M/T a bit frustrating

[Litfuse]

Love the manual. Your comments make me laugh.

I guess you have more tolerance than I do. But with the numerous other threads on this forum complaining about the same issue, I’m not the only one that feels this way.

Sponsored

 

[OldGuyNewJeep]

Love the manual. Your comments make me laugh.

+1

 

[OldGuyNewJeep]

It may have the best feeling manual, but possibly the worst gear ratios and oem tune. I can not recommend a manual JL wrangler to anyone. I never thought I would support the purchase of a traditional automatic over a manual, but for a JL the auto is the only way to go. Sad, really.

I disagree, completely. To each his own.

 

[m3reno]

on a scale of 1-10 I rate the jeep manual a 7. It could be slightly smoother with less clunking. Reminds me of my 86 BMW 325. As for the tune I give it a 1, horrible rev hang.

 

[Kllrbee]

I really like the manual.
BUT, its almost like we have 2 different vehicles. I have a 2 door Rubi...so 4.10s. It can be sluggish under 1600k, but it took me almost no time at all to adjust to it. I just keep it over 2k and its quite peppy.
Another thing is I live on the IL/WI border where its relatively flat. Also rural, country, 45-55 mph roads for the most part.

 

[flightace47]

The 3.6/6mt has two modes from what I can tell. Below 2000 rpm it is in some kind of economy mode and there is no torque available. At 2k rpm it wakes up suddenly. I think people have gotten used to twin spool turbocharged engines that have massive torque at low rpm with very little lag.

This is a naturally aspirated 3.6, so it needs some rpm to make any power. It acts like it also has variable valve timing with two positions.

My N/A Porsche is the same way: it has a dip and then a sudden uptick in power at 3800 rpm where the valve timing changes over to a more aggressive curve. You can literally see it in the torque charts that people have published for Porsches. The Jeep’s is closer to 2000 rpm, and you can see a sudden change in your fuel economy readout when it happens.

After I figured this out, I changed my behavior to always be above 2000 rpm unless I’m going to be in steady state cruise for a while. Any gripes my wife and I had about drive-ability have since gone up in smoke.

 

[bwright1818]

A Jeep is not a Porsche or a BMW. It is a JEEP. (Or at least, I had hoped it would be.) It should have pulling power at lower RPM. It doesn't. It particularly hates 1600 to 1700. Above that, it's okay; and if you hadn't noticed, BELOW that isn't bad, should you have occasion to try it. I don't make a habit of it, but it will run smoother in 4th at 34 mph than it will in fourth at 40!!!. This means it is a bad tune, bad design, whatever. The 3.6 is also so mechanically full of bad sounds that I hate revving it; as it seems like it will blow apart. My TJ with the anemic, 120 hp, N/A four cylinder, would out pull the 3.6 below 2000 rpm all day long. If I'd wanted a Lexus, I would have bought a Lexus.

 

[jdubya421]

The 3.6/6mt has two modes from what I can tell. Below 2000 rpm it is in some kind of economy mode and there is no torque available. At 2k rpm it wakes up suddenly. I think people have gotten used to twin spool turbocharged engines that have massive torque at low rpm with very little lag.

This is a naturally aspirated 3.6, so it needs some rpm to make any power. It acts like it also has variable valve timing with two positions.

My N/A Porsche is the same way: it has a dip and then a sudden uptick in power at 3800 rpm where the valve timing changes over to a more aggressive curve. You can literally see it in the torque charts that people have published for Porsches. The Jeep’s is closer to 2000 rpm, and you can see a sudden change in your fuel economy readout when it happens.

After I figured this out, I changed my behavior to always be above 2000 rpm unless I’m going to be in steady state cruise for a while. Any gripes my wife and I had about drive-ability have since gone up in smoke.

It has a power band and below 2000rpm it ain't in it.

You are correct, look at the dyno chart: below 2k you are making 25HP and less than 75ft*lbs of torque. Between 2000 and 2100 rpms you gain 25ft*lbs and add 25HP (double). I know it doesn't take much to keep a vehicle in motion, but this is why this motor bogs under 2k. It is just enough power to keep the Jeep moving and that is it. Again, like you said, watch the instant fuel consumption. You will actually get better MPG at 2200rpm than 1800rpm.

