Disappointment slowly creeping in

[Gascap9000]

Hey guys, after months of waiting, we finally got to see what the new JL looks like. I was very excited to see the picture mania we had the past few days. But after seeing what looks exactly the same as the Jk (which I love), I am really hoping for big updates and changes to make the JL a much better jeep than its predecessor. But after seeing mpg reduction literally none existant even after weight reduction and 8 spd trans for the 3.6l. Now I am really counting on a huge interior improvement to keep me in the game...

What do you guys think?

Sponsored

 

[MotorMan]

It’s a Jeep so exceptional MPG isn’t to be expected. I pretty much love the JL except for minor things like the JLU soft top windows not aligning with the door’s glass windows. Not sure why they couldn’t make it consistent.
I’m also not sold on the way the soft top looks without the pillars. I think the JK’s soft top pulled the windowless-look better.

These are just minor gripes, though.

 

[Gascap9000]

It’s a Jeep so exceptional MPG isn’t to be expected. I pretty much love the JL except for minor things like the JLU soft top windows not aligning with the door’s glass

These are just minor gripes, though.

I know we jeepers don't drive for mpg, maybe it's just my high expectations for the JL. Jeep put in so much effort into weight reduction, aero dynamics, 8 spd trans, for just 2mpg highway.

 

[thenewrick]

Probably additional safety, stiffness, comfort, reduced wind noise etc was the focus. Lux trucks are the big new thing.

 

[Armycop]

People have some unrealistic goals for a Wrangler. You are driving a brick on top of a brick. Highway mpgs are very dependent on aerodynamics and gearing. If they threw 3.21 gears in the Sport and Sahara you might have eeked out another mpg at the expense of acceleration. Similar V6 crossovers of similar weight are only pulling 25-27 mpg with front wheel drive and much slicker bodies. The Hurricane or diesel may push the Wrangler up to 25 but I think that's the best this thing will do.

 

[DanW]

I know we jeepers don't drive for mpg, maybe it's just my high expectations for the JL. Jeep put in so much effort into weight reduction, aero dynamics, 8 spd trans, for just 2mpg highway.

You can only get so much water out of a stone. The thing is an aerodynamic brick, no matter what slick engineering you do. I'm glad they didn't focus so much on the mpg that they screwed up the design. I think it is a nice evolution of the JK, and not a revolution. I'm fine with that because I absolutely love my JK. To me, they hit this one out of the park, from what I've seen. Ask me after a month or two of ownership, though, and I'll give a better assessment.

 

[Gascap9000]

People have some unrealistic goals for a Wrangler. You are driving a brick on top of a brick. Highway mpgs are very dependent on aerodynamics and gearing. If they threw 3.21 gears in the Sport and Sahara you might have eeked out another mpg at the expense of acceleration. Similar V6 crossovers of similar weight are only pulling 25-27 mpg with front wheel drive and much slicker bodies. The Hurricane or diesel may push the Wrangler up to 25 but I think that's the best this thing will do.

I hope they knock the ball out of the park in the interior department.

 

[Demonic]

If you took all the members' individual expectations from 6 months ago combined the expected Jeep was a hybrid-turbo diesel with 7000lb towing capacity, a DCT paddle shifting trans, 30+ mpg, 0-60 in under 5 seconds, bullet-proof windows, built-in air jacks, on-board compressor, leather seats hand-stitched in the hills of Italy, satellite communications, and the ability to fly short distances at a maximum altitude of 100 feet. Then when it gets released people go "I don't understand, I mean even if it was only for short distances I was still expecting a flying car." It is at the end of the day just next year's Wrangler.

 

[Armycop]

But it still has to be priced under $30,000 with all that...

 

[Armycop]

I'm just hoping I can get a V6 JLU or JT, put 34" tires on it and get close to 20 mpg.

 

[AVENTUS]

Very disappointed.
Not copping.

 

[DanW]

Very disappointed.
Not copping.

Copping? Weinstein? Sorry, man, couldn't resist! :cwl:

 

[chuck h]

It’s a Jeep so exceptional MPG isn’t to be expected. I pretty much love the JL except for minor things like the JLU soft top windows not aligning with the door’s glass windows. Not sure why they couldn’t make it consistent.
I’m also not sold on the way the soft top looks without the pillars. I think the JK’s soft top pulled the windowless-look better.

These are just minor gripes, though.

I am with you on how the soft top looks without the pillars. I think it looks way strange. And unless it is stiff as a board, I think that thing at highway speeds is gonna be flapping all over the place and really noisy, and is prime candidate for breaking.

 

[badtux]

18mpg city is in line with other Chrysler products that utilize the 3.6L engine and 8 speed transmission, such as the Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Chrysler Pacifica. I'm not sure what you expected. As for highway mpg, that's all about aerodynamics. A flying brick is never going to get the 30mpg highway of a Chrysler 300, which would be the best you could expect from this engine/transmission combination in any vehicle. It turns out that the highway MPG ends up the same as the Dodge Ram 1500 with the 3.6L and 8 speed transmission, which similarly has the aerodynamics of a brick. What more did you expect?

Some of the things I'm interested in knowing before I express disappointment:

1) Is it true that the Rubicon is going to come with 33" tires and be able to fit 35" tires without a lift?
2) Has the bumper bolt pattern changed? I.e., can we use JK bumpers on the thing? What about the wheel offsets and bolt pattern?
3) One problem with the JK is that the fuel tank is in a very vulnerable location hanging down further than the frame, and it's impossible to relocate it upwards with a body lift because there is a crossmember above it. Has this been fixed?

Other things I already know I like:
1) It uses the "new" Uconnect, not the old mid 2000's model. That's a nice stereo setup.
2) The "offroad mode" rocks. I outfitted my JK with an aftermarket stereo head that does much the same thing, but it's nice having something like that stock.

Some of things I know I already don't like:
1) What's with putting the turn signals on the fender flares, again?! That was a PITA with the TJ when we went to "highline" our Jeeps and had to relocate the lights back down to under the headlights, it's going to be another PITA here when trying to come up with aftermarket fender flares that'll work. Aftermarket flares will have to basically have a molding to allow bolting in this whole light assembly, or else have some aftermarket light assembly that'll pass inspection. The JK at least only had the side marker lights on the flares, and it was easy to relocate them or replace them with equivalent lights.

Some things that are pointless:

1) The folding windshield. The main reason for dropping the windshield in earlier Jeeps was that you were about to go through a V-notch and didn't want to munge up your windshield frame. Presumably you already had an internal aftermarket rollbar to handle rollovers. But on this thing, the windshield frame doesn't drop, just the glass drops. Pointless. Well, I guess at least you won't shatter your windshield glass, that's something... but still.

 

[DanW]

I am with you on how the soft top looks without the pillars. I think it looks way strange. And unless it is stiff as a board, I think that thing at highway speeds is gonna be flapping all over the place and really noisy, and is prime candidate for breaking.

Look at the rear mounts. They are large and the supports are short. Looks like it should be solid.

Sponsored