Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeeperob

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
298
Reaction score
183
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R || 2021 Hellayella Rubicon JLU
While Jeep might look at this as a way to take away some from the Bronco's big reveal today, another way to look at it might be not only will the Bronco be making the Wrangler look sad today, but Jeep is also making the Wrangler that you can buy look sad. Double wammy against real production Wranglers today.
Interesting angle of thought lol. But very true I guess :crying:
 

TJJL19

Well-Known Member
First Name
TJ
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
173
Reaction score
139
Location
19054
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Unlimited Sport
My hope is that the 392 takes up so much room under the hood,that they can't fit, the ESS second battery, NO ESS,V8, I'm making up my sales sign!
I would pay a gas penalty price, for no ESS, alone, do you hear me FCA!
 

Jeeperob

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
298
Reaction score
183
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R || 2021 Hellayella Rubicon JLU
We should actually be blaming Ford for not bringing the Bronco to market earlier. Competition benefits the consumer as everyone knows. Had they started selling the Bronco a couple of years ago, I bet we'd already have a 392 Wrangler, a Mohave Wrangler, and maybe even a functioning steering rack.
Sorry you can't blame Ford for FCA not giving everyone what they want. FCA holds this stuff back to make as much as possible on a select few engine designs/chassis configuration. Only reason this is coming out now is BECAUSE of the Bronco and they probably want to squeeze the last few drops out of the 6.4L before they discontinue it. I dunno, Like someone else said, it seems desperate. They should have done this like a month ago, or waited until after the Bronco launch. A lot of people are on the fence about Bronco or a new Jeep, me included and to tell you the truth the desperate approach to this kinda has me leaning over to the Bronco side, and if that's the case, I'll have to cancel my Rubicon order...



R
 

Luntz

New Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2006 Rubicon LJRU
All I want is a 5.7, factory D60's, the ability to run 40's with a 3.5" lift, and a tailgate that can mount a 40 spare. Gonna keep dreaming!

Ditto!

Go to Jeep's homepage.
Not a single picture of a 2 door Wrangler on the homepage. Shameful.
It's what made Jeep, a Jeep.

How about a diesel 2 door, why is that impossible?

My first car was a 65 Mustang, so I've always had a soft spot for the blue oval. Not a blind fanboy.
I've owned a CJ-5, CJ-7, XJ, and now a 2006 LJR.

My money is on the Grenadier, if that ever happens.

As far as previous posters bragging about owning a tricked out Rubicon and never going off road, I don't get it. Really.
Younger generation I guess.
 

BikiniJLR

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
270
Reaction score
618
Location
Calgary
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Rubicon 2 door
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Accredited Financial Planner
Vehicle Showcase
1
As stated already, I have doubts about this making it to market but hopefully they give us some elements of it, mostly the half doors but I’m also digging the stock Rubicon wheels in bronze.
 

plex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2018
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR
Occupation
Weekend keyboard mechanic and beer drinker
Vehicle Showcase
1
My hope is that the 392 takes up so much room under the hood,that they can't fit, the ESS second battery, NO ESS,V8, I'm making up my sales sign!
I would pay a gas penalty price, for no ESS, alone, do you hear me FCA!
Actually on Ram 1500, the 5.7 hemi get better real world mpg compared to 3.6 V6, E-torque also lowered the MPG on 1500, I know it is against common sense but this is widely reported on 5th gen Ram.

Wrangler's MPG is doomed by its boxy shape, most modern engines and transmissions are so efficient. Well if Jeep do beefying up the axle and tires, that may affect the mpg really quick. You will barely see 13 mpg if you have a heavy Dana 60 and 37.
 

indmotor

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
11
Location
plymouth
Vehicle(s)
2016 wrangler
I don't think it will ever make it production. The lawyers won't let it happen. A 392 wrangler with dana 44s and 37s just seems stupid. They tell us now we can only run 35s on the dana 44 so what makes them think we can suddenly run 37s with 2x the hp? Now if they came out with a turbo V6 with hp north of 350, that would be better suited.
turbo is useless for off road. best is a i6 for near full torque off idle.
 

