3.6 not going away?

[jessedacri]

I would bet that 2027 or 28 will be the last year any ICE engine is available in a Jeep.

We're not there yet. Battery tech is super, super not there yet. Unless the wrangler becomes the shape of the Cybertruck it's gonna pull a ~90 mile range from the same size battery that gets a Tesla Model S 425 miles.

Sponsored

 

[pablo_max3045]

We're not there yet. Battery tech is super, super not there yet. Unless the wrangler becomes the shape of the Cybertruck it's gonna pull a ~90 mile range from the same size battery that gets a Tesla Model S 425 miles.

It'll happen faster than you think man; regardless of whether we want it to or not.
On the plus side, there are some solid state packs just starting certifications which, if they get through will be game changers.
It takes about 3 years to get through an into mass production though.
The big draw there is that they are massively lighter and dont suffer the dendrite issues from fast recharges, so you can really can charge in 10 min, provided you can find the current.
2025/26 will be the year they start to go mainstream (solid state EV)
Even Merc and BMW won't sell any ICE engines past 2030 except in places like Africa.
Times are changing.

Just look at the price a new Wrangler. It's ridiculous. 60k for a moderate spec Rubi. Yet, upmarket people are buying them. FCA is never going back down market. The same trend is following the entire "off road" market. They are all going upmarket.
Maybe they will offer an ICE version of the Wrangler after 2028. I have the feeling that it will be niche market version which will carry a huge price premium. So, most normal people will be priced out.
I am sure they will call it a carbon offset price or something.

 

[pablo_max3045]

I highly doubt that.

Too bad they don't have thread reminders.. then you can come back and call me a dumbass, or i get to say told ya so.

 

[AFD]

Why? The etorque seems to be a pretty reliable set-up and runs fine.

Purely just my opinion, but I feel the eTorque's benefits are far outweighed by its negatives.

Afaik, there is zero improvement in fuel economy vs the non-eTorque V6 and the only other benefit is a slight increase in power - but only for the first quarter of a wheel turn from a stop. Think it's also supposed to provide for smoother shifts, but not 100% on that.

In turn, the longevity of your drivetrain is constrained by either the federally-mandated 8-year warranty or being able to source a replacement for the liquid-cooled battery pack a decade from now (not sure how expensive that might be to replace or repair those components, since it's unlikely that anyone has needed to find/install one out-of-pocket yet).

Imo, it's all the added cost and complexities of a normal hybrid, without any of the benefits (improved fuel economy or additional power always on tap).

And there's nothing wrong with offering the eTorque as an option since people seem to like it, but at least on a 2-door Rubicon with auto-trans, it's the only way to get the v6, which is dumb.

 

[jeepingib]

Not everyone wants to pay to replace Turbos when they go bad. It’s also not just the Turbos that get damaged when they go bad either. Pulleys and Belts get wrecked and all three getting replaced/fixed cost some serious money.

I can't follow your logic here. I'm a Diesel mechanic with about 20 years of experience. I have never seen a bad turbo destroy belts and pulleys. Usually it's just a blown oil seal, which can be caught quickly and rebuild the existing turbo. If it's delayed and ignored, then it will be the turbo housing itself. And if things really go sideways, it will be the turbo and the intercooler, with a super rare chance that metal made it past the intercooler and damaged internal components in the engine like valve seats and rings.

 

[Gunfighter]

Purely just my opinion, but I feel the eTorque's benefits are far outweighed by its negatives.

Afaik, there is zero improvement in fuel economy vs the non-eTorque V6 and the only other benefit is a slight increase in power - but only for the first quarter of a wheel turn from a stop. Think it's also supposed to provide for smoother shifts, but not 100% on that.

In turn, the longevity of your drivetrain is constrained by either the federally-mandated 8-year warranty or being able to source a replacement for the liquid-cooled battery pack a decade from now (not sure how expensive that might be to replace or repair those components, since it's unlikely that anyone has needed to find/install one out-of-pocket yet).

Imo, it's all the added cost and complexities of a normal hybrid, without any of the benefits (improved fuel economy or additional power always on tap).

And there's nothing wrong with offering the eTorque as an option since people seem to like it, but at least on a 2-door Rubicon with auto-trans, it's the only way to get the v6, which is dumb.

Ok, yeah... haven't heard of any issues with the etorque and, for me, if using start stop it is a smooth transition (though I am not a start stop fan so...). The 8-year warranty isn't a problem IMHO. To each so any issues that might arise should be covered. To each their own

 

[The Last Cowboy]

Gas and diesel engines will be with us for the foreseeable future. The fact that new engines are being developed and slated for production tells us that. More and more car manufacturers are saying so as well, to include Toyota, Porsche, VW, Mazda etc.

As matter of fact, the latest Supreme Court ruling against the EPA may be more crippling to the green agenda than anyone knows. I look forward to seeing a challenge to the carbon credit fiasco and letting the free market decide.

