Engine/Transmission Options

[thenewrick]

Unfortunately you’re likely correct on the lack of will at FCA to put the proper engine in it, but this isn’t new unfortunately.

It’s just extremely annoying that Jeep’s Halo vehicle had 1 and then another 1 engine options for 11 years while the Grand Cherokee which sells just about as many units, has had as many as 5 options currently, and never less than 3 options in that same period. Heck even the export market got a better range of engine options than the Wrangler’s home market, which is sad really.

I like seeing the EcoDiesel in the Wrangler, but the TinyTurbo4 doesn’t improve the mix, it just sits beside the Pentastar, offering no real benefit, unlike a bigger 4 cyling NA option for efficiency, or a Hemi for power, or a big displacement Turbo for efficient power 3.2L T or SC woulda been nice).

Now the Wrangler has 3 options on paper, but really only 2 distinct categories of capabilities.

Do we know anything about he Hurricane engine yet other than 2.0 displacement? I could see it being around 250 hp/tq and getting a little bette economy, but on premium. That would make it a wash with the Pentastar in stock form. But, you’d probably be able to flash tune it for 300hp/325tq and still be able to cruise on highway for good mpg. But yea, more power means less mpg unless you’re willing to increase emissions.

We need a handy engine summary for the Hurricane like we found for the Pentastar.

Sponsored

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Nothing yet really, although the Alfa Romeo application of a 2.0Turbo provides something to base speculation on, it’s not necessarily an analogue of the Hurricane due to the intended uses and respective target markets / vehicle class.

The only technical document we did see appears to have been a typo submitted for the VIN.

Although guessing that the typo is based on a 1-digit off error, I’m guessing that 268HP is the number, but tq remains a mystery, and the tune could be either end of the scale. However either end just puts is right beside the Pentastar either just above or just below, but not significantly distant in either direction the way the ED is.

If the long term strategy is to replace the Pentastar, sure it makes sense to FCA, but not for the benefit of Wrangler owners the way an option noticeably more powerful or efficient would be.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

A numerically higher ratio equates to a lower gear. 4.10 is lower than 3.73.

No, it’s not. It’s Shorter, not lower as a single gear, we’re comparing 1st gears, so for the only application of lower that fits there is no ‘lower’ gear.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Yeah, he must have driven a sick one.

Well, if your ‘other vehicle’ is a Tesla, that may explain some of the relative performance perception for him.

I also think with his other thread inquiring about more street performance street tyre options for the JL, I hink his expectations are not in the Wrangler’s wheelhouse until FCA would make something like a “Whatchu Talking ‘bout Hella-Willys” with 700HP like the TrailCat concept.

The 3.6 is definitely an improvement on the past, but it won’t impress anyone who hasn’t driven those previous generations, and will definitely be underwhelming to anyone expecting ‘sporty’ performance after hearing of Wrangler power/speed/acceleration/pep improvements.

While some are disapointed, I'm looking forward to the 3.6 and its proven reliability. I'll have this thing out in BFE and don't want it to crap out. My old dog 3.8 has never had so much as a hiccup, and that's reassuring in the middle of a remote trail. Especially if you are deep in the woods and hearing banjos in the distance.

Yep, both the two 3.8s and three 3.6s (four if you count 2011 GC) have been great for reliability, and start up no problem unplugged in -30 and below temperatures. After that experience, hard to feel the same way about anything new, but if it weren’t for the cold, I’d risk it on the diesel just to see what the torque did for a lot of my uphill climbs in the mountains at altitude.

 

[thenewrick]

Well, if your ‘other vehicle’ is a Tesla, that may explain some of the relative performance perception for him.

I also think with his other thread inquiring about more street performance street tyre options for the JL, I hink his expectations are not in the Wrangler’s wheelhouse until FCA would make something like a “Whatchu Talking ‘bout Hella-Willys” with 700HP like the TrailCat concept.

The 3.6 is definitely an improvement on the past, but it won’t impress anyone who hasn’t driven those previous generations, and will definitely be underwhelming to anyone expecting ‘sporty’ performance after hearing of Wrangler power/speed/acceleration/pep improvements.

Yep, both the two 3.8s and three 3.6s (four if you count 2011 GC) have been great for reliability, and start up no problem unplugged in -30 and below temperatures. After that experience, hard to feel the same way about anything new, but if it weren’t for the cold, I’d risk it on the diesel just to see what the torque did for a lot of my uphill climbs in the mountains at altitude.

I'm more comparing it to my Baja Turbo 5-speed. It's AWD and weighs roughly the same. In stock form it was 210hp/220tq I think. The low end torque of turbos, and ability to customize power delivery, are the appeal.

I think a lot of the driving experience was from the Rubicon's huge off-road tires and me babying it on a test drive. We're seeing 300hp/tq V6's in other forms and brands, that should be the expectation for FCA with an all new vehicle in 2018. I'd buy the argument that Jeeps are meant to be an inexpensive tool with inexpensive production methods and materials. But, they're really quite expensive. Lux-trucks are the new fad.

I just like options. Ideally, I'd get the 3.0L Ecodiesel with a manual transmission.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

We're seeing 300hp/tq V6's in other forms and brands, that should be the expectation for FCA with an all new vehicle in 2018.

Except more of those vehicles don’t have the Wrangler’s engine bay limits or reliability requirements. The RAM has a more potent version of the Pentastar, but it needs a significantly bigger throttle body and air intake assembly that doesn’t fit in the Wrangler. Also, compared to the segment it’s still in the middle of the power numbers despite not having had a major redesign, just a light efficiency and torque delivery bump.

Others may have surpassd the Pentastar, but not by much, and only recently with additional drawbacks like direct-injection.

It won’t be the top of the list, but it’s also far from the bottom too.

