6 Speed Manual performance difference?

[BXFXJeep]

96 TJ ? That’s a unicorn right there

99 Sahara Desert Sand

Sponsored

 

[johnnymiz]

Completely agree, and then they could make 1st gear a little bit lower so I don't have to slip the clutch so much when starting out on a hill. And that reverse....my gawd......why is it so high geared? If you're backing up the hill you either slip the hell out of the clutch while revving it up, or lug the engine down and it sounds like a dying aardvark, or you kill it. WTF jeep??????? Who needs to drive 35mph in reverse???

I need more coffee. haha

actually, 1st is pretty low .... the real problem is the gutless car motor they use in the wrangler.
my 78 landcruiser first is 3.5:1 while the rubicon is 5:13:1.. but the landcruiser makes DOUBLE the torque below 2000rpm than the wrangler.
in fact, the 2F in the FJ40 puts peak torque out at 1800 rpm... so while it has a much higher first gear, just lift the clutch and it moves off at walking speed with no skinny pedal. you can actually row through the gears never touching the gas and you will end up in 4th at about 15-20 mph just idling along and that tractor motor wont care one bit.
#RUBICONNEEDSAHEMI

 

[8flat]

actually, 1st is pretty low .... the real problem is the gutless car motor they use in the wrangler.
my 78 landcruiser first is 3.5:1 while the rubicon is 5:13:1.. but the landcruiser makes DOUBLE the torque below 2000rpm than the wrangler.
in fact, the 2F in the FJ40 puts peak torque out at 1800 rpm... so while it has a much higher first gear, just lift the clutch and it moves off at walking speed with no skinny pedal. you can actually row through the gears never touching the gas and you will end up in 4th at about 15-20 mph just idling along and that tractor motor wont care one bit.
#RUBICONNEEDSAHEMI

HAHA we need to have a beer sometime for some bench racing........

Good point on first gear, it'd be fine with a different engine. Although I still think reverse would be a little too "fast".

But yeah, a rig like a wrangler needs an engine with torque way down low, that should be priority one with FCA. Either an inline 6 or a V8 around 5 liters with a long stroke and 5k redline. The 5.7hemi would be so incredibly cool in these things I've been daydreaming about the swap since my JLUR rolled off the truck. Gotta wait a couple years at least.

 

[johnnymiz]

@8flat,
I'm with you there, brother. An I6 or small 8 would be perfect...but neither fits due to safety reasons, which is too bad. I dont hate the 3.6 (i have an older porsche that is also gutless off idle so im kinda used to dealing with it), but the rubicon would be so much better with a motor with a torque curve lower down in the rev range.

 

[8flat]

@8flat,
I'm with you there, brother. An I6 or small 8 would be perfect...but neither fits due to safety reasons, which is too bad. I dont hate the 3.6 (i have an older porsche that is also gutless off idle so im kinda used to dealing with it), but the rubicon would be so much better with a motor with a torque curve lower down in the rev range.

True. I realize the frontal crush zone is important so they can't use a longer engine, well unless they stretched the front end but I guess we don't really want that. Maybe just a V6 with a much bigger stroke would be the ticket? Probably hard to make it as fuel efficient then, I suppose?

 

[johnnymiz]

Exactly....all about mpg and using an engine acrosse product lines...thus the minivan engine in a jeep.
But they COULDVE come up with something more appropriate, like the 305 big block v6 in 60s GMC pickups which didnt turn fast, but you got like 280lbs of torque at 1600rpms, not the 5000rpms needed in our jeeps. Peak torque over 3000 rpm is pretty useless in a truck.

 

[TrailTorque]

Would much rather prefer my 6MT over the 8AT.

When I want to switch gears *I* switch gears.

Too many 8AT tales of random gear switching.

Now THAT would annoy the piss out of me.

So quit bitching lol

 

[johnnymiz]

Eh, we are just nit picking. Love the fact that i can get a stick at all

 

[8flat]

Eh, we are just nit picking. Love the fact that i can get a stick at all

Haha very true, I was literally just bragging this up yesterday. Very lucky to be able to get a manual these days...in anything.....hell the corvette is dropping the manual option. Unreal.

 

[johnnymiz]

Wait...no way?!?

 

[johnnymiz]

Porsche tried that and got slapped back
(In case anyone cares, as much as they try to sell it, PDK is NOT like a manual and i think it sucks. Sold my PDK porsche because it just didnt do it for me.)

 

[johnnymiz]

Completely agree, and then they could make 1st gear a little bit lower so I don't have to slip the clutch so much when starting out on a hill. And that reverse....my gawd......why is it so high geared? If you're backing up the hill you either slip the hell out of the clutch while revving it up, or lug the engine down and it sounds like a dying aardvark, or you kill it. WTF jeep??????? Who needs to drive 35mph in reverse???

so, i had to back all the way up my driveway this weekend with a pretty heavy load. it's got a slight incline and we normally park front in and just let it roll back in neutral to exit .....@8flat, you are absolutely right! no grunt at idle in reverse and it stalled.. with any gas you go waaaaay too fast unless you slip the clutch. not a fan of that at all.

 

[8flat]

Wait...no way?!?

Well, I should point out it's not confirmed officially, but all the leaked info so far about the new mid-engine vette is there will be no true manual option. Dual-clutch arrangements with paddle shifters, likely.

 

[johnnymiz]

in my opinion, that would be a massive mistake... but the bean counters have probably counted all the beans and came to the conclusion that the hit will be negligible since ferrari got away with it and no one really cared

 

[mrhumble1]

My $.02-

I have a manual 2-door JLR on 35s and I HATE 1st gear. I hated it when I had the stock 33s. It's mostly useless because it revs up but the Jeep doesn't really go anywhere. Note I am coming from a 300HP VW GTI which was a ROCKET but still my JL feels so slow. I knew I was getting a slower vehicle but I don't know if I will ever be used to it. Those that say the JLs have pep have maybe never driven a peppy vehicle.

6th gear is mostly useless as well. If I am already at speed (65+) then I use 6th to save fuel. Otherwise if I ever need to go faster or if I hit a hill, I have to go back to 4th (and sometimes 3rd). In 6th, there is NO passing\accelerating power. This was also the case when I had 33s.

Don't even get me started on the reverse gear...

Yes, you are absolutely right. I can’t believe for a second that anyone is getting 22mpg in a wrangler, unless they are driving 45mph, down hill in neutral. But at some point, you have to go back uphill.

I've had my JL for about 4500 miles and I consistently get 20-MPG combined. I think this is only because I use 5th and 6th whenever I can to save on fuel, plus I don't drive like an asshole. I know my Jeep isn't a sports car so I don't try to drive it like one.

Sponsored