I'm not anti electric, and they have their place. That place is in cities and crowded metro areas. All vehicles would cost a whole lot less if the auto manufacturers (minus the EV companies) didn't have to buy massive amounts of carbon credits.

It doesn't surprise me that the 3.6 carries on and the inline 6 isn't slated for the Wrangler. We know it will be in the Charger and Challenger, in the Wagoneers and the hood on the new Grand Cherokee looks long enough to accommodate it. It may go in some 1/2 ton Rams as well.

SO, this probably means that the JL has a good many more years in it's life span. I don't see a problem with that. It's a well sorted vehilce and sells out of inventory on a regular basis. At this point no massive changes are needed.

 

[AFD]

Ok, yeah... haven't heard of any issues with the etorque and, for me, if using start stop it is a smooth transition (though I am not a start stop fan so...). The 8-year warranty isn't a problem IMHO. To each so any issues that might arise should be covered. To each their own

Yeah, there's definitely no major issues with the system, but it does take a non-standard liquid-cooled battery that will eventually crap out at some point (like all batteries). Not an issue at all if you only buy new and sell your vehicle before the warranty expires, but will eventually be an issue to whoever buys one used or keeps their new vehicles for over 8-years.

Think if it provided a noticeable bump in fuel economy and/or added a substantial bump in power (at all times), then I'd likely be pretty stoked about it versus any eventual negatives. Consumer choice is good, just want a slight tweak in what's currently available (the non-eTorque with an auto was always possible before, but just isn't now for some goofy reason).

 

[OSCAR II]

I would bet that 2027 or 28 will be the last year any ICE engine is available in a Jeep.

Not that I'm looking forward to them but I don't think you are to far off. The hand writing is on the wall.
There are already extremely fast incredibly torque(y) EVs on the market now. For wheeling, 4 wheel motors no LSDs or lockers... heck no diff. No broken driveshafts or CV joints all kinds of clearance.
Hey, we didn't want unleaded gas (but really that was a good thing). We didn't want CATs but we got them.... no more worries about them being stolen .

Its all about the batteries ... and they're coming.

 

[Stuckinthesand]

Not everyone wants to pay to replace Turbos when they go bad. It’s also not just the Turbos that get damaged when they go bad either. Pulleys and Belts get wrecked and all three getting replaced/fixed cost some serious money.

I fully agree that’s why I went with the 3.6 in mine. I just figured with all the CAFM standards and the 2.0 having close to the same HP it may have doomed it.

 

[Old Dogger]

IMO…the 3.6 is a good engine and is here to stay for sometime. It is widely used in the Jeep and Chrysler applications. Firsts of all it fits size wise, has enough performance to satisfy most, and time will tell, but it appears to be headed for longevity. The V8 is going away, and I think that the 2.0 will be close behind it.

 

[AcesandEights]

I can't follow your logic here. I'm a Diesel mechanic with about 20 years of experience. I have never seen a bad turbo destroy belts and pulleys. Usually it's just a blown oil seal, which can be caught quickly and rebuild the existing turbo. If it's delayed and ignored, then it will be the turbo housing itself. And if things really go sideways, it will be the turbo and the intercooler, with a super rare chance that metal made it past the intercooler and damaged internal components in the engine like valve seats and rings.

I think the point, although your point is well-taken too, is that the turbo is another mechanical part that fails, and it can cause additional failures.

Turbos provide pros, and cons. Some of us weigh the pros and cons and would rather not have the turbo. I sure don't. I was an extended warranty claims adjuster, meaning I handled claims for warranty work outside of the factory warranty. I wouldn't buy a vehicle with a turbo if the same model existed with a non-turbo version. I get why people like them, because of the pros, but the cons outweigh any advantage for me.

 

[STW]

IMO…the 3.6 is a good engine and is here to stay for sometime. It is widely used in the Jeep and Chrysler applications. Firsts of all it fits size wise, has enough performance to satisfy most, and time will tell, but it appears to be headed for longevity. The V8 is going away, and I think that the 2.0 will be close behind it.

tell us more about why the 2.0 is going away

 

[Old Dogger]

tell us more about why the 2.0 is going away

First, if you read my post, I said IMO…I didn’t say it was fact. So now to your question. The factory has two engines, they each have there pros and cons. But they serve the purpose, and in away are competition to one another. The Gladiator doesn’t offer the 2.0. Plus now the factory is ramping up the build on the 3.6. So what is the advantage of offering two competitive engines, that are somewhat comparable?

 

[DanW]

I would bet that 2027 or 28 will be the last year any ICE engine is available in a Jeep.

No way. Look at raw materials for batteries. Not nearly enough to support replacement of ICE engines.

The ICE engine will live on for a long time, especially when it transitions to hydrogen fuel.

Sponsored