm looking for speed, but nothing about the engine has seemed really impressive to me yet.

Have you driven it in the JL, it’s quite nice actually.

 

[thenewrick]

The Pentastar is the base engine and that's okay. Could be a much worse base engine. I just want more premium engine options and transmission options. Nothing wrong with having a cheap weak base engine for folks who don't care about power or fuel economy and are on a budget.

 

[JHJLUR]

The Pentastar is the base engine and that's okay. Could be a much worse base engine. I just want more premium engine options and transmission options. Nothing wrong with having a cheap weak base engine for folks who don't care about power or fuel economy and are on a budget.

Would I rather have the 5.7 out of my GC sure, but I wouldn’t knock that transmission, it’s slick... also I had my 3.6 on a 400 mile road trip mountains ( PA mountains) etc, cruised at 75-80 with zero drama, quiet, no crazy downshifting (and even when it does it barely noticeable).... it’s not really a cheap engine, I wanted another Wrangler, I didn’t want the turbo in it’s first year and 91 octane requirement for optimal performance and my friends that have had the eco diesel in their rams have had a shit ton of issues, plus diesel is really wasted on how I use the Jeep...I’d agree with your sentiment for the most part in terms of its execution in the JK, but they’ve done a nice job with it in the JL.

 

[Matthew/E36]

Have you driven it in the JL, it’s quite nice actually.

Sure, 2 of em, so I am selling an M3 with for the JLUR and am excited!

However, the engine is not something that wooed me over I agree it is nice and adequete enough for me in the wrangler though. Pretty easy going drive. My 4 liter V8 revving to 8400 RPM (peak 414hp at 8300) is an exciting engine. I'm stepping out of the hp game when the war started a few years ago, which is fine by me. Not to sound like I'm knocking it, but the engine is what it is. The JL engine is a really pretty safe part of the design IMHO. They took a lot of other risks or challenges though and am anxious for the next 6-8 weeks

 

[JHJLUR]

Sure, 2 of em, so I am selling an M3 with for the JLUR and am excited!

However, the engine is not something that wooed me over I agree it is nice and adequete enough for me in the wrangler though. Pretty easy going drive. My 4 liter V8 revving to 8400 RPM (peak 414hp at 8300) is an exciting engine. I'm stepping out of the hp game when the war started a few years ago, which is fine by me. Not to sound like I'm knocking it, but the engine is what it is. The JL engine is a really pretty safe part of the design IMHO. They took a lot of other risks or challenges though and am anxious for the next 6-8 weeks

Funny, I recently sold my M3 as well....certainly a different animal,haha.. but I’m sure you’ll love the Jeep for different reasons

 

[techieanalyst]

Unless you drive the JL ignore the numbers, you hit the gas and it’s there, I’m getting in and onto highways and passing without issue in my JL, before I wouldn’t carefully time my lane switches etc, now I just give gas and go, numbers are one thing but actually driving it. JK with a six has nothing on the JL with the 8, maybe it’s the 8 that’s to thank for it all

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I understand that it's at the wheels. And it's atrocious. Decades ago we were seeing 180 to 210 at the wheels, hence my point.

You were seeing it from a handlful of performance vehicles, not anywhere near the majority, especially since less than 10 yrs ago many mfrs where still making bigger V6s with nearly the same power at the crank.

We can all post an example of a handful of engine which are outliers, but it far from many and far from decades ago.
Like your comments on the Hemi, I’ll assume you are mis-remembering reality and equally have little to support it.

We all would like more powerful engines, but it’s far better than some of the offering of the 3 mfrs I mentioned earlier from less than 5 yrs ago.

As for atrocious...

 

[WXman]

You were seeing it from a handlful of performance vehicles, not anywhere near the majority, especially since less than 10 yrs ago many mfrs where still making bigger V6s with nearly the same power at the crank.

We can all post an example of a handful of engine which are outliers, but it far from many and far from decades ago.
Like your comments on the Hemi, I’ll assume you are mis-remembering reality and equally have little to support it.

We all would like more powerful engines, but it’s far better than some of the offering of the 3 mfrs I mentioned earlier from less than 5 yrs ago.

As for atrocious...

If you consider a run of the mill Dodge pickup V6, or a run of the mill Chevy S-10 V6, or a run of the mill Nissan VQ V6 to be "performance", then....ok.

