392 Sluggish vs Modded 2.0

[Tpsillos]

The comparisons in this thread are laughable at best. The drive by wire, detuned stock 392 feels sluggish compared to my tuned 2.0t, ecodiesel, scatpack or whatever? No shit. A simple pedal commander will fix that. No need to do anything else. Not to mention even stock those tuned vehicles (minus the scat pack) can't remotely keep up if you simply hammer the throttle on each of them. "But it feels sluggish when I baby the throttle"? Or when I give it the same amount of throttle I do in my tuned rig (Which is nowhere near the same amount of throttle thanks to the drive by wire and tune)? 0-60 doesn't lie. Dumps don't lie. Sure the EcoDiesel has a torque advantage with a tune, and a 150hp disadvantage. Add in the small power band the tuned EcoDiesel still has half the power under the curve. The reality is you test drove the 392 and need every minor criticism you can find to talk yourself out of spending the money. No it's not sluggish or slower anywhere even bone stock compared to your tuned Jeep. Fully tuned with the 80ftlb+ tune the ecodiesel won't break 5s 0-60. The 392 beats that by a full second stock...sluggishly apparently. Make it make sense.

You sound like someone who has never driven a diesel. More torque makes all the difference in feel, less throttle input is required, not really easy to drive on wet roads, but unlike a "throttle enhancer" it is real.... 0-60 I guarantee a tuned eco will embarrass a 392 as i have done it several times, but after 70 is where the horsepower difference shows though like you mentioned.
I don't know anything about a 2.0 liter. Tuned, I doubt it could keep up with either.

Sponsored

 

[2nd 392]

You sound like someone who has never driven a diesel. More torque makes all the difference in feel, less throttle input is required, not really easy to drive on wet roads, but unlike a "throttle enhancer" it is real.... 0-60 I guarantee a tuned eco will embarrass a 392 as i have done it several times, but after 70 is where the horsepower difference shows though like you mentioned.
I don't know anything about a 2.0 liter. Tuned, I doubt it could keep up with either.

What’s not “real” about correcting the squishy, torque managed, likely for CAFE especially at off idle throttle mapping ? “Tuned” vs not tuned, how about tuned apples to apples ?
Kinda, still NA vs Boosted, remedy available, unfortunately only on the FF special edition with a warranty.

 

[Zandcwhite]

You sound like someone who has never driven a diesel. More torque makes all the difference in feel, less throttle input is required, not really easy to drive on wet roads, but unlike a "throttle enhancer" it is real.... 0-60 I guarantee a tuned eco will embarrass a 392 as i have done it several times, but after 70 is where the horsepower difference shows though like you mentioned.
I don't know anything about a 2.0 liter. Tuned, I doubt it could keep up with either.

Show me a 4s 0-60 ecodiesel? Every run I've found online even with the 80ftlb+ tune is 5-5.5s. Smoking a guy at a light who isn't paying attention or can't drive means nothing. Numbers don't lie and shifting at half the rpm isn't the way to be quick when the guy next to you is running up to 6k+. Yes the time is more significant than a throttle enhancer if you line up next to surge ecodiesel, but it's still slow compared to a stock 392.

 

[azjl#3]

Sounds like someone trying to talk themselves out of buying a 392 to me. Not only does the 33% quicker 0-60 show there's a substantially higher low end in the 392, but the dyno doesn't lie. The 392 makes more torque at any rpm you can measure and it's not even close. Not only are numbers at 1k rpm nearly impossible to measure, the turbo is doing nothing that low and you're well past 2k rpms the second you blip the throttle in any new Jeep thanks to the 4.7-1 1st gear. Sure the 2.0t might feel a little more nimble thanks to the lighter weight, but unless your test drive was well above 10k feet the turbo has no power advantage at any rpm. The 392 has a 150ftlb advantage at 2k rpms. No the FBOs aren't nearly doubling the torque of the 2.0t and especially not at low rpm as most of them improve airflow which mostly benefits peak numbers.

tHIS, NO WAY HOW EVEN A BLOWN SUPERCHARGED FLUX CAPACITERED 2.0 COULD BEAT A MILD 392.

 

[2nd 392]

tHIS, NO WAY HOW EVEN A BLOWN SUPERCHARGED FLUX CAPACITERED 2.0 COULD BEAT A MILD 392.

Not so sure about that, heck, what the Flux Capacitor did for a Delorean’s wimpy ~130 hp Volvo V6 was outstanding !

 

[Terrymo]

The comparisons in this thread are laughable at best. The drive by wire, detuned stock 392 feels sluggish compared to my tuned 2.0t, ecodiesel, scatpack or whatever? No shit. A simple pedal commander will fix that. No need to do anything else. Not to mention even stock those tuned vehicles (minus the scat pack) can't remotely keep up if you simply hammer the throttle on each of them. "But it feels sluggish when I baby the throttle"? Or when I give it the same amount of throttle I do in my tuned rig (Which is nowhere near the same amount of throttle thanks to the drive by wire and tune)? 0-60 doesn't lie. Dumps don't lie. Sure the EcoDiesel has a torque advantage with a tune, and a 150hp disadvantage. Add in the small power band the tuned EcoDiesel still has half the power under the curve. The reality is you test drove the 392 and need every minor criticism you can find to talk yourself out of spending the money. No it's not sluggish or slower anywhere even bone stock compared to your tuned Jeep. Fully tuned with the 80ftlb+ tune the ecodiesel won't break 5s 0-60. The 392 beats that by a full second stock...sluggishly apparently. Make it make sense.

Confirmation Bias. People tend to acknowledge the things that make them feel smart about their decision. They will ignore facts or use hyperbole to counter facts so they continue to feel satisfied with their choice.

 

[Terrymo]

Why sad @Ratbert ?

 

[Ratbert]

Why sad @Ratbert ?

The alternative would be to give a thumb's up to people using confirmation bias. That didn't seem appropriate.

Sponsored