Extra weight affecting performance?

[Caveman044]

Have any of you that have driven other wranglers noticed any loss of off-road performance due to all the extra weight? I'm wondering if things like sidehilling, descents, and tricky sections are a little bit harder for the 3.0. Looking at the DEF tank makes me think it loses some departure angle too. What are you thoughts?

Sponsored

 

[JeepVT]

Have any of you that have driven other wranglers noticed any loss of off-road performance due to all the extra weight? I'm wondering if things like sidehilling, descents, and tricky sections are a little bit harder for the 3.0. Looking at the DEF tank makes me think it loses some departure angle too. What are you thoughts?

Depends on a few things like are you lifting it or not? What size tires? The DEF tank would only get hit if I wasn't driving very well or if I really had not choice which is unlikely where I drive mine off-road. I don't notice the weight. I have a 3.5" lift with 37s

 

[rickinAZ]

All things being equal, weight is the enemy of performance - off-road, on-road, on the track, etc...

Colin Chapman used to say: "to increase performance, add lightness".

 

[PillowFightr]

My ecodiesel didn't even notice the heaviest sliders i put on it.. Still gets 24MPG combined.. oh and i have a full length front runner roof rack..

If anything is the enemy of performance, range and MPG, i would say its aero dynamics!

 

[omnitonic]

I'm sure you do lose some performance for every new thing you carry or bolt on, but it doesn't seem to be that much of a loss so far. I realize gas mileage is only one number, but my Jeep was getting close to 22 mpg bone stock. Every piece of steel I added, I figured it would kill my mileage. When I got rid of the factory air gap covers and other aerodynamic components, I figured it would kill my mileage. When I gave the girl what probably would have been a 2" lift without all the extra weight, I figured it would kill my mileage.

Well, I'm a little farther away from 22 mpg now, but I probably lost less than .5 mpg combined for all this increase in utility. I have a winch, better recovery points, jack points, slightly better clearance, and for everything I've added in weight, I would be happy to settle for 19 mpg right now. I'm pretty happy I lost so little mileage.

Did I lose trail performance? I think since I added in the lift, no, it's probably even better than stock now. The springs have taken up the weight and then some. It might be different if I had some bigass roof tent on or something. YMMV.

 

[SilverSurfer]

Weight definitely affects performance. Non't think of the added weight alone but rather where on the vehicle it was added.
In example an off road front bumper with a winch has quite an effect on especially the 2-door JL's performance in dunes, short run up inclines and stability with steep declines.

 

[FinnCustomKnives]

Of course there are probably many things that make it not ideal but the most obvious I would say will be that in soft terrain you will sink more vs a lighter JL on the same tire & pressure. So technically in mud/snow/sand you will have a harder time.

Embarrassing to say but I managed to get our rubicon ecodiesel stuck in our backyard a few days after getting it The engine spec wouldn't have changed that situation though I have no doubt. Rain water runs down our road and then straight down our driveway, thus making a sort of silt in that exact spot. That in addition to our GA red clay and a bunch of pinestraw with a ton of rain it just laughed at those K02's. Kind of made me wish I opted for the M/T's, which will be our choice once we lift.

 

[BJACK]

I have two similar jlu's one with a 3.6 auto and one with a 3.0 diesel both with 35" tires. The 3.6 does slightly better on the rocks than the diesel.

 

[RedundanT]

I have two similar jlu's one with a 3.6 auto and one with a 3.0 diesel both with 35" tires. The 3.6 does slightly better on the rocks than the diesel.

Well that's curious.

 

[DwnSth]

I have two similar jlu's one with a 3.6 auto and one with a 3.0 diesel both with 35" tires. The 3.6 does slightly better on the rocks than the diesel.

I know this is an older post. Hoping to get some more recent idea of how you find the diesel off-road as a direct comparison to your 3.6. Went with the diesel for the increase in torque. I can only compare it to my TJ personally and have had better luck on obstacles than similar equipped 3.6. I'm on a Mopar 2" with 37" Ridge Grapplers. Most of the 3.6's we wheel with are on 3.5" lifts and re-geared.

 

[BJACK]

I know this is an older post. Hoping to get some more recent idea of how you find the diesel off-road as a direct comparison to your 3.6. Went with the diesel for the increase in torque. I can only compare it to my TJ personally and have had better luck on obstacles than similar equipped 3.6. I'm on a Mopar 2" with 37" Ridge Grapplers. Most of the 3.6's we wheel with are on 3.5" lifts and re-geared.

It might be in my head. The diesel seemed a little stiffer at first and the 3.6 felt a little more nimble. Now I've noticed that the Def level sensor doesn't like steep angles and starts threatening to disable the Jeep if I don't fill it, even if it's half full. Also after several hours of low rpm crawling and not much load on the engine the exhaust starts to smell and might try to regen.

Sponsored