AnnDee4444
Well-Known Member
Not if it's outside of warranty...do I trust the designers of the machine, who lose money when the machine fails?
Sponsored
Not if it's outside of warranty...do I trust the designers of the machine, who lose money when the machine fails?
Exactly, the amount of engineering that goes into targeting a failure per sold unit ratio is staggering, so if the base warranty is 60k miles, you have a very low number of failures targeted in this mileage range. Then you have a window of available extended warranty with it's own approved failure rate. Then past this it can literally be the sky's limit.Not if it's outside of warranty...
Every single JL comes with a warranty. But it's not only warranty claims at stake. All automakers want their products to be known as high quality and reliable. They lose arguably more money on perception than on actual problems. Expectations are that a high quality modern vehicle can go at least 100k miles without major issues. When it comes to internal engine issues, there should be none...ever. If it were true that running 87 would create a high risk of internal engine problems at any mileage, you bet your ass they'd be telling you to run premium... they do exactly that on the SRT cars in fact.Not if it's outside of warranty...
The manufacture doesn't get to pick and choose what will cause issues, break prematurely, or make it through that warranty. It wasn't a conscious decision to design a clutch that explodes, dead-spot steering, and possibly tuning that requires constant ignition retarding to reduce detonation.Every single JL comes with a warranty. But it's not only warranty claims at stake. All automakers want their products to be known as high quality and reliable. They lose arguably more money on perception than on actual problems. Expectations are that a high quality modern vehicle can go at least 100k miles without major issues. When it comes to internal engine issues, there should be none...ever.
I doubt it. Have you seen the number of people that bitch & moan about the 2.0 taking premium fuel? It's frequently listed as one of the reasons why some people avoid it. Hell, isn't the fact that we've argued for 15 pages evidence enough that there are some people that will never accept spending more than the bare minimum on fuel? I highly doubt that there will ever not be at least one Wrangler offered that takes standard grade fuel (at least until the EV takeover).If it were true that running 87 would create a high risk of internal engine problems at any mileage, you bet your ass they'd be telling you to run premium...
THIS. FCA can't make the statement of "running higher than 87 octane will provide no benefits", without documents to prove this (this includes MPGs, power output, and engine life). I've learned the hard way in business/manufacturing that ANY claim a company dare makes that's a selling point gets checked by FTC regulator assholes who are dying to bust you on it (for their resumes), even "this product won't hurt the Earth's molten core". If you make the claim, they'll call you on it and you have to prove it before it's even allowed to be published. If they did pull off an "oopsy", or lie here, they'd be opening themselves up to a slam dunk HUGE class action lawsuit, regardless of it being in or out of warranty. Even if it only impacted the life of the engine by 2%. For the # of engines sold and penalty that they'd incur, any major firm would eat this up and attack.If it were true that running 87 would create a high risk of internal engine problems at any mileage, you bet your ass they'd be telling you to run premium... they do exactly that on the SRT cars in fact.
Agreed, and these are the things that fall under the "should not break in the first 100k miles". But the internals of a 3.6l pushrod or DOHC V6? Old as dirt. Thus, this is an engine that must go the life of the vehicle without internal issues. Failing to do that, at scale, would be a disaster far more costly than any warranty. They will not be taking any chances on that front.The manufacture doesn't get to pick and choose what will cause issues, break prematurely, or make it through that warranty. It wasn't a conscious decision to design a clutch that explodes, dead-spot steering, and possibly tuning that requires constant ignition retarding to reduce detonation.
They make mistakes, or cut corners a little too close. Some make it past warranty, some cause fires that burn the vehicle down in under 10,000 miles.
More than 90% of Wrangler buyers don't even know what octane the engine requires until they go to fuel up their new JL for the first time. I'd wager good money that a huge chunk NEVER do...and just put 87 in it.I doubt it. Have you seen the number of people that bitch & moan about the 2.0 taking premium fuel? It's frequently listed as one of the reasons why some people avoid it. Hell, isn't the fact that we've argued for 15 pages evidence enough that there are some people that will never accept spending more than the bare minimum on fuel? I highly doubt that there will ever not be at least one Wrangler offered that takes standard grade fuel (at least until the EV takeover).
Just like the clutch.Agreed, and these are the things that fall under the "should not break in the first 100k miles". But the internals of a 3.6l pushrod V6? Old as dirt. Thus, this is an engine that must go the life of the vehicle without internal issues. Failing to do that, at scale, would be a disaster far more costly than any warranty. They will not be taking any chances on that front.
Yeah, and exactly 69.420% of Wrangler buyers get told the octane requirements at the dealership when they make the purchase but forget when signing the paperwork. Source? Trust me bro.More than 90% of Wrangler buyers don't even know what octane the engine requires until they go to fuel up their new JL for the first time. I'd wager good money that a huge chunk NEVER do...and just put 87 in it.
And apparently never make mistakes, like the clutch.FCA does state in the manuals of SRT cars that 91 octane should be used. They do it in the 2.0l Wrangler too. So why not for the 3.6l? Because the people who designed and built the engine, and put hundreds of thousands of test miles on it, found that premium fuel is not necessary.
The 3.6 Pentastar isn’t a pushrod engine…it’s DOHC. You keep pontificating and arguing on the octane subject, yet you don’t even know the general design of the engine you are arguing about??Agreed, and these are the things that fall under the "should not break in the first 100k miles". But the internals of a 3.6l pushrod V6? Old as dirt. Thus, this is an engine that must go the life of the vehicle without internal issues. Failing to do that, at scale, would be a disaster far more costly than any warranty. They will not be taking any chances on that front.
More than 90% of Wrangler buyers don't even know what octane the engine requires until they go to fuel up their new JL for the first time. I'd wager good money that a huge chunk NEVER do...and just put 87 in it.
FCA does state in the manuals of SRT cars that 91 octane should be used. They do it in the 2.0l Wrangler too. So why not for the 3.6l? Because the people who designed and built the engine, and put hundreds of thousands of test miles on it, found that premium fuel is not necessary.
This argument needs to be allowed to die.
It's irrelevant to the conversation. OHC is even older.The 3.6 Pentastar isn’t a pushrod engine…it’s DOHC. You keep pontificating and arguing on the octane subject, yet you don’t even know the general design of the engine you are arguing about??
I bought my wife a new Rubicon 3.6 manual a little over a month ago. We live at altitude and operate the Jeep between 6000-10,000 feet 95% of the time, it will likely never go below a mile high as it is our around home vehicle.Modern control systems adjust the calibration for altitude, so it measures BARO almost continuously and adjusts the calibration, both fueling and spark (as well as other items) so they add power in because the less dense air typically allows for more timing, because of that though the octane requirements don't change nearly as much as older vehicles used to.
LOL!It's irrelevant to the conversation. OHC is even older.
Can you source where they've spoken multiple times on this? Just wanting to see what they say for myself. Living at elevation where regular gas is 85 octane I do find ambiguity in the owners manual of every vehicle I've owned. They all read something like "use regular (87 octane) fuel". Well which is it? Regular or 87 octane? because here those two are not the same.FCA spoke, they were questioned, they spoke again, they were questioned again, and they spoke again. There is no ambiguity on where they stand on the proper octane for the 3.6l.
You can find it easily by searching the forum. There are countless threads referencing it. This is a long dead horse that keeps getting new rounds of beatings.Can you source where they've spoken multiple times on this? Just wanting to see what they say for myself. Living at elevation where regular gas is 85 octane I do find ambiguity in the owners manual of every vehicle I've owned. They all read something like "use regular (87 octane) fuel". Well which is it? Regular or 87 octane? because here those two are not the same.