Any speculation on horsepower / torque numers for the Updated 3.6?

JBlackoutK

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
Location
Desert
Vehicle(s)
2012 JK Rubicon
I'm skeptical. It's same basic size, even longer hood, now has a true cage attached to the frame, more gadgets built into it, lots more safety equipment and larger wheels/tires so the weight loss would have to come out of the existing body. Unless they use a LOT of aluminum which would drive up the cost.

I'm thinking a modest HP increase (295) but much better power delivery and if they can do that I'd be satisfied.





Advertisement

 

zgn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
771
Reaction score
411
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler TJ (2001)
The latest updates to the Pentastar and a few other tweaks - 300-320 HP.
 

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
1,787
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
Are these engine increases due to software tweaking, or to "hard" changes, exhaust , intake blueprint changes.
Will these "improvements " trickle down to present generation. Higher compression will require Premium fuel, that's a " hidden" cost that offsets claims of "economy", higher mpg.
No Free Lunch.
 

jeepney123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
64
Reaction score
26
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
Toy Train Set
Are these engine increases due to software tweaking, or to "hard" changes, exhaust , intake blueprint changes.
Will these "improvements " trickle down to present generation. Higher compression will require Premium fuel, that's a " hidden" cost that offsets claims of "economy", higher mpg.
No Free Lunch.
Turbochared engines require high octane premium fuel.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Turbochared engines require high octane premium fuel.
Not always. It depends on how they implement it, you will lose a bit of potential by using regular vs premium, but the loss may be less than the cost difference, so some in the N.American market are designed for both.

There are examples of both higher compression an turbo using regular fuel, but the design and subsequent tuning needs to account for it from the start, and then the engine comouter decides on how rich to run the engine based on fuel/air and knock sensors.

As mentioned in another threads there are existing examples of 87 octane tubocharing like VW's b-cycle 2.0L which uses VVL to achieve this. Even the Fiat 500's 1.4L MultiAir Turbo 87 octane is 'acceptable', though premium will give it a boost and is preferred.

The Mazda Skyactiv engine maintains the use of 87 octane fuel despite 13:1 compression. Now the Euro version raises compression further still to 14:1 with a few tweaks because the expectation is higher octane fuel being the baseline, however the fuel economy and performance difference is around 5% and less than 5% respectively, while the difference in cost of fuel is more often multiple times that difference.

And that's where it becomes tricky, even the Pentastar and the Wrangler's previous 3.8L show tiny boosts in torque from running higher octane fuel, but for a few % points boost, is it worth it?
 

Advertisement




Smart Stop Start
 



Advertisement
Top