4xe Rubicon Weight and Off Road Performance

Overland Utah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Caden
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
155
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
JLUR
Vehicle Showcase
1
The 4xe is really appealing to me for a number of reasons beyond the better MPG's.
-Tax Credit
-I visit the mountains often (to ski, jeep, mtn bike, etc) and could utilize the regenerative braking.
-I also commute less than 30 miles each way and have charging stations at my work

My ONLY hesitation with the 4xe is the additional weight, which is substantial when comparing it with a standard Rubicon. The 4xe Rubicon curb weight is 5222 pounds, which is 772 pounds heavier than a standard rubicon's 4450 curb weight. The additional torque makes up for the weight, but that is also assuming that there is enough power for the electric engines. I wanted to start a discussion on how you guys think the weight will impact the 4xe's off-road performance.
Advertisement

 

PunkSnyper

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
10
Location
Backenforth, TX
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
I have been asking myself the same question as I’m looking to replace my 2019 JLUR 2.0 e-Torque. I have been really impressed with the 2.0, it feels light and nimble. Only reason I’m even looking is to change color and pick up a few options such as sky one touch top and advanced safety group.

After being disappointed by the eco diesel, I turned my sights to the 4Xe as a high torque alternative. With the lack of driving reviews I was left to look to specs for insight. Looking at 0-60 times between the 4Xe and the standard 2.0 is 6.0 sec vs. 6.25 sec respectively. I’m sure that is with a full charge which would make that a best case for the 4Xe. So, that leaves the novelty of having a cool 140 HP golf cart with a 25 mile range and warranty-end anxiety.

Now, add in the fact that you get the selec-trac (soccer mom?) transfer case vs. the standard Rubicon rock-track unit. That goes for the Hemi also right?

How does the extra weight affect the axles also when you add all the other off-road kit?

In the end, I’m probably going to order or locate a standard 2.0 tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

bjm00se

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bullwinkle
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
96
Reaction score
147
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Lifted Tacoma Reg Cab
Now, add in the fact that you get the select-trac (soccer mom?) transfer case vs. the standard Rubicon rock-track unit.
Is there a downside to this transfer case I'm not aware of? It still has a 4:1 4-lo for the Rubicon.
 

bjm00se

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bullwinkle
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
96
Reaction score
147
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Lifted Tacoma Reg Cab
OP
OP
Overland Utah

Overland Utah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Caden
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
155
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
JLUR
Vehicle Showcase
1
Is there a downside to this transfer case I'm not aware of? It still has a 4:1 4-lo for the Rubicon.
I don’t think it is 4:1 is it?
If it is a Rubicon then it will have the 4:1 ratio in the transfer case, regardless of if it is Selec-Trac or Rock-Trac.

From what I could find, there have been a few threads of someone knowing his buddy‘s neighbor’s best friend that might have had an issue, but there is not a lot of hard data to support the claim that the Selec-Trac is weaker than the standard tcase. I think only time will tell, especially as the 4xe and 392 come out utilizing those transfer cases with the additional torque.

My largest concern is the strength of the axles/housings holding the additional weight as well as larger tires (37“s), gear, etc.
 

Bill Reiter

Active Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
61
Location
San Diego, CA
Vehicle(s)
'07 Toyota FJ Cruiser; '08 Yukon; '05 CTS-V
As a general rule, a lighter vehicle will fare better in mud and snow than a heavier vehicle with same power-to-weight ratio.
 

JDaPP

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
107
Reaction score
97
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
Jeep JKU
I believe the difference in transfer cases is clutch vs chain driven.

I think it will only be an issue if you are truly a hardcore offroader. You can see the same/similar arguments on NP241 VS NP242
 

mgarciaknight

Well-Known Member
First Name
MG
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
130
Reaction score
125
Location
TerraX
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU80th, 2010 KK
If the 4xe came with 3.6 as an option, I would be all in! Why doesn't FCA do it?
 

Sboden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
578
Reaction score
459
Location
Kansas City
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR 4Xe, 2.5" lift, 17" wheels, 37" tires
If the 4xe came with 3.6 as an option, I would be all in! Why doesn't FCA do it?
2.0 has better gas mileage, more torque and I'm guessing smaller motor than 3.6.
 

mgarciaknight

Well-Known Member
First Name
MG
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
130
Reaction score
125
Location
TerraX
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU80th, 2010 KK
2.0 has better gas mileage, more torque and I'm guessing smaller motor than 3.6.
2.0 just one mpg better, and has 35 ft/lbs more torque. 3.6 has 15 more horses. But to me the bigger difference is naturally aspirated versus turbo. I have the 3.6 etorque so already a mild hybrid with extra battery. Why not just make the battery bigger, stick a plug on it, and give a 4xe engine option. 👍🏽
 

Sboden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
578
Reaction score
459
Location
Kansas City
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR 4Xe, 2.5" lift, 17" wheels, 37" tires
2.0 just one mpg better, and has 35 ft/lbs more torque. 3.6 has 15 more horses. But to me the bigger difference is naturally aspirated versus turbo. I have the 3.6 etorque so already a mild hybrid with extra battery. Why not just make the battery bigger, stick a plug on it, and give a 4xe engine option. 👍🏽
I'm guessing it is a little more complicated than the etorque system. It is all about torque and not HP in a wrangler imo. 35 ft more torque is quite a bit more. Again (complete guess) but they probably needed some space and the 2.0 is most likely smaller allowing for that. I'd be fine with the 3.6 also as that is what I chose for my current jeep over the 2.0.
 

mgarciaknight

Well-Known Member
First Name
MG
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
130
Reaction score
125
Location
TerraX
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU80th, 2010 KK
I'm guessing it is a little more complicated than the etorque system. It is all about torque and not HP in a wrangler imo. 35 ft more torque is quite a bit more. Again (complete guess) but they probably needed some space and the 2.0 is most likely smaller allowing for that. I'd be fine with the 3.6 also as that is what I chose for my current jeep over the 2.0.
BTW, HUGE Chiefs fan here in Florida for over 33 years, since Christian Okoye (35). Go CHIEFS!
 

Sboden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
578
Reaction score
459
Location
Kansas City
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR 4Xe, 2.5" lift, 17" wheels, 37" tires
Advertisement

Tri-City Jeep
 
Advertisement
Top