Jeep wave at Gladiators?

[Sean L]

??? Who's suggesting they go to an even worse engine?

According to one of their engineers, they can't shed enough heat to put more horsepower under the hood. Sounds like that's the reason the JT will not get the diesel.

Well you keep complaining about the 3.6's torque. FCA doesn't make any other V6 that has more torque, except for the 3.0 that goes in the Quadrifoglio. That one isn't built for towing under load just like the 2.0.
The heat issue you're talking about with the Diesel is actually about the 2.0 turbo. The Diesel is still planned for the JT.

Sponsored

 

[mrhumble1]

According to one of their engineers, they can't shed enough heat to put more horsepower under the hood. Sounds like that's the reason the JT will not get the diesel.

I would think Engineers that have a clue could have fixed the problem if they wanted to. I think, instead, FCA is lazy and only wants to use existing parts and designs even knowing those parts and designs were for different applications. They could have made the Gladiator it's own thing, instead they stole as much as they could from the Wrangler to use. That's not terrible, but for things like the engine (and the damn rear doors) they should have tried harder.

 

[8flat]

Well you keep complaining about the 3.6's torque. FCA doesn't make any other V6 that has more torque, except for the 3.0 that goes in the Quadrifoglio. That one isn't built for towing under load just like the 2.0.
The heat issue you're talking about with the Diesel is actually about the 2.0 turbo. The Diesel is still planned for the JT.

OK maybe I'm not communicating correctly. If I were in charge of the wrangler/JT program I'd say OK, pentastar is a good engine, but too high strung for a BOF 4WD with a towing package that's designed as an off-road king. What can we do to provide more torque down low in the RPM range? Cam profile, different crank (longer stroke), different design for intake runners/exhaust ports, etc etc. We don't care that it revs to 6,500rpm, that's easy to sacrifice and move it down to 5k for the benefit of more torque/power where it's needed: 900-3,000 RPM. Hell even a supercharger package, it's expensive but GM made it workable on a ton of the 3800s with the little Eaton M-90 and their successors, those things make STUPID torque right off-idle. That same engine package in our JLs would be unreal.

Basically, FCA took the lazy/cheap way out. They have the technology to fix this problem.

 

[8flat]

I would think Engineers that have a clue could have fixed the problem if they wanted to. I think, instead, FCA is lazy and only wants to use existing parts and designs even knowing those parts and designs were for different applications. They could have made the Gladiator it's own thing, instead they stole as much as they could from the Wrangler to use. That's not terrible, but for things like the engine (and the damn rear doors) they should have tried harder.

LOL I just posted damn near the same thing before I read your reply next. But yeah, they could've done much better with engine design, as many wranglers as they sell I think it would have been worth a different engine setup, even if based on the pentastar.

 

[Sean L]

OK maybe I'm not communicating correctly. If I were in charge of the wrangler/JT program I'd say OK, pentastar is a good engine, but too high strung for a BOF 4WD with a towing package that's designed as an off-road king. What can we do to provide more torque down low in the RPM range? Cam profile, different crank (longer stroke), different design for intake runners/exhaust ports, etc etc. We don't care that it revs to 6,500rpm, that's easy to sacrifice and move it down to 5k for the benefit of more torque/power where it's needed: 900-3,000 RPM. Hell even a supercharger package, it's expensive but GM made it workable on a ton of the 3800s with the little Eaton M-90 and their successors, those things make STUPID torque right off-idle. That same engine package in our JLs would be unreal.

Basically, FCA took the lazy/cheap way out. They have the technology to fix this problem.

So the old 3800s were push-rod motors If I recall correctly. They are good for low end torque all right. So if they engineered a 3.6 with a Single overhead cam and 2 valve layout they might be able to pull it off. I would say that would cost the engine quite a bit in efficiency though. Not something they'll want to put out with substandard fuel economy numbers. There's a balance that has to be achieved and I certainly believe they've done a decent job of that with the Gladiator. All the more so when the diesel starts hitting the production line.

 

[8flat]

So the old 3800s were push-rod motors If I recall correctly. They are good for low end torque all right. So if they engineered a 3.6 with a Single overhead cam and 2 valve layout they might be able to pull it off. I would say that would cost the engine quite a bit in efficiency though. Not something they'll want to put out with substandard fuel economy numbers. There's a balance that has to be achieved and I certainly believe they've done a decent job of that with the Gladiator. All the more so when the diesel starts hitting the production line.

So, you are saying they can't fit a supercharger to the Pentastar in it's current head/cam configuration? I'm not sure why. Edelbrock and Ripp are offering them already. Not necessarily ideal since the compression is so high, but if the package was designed for it from the start it would have low compression to accommodate the boost, of course.

 

[jdegrave]

Definitely wave

 

[JimLee]

They trick you from the front, and then you see that extra 30" in the back, just like some women.

 

[ArchAngel]

I forget I am in my wife’s grand Cherokee and try to Jeep wave, can practically see the dudes in there rubicon’s roll there eyes.. elitist bastards

Eye roll is the designated response in the rubi manual for Cherokee wave attempts.

 

[offcamber]

Of course not. Not a Jeep. Just like a JL/JK with an angry eyes grill. No wave for them.it is in the by-laws.

 

[rallydefault]

No, it's not a Jeep. Not being stuck up or anything, really - just simple question: Is it a jeep (around here Wranglers are just called jeeps)? If the answer is no, then no wave.

 

[Rdmitch]

Typically I only wave to wranglers, but would wave to a glad, if I ever see one on the road.

 

[BlackRook]

To me, there's a check list:

-body on frame?
-seven slot grill?
-more ground clearance than a Volvo "Cross Country?"

If you hit all three, you get a wave. Gladiator definitely hits all three.

... And yes, I do wave at XJ's. Only people who still drive em are committed to their rigs. That's earned a damn wave in my book.

 

[Sean L]

So, you are saying they can't fit a supercharger to the Pentastar in it's current head/cam configuration? I'm not sure why. Edelbrock and Ripp are offering them already. Not necessarily ideal since the compression is so high, but if the package was designed for it from the start it would have low compression to accommodate the boost, of course.

I guess you could design a supercharger and as you said there are aftermarket kits available. I'm not sure how the 3.6 would handle towing a load while under forced induction as far as heat management. I still think most of your concerns are answered by the diesel engine though.

 

[OffroadTreks]

My only rule is

No Waves for XJ's

Sponsored