Fact is, the Pentastar makes zero torque compared to other options today. I am and have been since 2012 disappointed in Jeep's decision to saddle the new engine we all waited so long for with such horrible torque output. The Pentastar would have been very competitive about 15 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

If you consider a run of the mill Dodge pickup V6, or a run of the mill Chevy S-10 V6, or a run of the mill Nissan VQ V6 to be "performance", then....ok.

So if I consider what they are and not vs rarified performance engines.
Your Hyperbole about deacdes forgets the fact that even the mustang had a weak V6 up until less than a decade ago, the Toyota 4L is still a dog in their lineup, even the current Chevy options are only barely better on paper vs the Wrangler not the Ram, but with more drawbacks.

Like most others you forget that max means little if it takes forever to build, like most of the engines you’re comparing them to a few years ago.

The Pentastar definitely could be better, but it’s far from the dog you make it out to be, again all with nothing to support your Hyperbole.

 

[WXman]

LOL, pretty much looks like the dyno from my 1996 BMW!

Not that I'm looking for speed, but nothing about the engine has seemed really impressive to me yet.

Yeah, basically.

A 1990s Chevrolet S-10 pickup was rated 235 lbs/ft. A Dodge 3.9 would go 230. If you go forward to the early 2000s, a Nissan pickup was rated 280 lbs/ft. Let's not forget that the Jeep "minivan engine" used in the early JKU was rated 245 lbs/ft of torque.

Any of those engines would make around 200-220 on a dyno at the rear wheels.

So to say that it's not true that 202 lbs/ft for a 2018 model Wrangler V6 is weak compared to yesterday's vehicles is simply incorrect. When I take my vehicles to the dyno, there is typically a 15% to 18% loss figured in for parasitic drivetrain consumption. It's likely that the new Pentastar in that graph in this thread was only making 235 lbs/ft at the crank. Terrible.

The ONLY advantage that today's Jeep V6 has is that they use heads and cams that will allow it to rev really high, so they can post bigger horsepower numbers at the very top of the power band. But, in day to day driving the Pentastar performs exactly like a V6 from 25 years ago.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

A 1990s Chevrolet S-10 pickup was rated 235 lbs/ft. A Dodge 3.9 would go 230. If you go forward to the early 2000s, a Nissan pickup was rated 280 lbs/ft. Let's not forget that the Jeep "minivan engine" used in the early JKU was rated 245 lbs/ft of torque.

Any of those engines would make around 200-220 on a dyno at the rear wheels.

Then it should be pretty easy for you to post those results then with their less efficient drivetrains and axles getting that 200lbft to the wheels if they are so ubiquitous.

All the engines you’re mentioning were larger displacement and significantly less torque so again as examples they don’t support your hyperbole, and without actually test runs, your guesstimates don’t hold any weight especially when you’re pretending that your examples are going to experience less than 12% loss, let alone 15+, and all from less efficient components.

 

[Jeepdude101]

I

Yeah, basically.

A 1990s Chevrolet S-10 pickup was rated 235 lbs/ft. A Dodge 3.9 would go 230. If you go forward to the early 2000s, a Nissan pickup was rated 280 lbs/ft. Let's not forget that the Jeep "minivan engine" used in the early JKU was rated 245 lbs/ft of torque.

Any of those engines would make around 200-220 on a dyno at the rear wheels.

So to say that it's not true that 202 lbs/ft for a 2018 model Wrangler V6 is weak compared to yesterday's vehicles is simply incorrect. When I take my vehicles to the dyno, there is typically a 15% to 18% loss figured in for parasitic drivetrain consumption. It's likely that the new Pentastar in that graph in this thread was only making 235 lbs/ft at the crank. Terrible.

The ONLY advantage that today's Jeep V6 has is that they use heads and cams that will allow it to rev really high, so they can post bigger horsepower numbers at the very top of the power band. But, in day to day driving the Pentastar performs exactly like a V6 from 25 years ago.

don’t care that they say that the 3.8 makes 245 lbs/ft it feels like 150 lbs/ft I owned an 08 JKU with the 3.8 it had less armor than my 18 JLUR has and that thing was a dog the JL 3.6 feels like twice the engine it’s hard to describe it just spools up more freely and breathes better.

 

[rubileon]

I don’t care that they say that the 3.8 makes 245 lbs/ft it feels like 150 lbs/ft I owned an 08 JKU with the 3.8 it had less armor than my 18 JLUR has and that thing was a dog the JL 3.6 feels like twice the engine it’s hard to describe it just spools up more freely and breathes better.

The 3.6 feels much better in the JL over the JK's as well. A part of it is because of the improved mid range torque and in part because of the 8 speed vs. the 5 speed auto.

Sponsored