I'd buy the argument that Jeeps are meant to be an inexpensive tool with inexpensive production methods and materials. But, they're really quite expensive. Lux-trucks are the new fad.

It’s not a Lux-truck, nor in the same price range, only brushing themlower limits of the mid-class trux. The Pentastar still goes in their sub $25K model as well, and that’s all for a vehicle never associated with speed and racing, unlike many of the vehicles it’s compared with including Subaru.

 

[thenewrick]

It's not full-on Lux-Truck yet but they're inching that way. All the Jeeps in my work parking lot are Unlimited's and probably cost around $45k. I don't think the Pentastar is a terrible engine. It makes sense as a base engine.

I just have that old school hot rod mentality: big engine, small car.

Isn't the new hood longer and bigger? That's probably for safety and maybe those BSG systems. I'd be fine not having the ESS and BSG and losing a few mpg for increased performance. After seeing the suggested mpg numbers, I'm guessing they couldn't release a new product with the same/worse mpg and made a deal with the devil to get an increase, any increase.

Like others have said, engines now are so reliable and long lasting that I wouldn't fret over new tech like direct injection. It's probably just a cost saving method.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

It's not full-on Lux-Truck yet but they're inching that way. All the Jeeps in my work parking lot are Unlimited's and probably cost around $45k.

Which isn’t even the entry level price of a Lux-truck. So if the upper limit barely brushes up against and even crosses into the base of a Lux-truck when tou max all options, then it’s not inching that way, other than to provide the small overlap of a venn diagram of intersecting but vastly different prices ranges.

You can appoint an F-150 to nearly $100K, so now what a Lux-truck and a “ common man’s truck “

Like others have said, engines now are so reliable and long lasting that I wouldn't fret over new tech like direct injection. It's probably just a cost saving method.

Nah, the Direct injection issues are a known problem, and were directly addressed as a reason to not bother going that route. The Pentastar supports DI, but as has been proven over and over, it’s got issues, especially with the cold, which is why folks like Toyota offer both DI & PI. So why boost performance by a few HP for that headache?
Sure in a Challenger where people are obsessed with each additonal fraction of a percentage increase in order to shave off a tenth of a second, DI for it’s Pentastar might make sense (if it didn’t also have massive V8s to do the heavy lifting) but this isn’t that vehicle.

Sure that lack of ‘perforamcne focus’ means that unfortunately the well-suited small HEMI still won’t make it into the Wrangler, but it’s also never been promoted as such either so it’s not like they failed to deliver on that promise that was never made.

 

[DanW]

It's not full-on Lux-Truck yet but they're inching that way. All the Jeeps in my work parking lot are Unlimited's and probably cost around $45k. I don't think the Pentastar is a terrible engine. It makes sense as a base engine.

I just have that old school hot rod mentality: big engine, small car.

Isn't the new hood longer and bigger? That's probably for safety and maybe those BSG systems. I'd be fine not having the ESS and BSG and losing a few mpg for increased performance. After seeing the suggested mpg numbers, I'm guessing they couldn't release a new product with the same/worse mpg and made a deal with the devil to get an increase, any increase.

Like others have said, engines now are so reliable and long lasting that I wouldn't fret over new tech like direct injection. It's probably just a cost saving method.

Supercharge it then. It gives it a wallop and is only a few bills. It won't go 300,000 miles, but if treated right, it should get past 100k. There are quite a lot of data on them, so the companies making them have matured the designs.

 

[thenewrick]

I can see why an inexpensive, simple, and reliable V6 makes sense as a base engine. I'd just like to see more and more options.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Supercharge it then. It gives it a wallop and is only a few bills. It won't go 300,000 miles, but if treated right, it should get past 100k. There are quite a lot of data on them, so the companies making them have matured the designs.

Yeah, I was thinking of going the Edelbrock route with the old 2012 Rubi once out of warranty (if it didn’t meet expectations, sell and move on anyways) but just as I was making the plans for a spring build, she got written-off. I’d be tempted with this one, but I’m still eyeing the JLU instead, and hoping for the best from the 8-spd which should feel very different from the NAG1.

I still like throwing around the JK 6spd, and it’s only 3.21 axles, so obviously I’m not looking for a return to my Mustang performance days, but a bit of boost can be intruiging, especially at altitude.

 

[thenewrick]

I'm not really comfortable doing forced induction on a NA motor aftermarket. It's also really really expensive, to me at least.

Typically with a factory turbo engine it's maybe $1000 in parts and $1000 tune and you'll get 50-100hp and a boatload of torque.

The larger engine bay of the JL does make me think a V8 option may happen at some point. Or that swaps may be a little easier.

 

[word302]

No, it’s not. It’s Shorter, not lower as a single gear, we’re comparing 1st gears, so for the only application of lower that fits there is no ‘lower’ gear.

Do you consider 1st gear to be low or high? Low range to be low or high? The entire industry considers numerically higher gears to be “lower” than their numerically lower counterparts.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Do you consider 1st gear to be low or high? Low range to be low or high? The entire industry considers numerically higher gears to be “lower” than their numerically lower counterparts.

Do I consider 1st to be lower than 2nd, then yes, but when comparing 1st gears then a numerically higher ratio is not considered a lower gear by ‘the entire industry’ unless you consider car-washers as the industry.

They are shorter gears , that’s the industry standard.

 

[TroyBoy]

Do I consider 1st to be lower than 2nd, then yes, but when comparing 1st gears then a numerically higher ratio is not considered a lower gear by ‘the entire industry’ unless you consider car-washers as the industry.

They are shorter gears , that’s the industry standard.

Interesting. As someone who doesn't know the industry, I would have thought 'lower' would have been correct terminology. Good to know.

Sponsored