jeepingib

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dusty
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
3,249
Location
College Station, TX
Vehicle(s)
18' JLUR Punk'n
I don't understand why everyone is losing their minds over this. It's not exactly a new concept. Jeep has been doing this for literally decades.
https://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/26/sema-2007-preview-jeep-wrangler-ultimate/
This is from 2007 and had a 392 in it. Just because they make a concept doesn't mean that we are going to actually get it into production. And there are several reasons why it likely won't. First is the frame. Mr. Tim Kuniskis the lead engineer for the Wrangler already said that there is enough room to fit the V8, but that it would fail the safety crash tests because of the lack of room for crumple zones. Some of you will say that this is something that can be beefed up. But it's a lot more complicated than beefing up the frame. It has to be engineered with a failure point in it to allow absorption of the impact. So just making it stronger isn't going to cut it. Next lets look at past concepts like the Sandstorm and see what they had to do to make the Hemi work. They used an entirely unique steering setup. So that is a lot more unique parts just for this engine to fit and work. Then it pivots back to more government mandates, CAFE. Jeep is already said to be very close to it's CAFE cap right now. The addition of a v8 to the mix is not going to help at all. So IF, and that is a very unlikely IF, but IF they make it, it will have to be a super small run in order to keep from upsetting their CAFE numbers. Now the question is, can it be financially viable to produce a vehicle in a very small number that will require unique parts, and pose an expensive engineering challenge. I find it highly unlikely. I feel confident saying that this is a concept vehicle that Mopar had build for EJS, and they timed it's release for today to poop on the Bronco.

2007 392 Jeep.jpg
 

Young04

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
377
Reaction score
278
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Ocean Blue Metallic JLUR
Sorry you can't blame Ford for FCA not giving everyone what they want. FCA holds this stuff back to make as much as possible on a select few engine designs/chassis configuration. Only reason this is coming out now is BECAUSE of the Bronco and they probably want to squeeze the last few drops out of the 6.4L before they discontinue it. I dunno, Like someone else said, it seems desperate. They should have done this like a month ago, or waited until after the Bronco launch. A lot of people are on the fence about Bronco or a new Jeep, me included and to tell you the truth the desperate approach to this kinda has me leaning over to the Bronco side, and if that's the case, I'll have to cancel my Rubicon order...



R
I wasn't actually being serious.
 

JeepColorado

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
114
Reaction score
143
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee

tdoga2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Terry
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
45
Reaction score
57
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler JLU Rubicon
Sorry you can't blame Ford for FCA not giving everyone what they want. FCA holds this stuff back to make as much as possible on a select few engine designs/chassis configuration. Only reason this is coming out now is BECAUSE of the Bronco and they probably want to squeeze the last few drops out of the 6.4L before they discontinue it. I dunno, Like someone else said, it seems desperate. They should have done this like a month ago, or waited until after the Bronco launch. A lot of people are on the fence about Bronco or a new Jeep, me included and to tell you the truth the desperate approach to this kinda has me leaning over to the Bronco side, and if that's the case, I'll have to cancel my Rubicon order...



R
Interesting point. It does seem like they're waving in the corner shouting, "Hey, look at me!" while everyone else is paying attention to the presentation. It seems very desperate.
 

tdoga2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Terry
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
45
Reaction score
57
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler JLU Rubicon
I think this article sums it up well-- none of this means anything anymore until that word "concept" is dropped.

It's not even that exciting really, in a way it pisses me off. I'm tired of Jeep introducing these and then not producing them- it's like know we want it, showing it can be done, and saying actually we were just kidding.

https://jalopnik.com/why-jeeps-new-v8-jeep-wrangler-wont-distract-us-from-th-1844363501
Exactly right. The word concept makes this a whole lot less credible. Put up or shut up.
 

DadJokes

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
965
Reaction score
636
Location
Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
Sahara
That's interesting. The GC SRT, with cylinder deactivation and far superior aerodynamics, is rated at 19 highway. Why do you think that a 392 Wrangler that sits way higher off the ground, weighed down by heavier axles and far heavier tires, would be rated higher? And Car and Driver got 18mpg on its highway course.
The GC SRT is a full time wet clutch AWD... capable of and strengthened enough/heavy enough to deliver 100% of the engine’s power to 1 wheel when the E LSD is engaged at the rear or various splits of power depending on the mode selected. Base curb weight is 5104 lbs. Drag coefficient is .37.

The Wrangler base curb weight is 4200. My Sahara is under 4600. They say the diesel adds 400-425 so the weight is pretty close.

My 15 GC with 3.6 got 25-26 observed mpg but it was only 2wd so more so than the the 392 engine with Eco mode, that HD full time AWD system in the SRT 392 will likely take more power to drive than one wheel in my GC or my FAD equipped/lifted Sahara with a Rubicon takeoff suspension getting 27 mpg at 70 mph.

The diesel compared to the 392 shouldn’t be too far off in weight. A 3.2 L 4 cyl in Eco should pull in 24 mpg based on my [email protected] 5000+ lbs and power/drag comparisons within the Wrangler (.45 drag co) lineup at cruise rpm required to propel it down the road.
 

Advertisement
Status
Not open for further replies.




Winjet
 



Advertisement
Top