2021 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 V8 - Specs, Wallpapers, Videos!

[Drytellsr]

Sorry...but the way you're communicating is by trying to present your opinions as facts, when they are clearly more about your own personal preferences and values

My opinion is the 392 is going to be better in deep sand, mud and snow where your engine bogs down and you need wheel speed, as well as bumping up big obstacles and rock walls off idle, and doing high speed desert running.

Can the 3.6 get all of that done? Of course, but it won't be better in any of those scenarios.
At best it will be equal, and at worst I'll be very happy I have the extra power/torque

Good for you!

Advertisement

 

[mnjeeper]

Correct. but its still a shame

How? Do you want a wrangler, or an entirely new vehicle? Only one will get you towing more.

Personally, I knew what I purchased.

 

[Drytellsr]

How? Do you want a wrangler, or an entirely new vehicle? Only one will get you towing more.

Personally, I knew what I purchased.

I'm more than happy with my wrangler, its a great vehicle and the tow capacity sarcasm should not be taken seriously. you stated a fact and I agreed with you,

 

[slimfl08]

I'm ordering mine today. My dealer has an allocation of 4 for the dealership. Mine will be apart from those and will be MSRP.

Nice! I would love to see the pricing. Just gonna have to wait...haha

 

[Headbarcode]

Correct. but its still a shame

A shame that they didn't compromise off road capability for the sake of it being yet another tow pig like every run of the mill pickup?

And since I'm already here, you're only getting "dumped on" because your repeated wording is written like a factual statement. Correct it, rather than backpeddle and play the poor victim. Reading this de-evolution is like going around the block to borrow a cup of sugar from the next door neighbor.

 

[DaltonGang]

If they are adding everything, under the sun, to increase the sales price, then I cannot see me ordering this.
Give me a plain Sport S, 6.4L, ragtop, Auto, manual shifting 4WD(or electronically shifted), beefed up Dana 44(Dana 60 pumpkins hang too low unless mega sized tires are used)with 4:10 ratio, a good A/C, and the Alpine Stereo.
Better Yet, let me custom order like the other Wranglers .

 

[Spank]

If they are adding everything, under the sun, to increase the sales price, then I cannot see me ordering this.
Give me a plain Sport S, 6.4L, ragtop, Auto, manual shifting 4WD(or electronically shifted), beefed up Dana 44(Dana 60 pumpkins hang too low unless mega sized tires are used)with 4:10 ratio, a good A/C, and the Alpine Stereo.
Better Yet, let me custom order like the other Wranglers .

Doubt this'll ever be available in a Sport, but I wouldn't be surprised after it's been out for a year or two if they don't back off on the required top-tier options. The painted fenders and top are actually a dealbreaker for me seeing as how I've already annihilated both on my JL from even the simplest of trail runs.

 

[RubiTuesday]

Don't we all speak from personal perspective? To assume my opinion, or anyone else's, is false is un-American. Opinions lead to discussions and debate. Thoughtful insights are raised and it can come to a consensus or non consensus but insults have no place.

Indeed, we all have our personal perspective and opinions. And your opinion is your own. But as others have said, your statement reads like an assertion of fact, perhaps that's not how you meant it. I'm trying find some common ground among people who share a hobby. I posted a chart (much) earlier in this thread that shows that the 392 comes in 4th place for low-range torque. I agreed with some of your earlier posts because I think there are some valid arguments to be made that the 3.6 is a better value proposition for many off-road applications. There are scenarios that favor the 3.6 while others favor the 392.

Perhaps all of this could have been avoided with the following statement "The 392 is of no benefit off-road, FOR ME." That reads more like an opinion based on your needs and desires and I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought.

 

[MarkY3130]

I'm just trying to catch up here. I picked up that the off-road gains Jeep is claiming aren't allegedly coming from the Hemi, so is the consensus that the gains are coming from the body colored top and fenders? Or is it from the 392 embossed leather seats?

 

[Robbyreneeward]

“Meanwhile, back at the ranch......”

 

[Spank]

 

[AnnDee4444]

I posted a chart (much) earlier in this thread that shows that the 392 comes in 4th place for low-range torque.

FYI: I recently learned that the stock tune on the 2.0 (and probably all others) limits the torque in 4-low (according to Superchips): https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...or-jeep-wrangler-jl.61146/page-3#post-1314076

 

[aus-jeep]

Forced bundled options and 7.5" wide wheels aside, I think it will come down to how you intend to use it. 470 is a lot of HP if that's what you're after.

If you're planning a big build with D60s (read gears) and an atlas, the factory 392 is probably a better start than going to AMW.

But if you want off-road torque? Welcome to 4th place:

* does not account for location of peak torque in RPM band

That asterisk you added is REALLY important.

Let's get some dyno charts and look at torque from idle to 3500rpm and see where the 392 sits.
Using peak numbers is fun for an excel chart, but not much else

 

[Goin2drt]

No kidding, a 392 will spin 42"s a hell of a lot easier then a 3.6l. That has never been my point. you have to go back and follow the entire thread from the beginning. Don't shortcut to the bottom and think you have a grasp on everything.

Now Concentrate! I will try to make my point easier for you to understand. A Stock 392 Has NO greater Off Road benefit then a Stock 3.6L. when you start modifying the 392 with 42" inch tires, your changing the game and your chasing other mods and fixes to do so. I also commented on the issues of increasing the Tire size to 40's and still operating on the Dana 44's is an issue.

Increase power with increased tire size to 37-42's on the same Dana 44's is WRONG. you are throwing in additional modifications to only the 392 in order to prove your point. you can't continually caveat your argument just to try and disprove my point.

Stop with the after market MODS.

Argue the point that the Stock 392 Rubi is better Off Road then the Stock 3.6l RUBI and stop adding Mods. and maybe this can be meaningful.

I never said I agreed with you or disagreed with you. Go back and read my posts. I commented on the other persons thread that you would came back (and you did) to debate that your OPINION is fact and better than everyone elses. I have been reading your ZERO value added comment that you have repeated no less than 5 times so I was letting the other poster know that you would be back to tell HIM he was wrong. No need for me to bite and either agree or disagree with you. You are clearly like many during this political season, you think your opinion is fact and the only correct opinion, right or wrong.

 

[AnnDee4444]

That asterisk you added is REALLY important.

Let's get some dyno charts and look at torque from idle to 3500rpm and see where the 392 sits.
Using peak numbers is fun for an excel chart, but not much else

Part throttle is also where the 392 could be better. I'd be a little hesitant to get my 2.0 WOT in 4-low... the throttle response & rev-hang don't exactly allow for quick throttle transitions like a (properly tuned) N/A motor would. Getting 290 lb-ft of torque out of the 392 should be much less aggressive driving vs. WOT high RPM in the 2.0.

Disclaimer: I haven't driven a JL with the 3.6 or diesel, so I don't know how their throttle responds.