 

[8flat]

on a scale of 1-10 I rate the jeep manual a 7. It could be slightly smoother with less clunking. Reminds me of my 86 BMW 325. As for the tune I give it a 1, horrible rev hang.

The rev hang is the worst I've ever seen. Would love to tune it the hell out of there, is that difficult?

 

[8flat]

It has a power band and below 2000rpm it ain't in it.

You are correct, look at the dyno chart: below 2k you are making 25HP and less than 75ft*lbs of torque. Between 2000 and 2100 rpms you gain 25ft*lbs and add 25HP (double). I know it doesn't take much to keep a vehicle in motion, but this is why this motor bogs under 2k. It is just enough power to keep the Jeep moving and that is it. Again, like you said, watch the instant fuel consumption. You will actually get better MPG at 2200rpm than 1800rpm.

Good graphs, holy shit no wonder this little engine is so frustrating to tow with....hahaha Good lord I need a hemi

 

[8flat]

Y'all are crazy. There is a gear for every speed. This isn't an auto - you might need to just leave it in gear for a bit. I definitely am not shifting and searching for a gear all the time. The road is 25mph? Leave it in 2nd the entire time. You can use the entire rev range. I just recently went to the Tennessee mountains and through all those roads I just left it in 3rd gear and still averaged 19mpg.

Funny I don't recall having more than one reverse gear??? haha
Backing this stupid thing up with a little motorcycle trailer is a painful clutch-smoking experience. And I've driven manuals all my life, including trucks (grain trucks) with gigantic loads. This gearing is all fucked up and reverse is the worst. Coupled with a high-revving engine that belongs in a car and NOT an off-road rig with a tow package, it's painful sometimes.

 

[Bee-Rad]

Yeah, I'd agree it's maybe not the best gearing, but I still love the M/T and would take it over the auto any day.

I've found the engine likes to run a little higher RPM than I'm used to, so I just adjusted my shift points accordingly.

 

[flightace47]

A Jeep is not a Porsche or a BMW. It is a JEEP. (Or at least, I had hoped it would be.) It should have pulling power at lower RPM. It doesn't. It particularly hates 1600 to 1700. Above that, it's okay; and if you hadn't noticed, BELOW that isn't bad, should you have occasion to try it. I don't make a habit of it, but it will run smoother in 4th at 34 mph than it will in fourth at 40!!!. This means it is a bad tune, bad design, whatever. The 3.6 is also so mechanically full of bad sounds that I hate revving it; as it seems like it will blow apart. My TJ with the anemic, 120 hp, N/A four cylinder, would out pull the 3.6 below 2000 rpm all day long. If I'd wanted a Lexus, I would have bought a Lexus.

I’m not going to disagree with you there. Just making my observations available for people. There is a world of difference between a TJ’s 4.0 I6 and this 3.6 corporate motor. Keep in mind the 3.6 does make a lot more power at the top end (just like a car engine). They had to do car engine things to get there.

To be fair here, my Rubicon has the 4.10 gearing so it’s a lot easier for me to just change gear to get in the power band. I spend almost no time in first gear. You’ll probably have to get used to cruising around at 2200 rpm when you’re towing unless you change your final drive out.

I’m guessing the 8 speed auto has an extra low gear compared to the 6 m/t so it may tow better.

For the record, I would have chosen an improved 4.0 I6 engine if it had been available over the 3.6.


EDIT: I just realized you said you had the I4 in your TJ. Do you still have it for comparison? Might want to revisit. It probably doesn’t have the massive EPA-induced power shift below 2k, but very likely it has way less power across the entire band.

 

[word302]

Funny I don't recall having more than one reverse gear??? haha
Backing this stupid thing up with a little motorcycle trailer is a painful clutch-smoking experience. And I've driven manuals all my life, including trucks (grain trucks) with gigantic loads. This gearing is all fucked up and reverse is the worst. Coupled with a high-revving engine that belongs in a car and NOT an off-road rig with a tow package, it's painful sometimes.

I don't have any issues backing my trailers.

 

[word302]

A Jeep is not a Porsche or a BMW. It is a JEEP. (Or at least, I had hoped it would be.) It should have pulling power at lower RPM. It doesn't. It particularly hates 1600 to 1700. Above that, it's okay; and if you hadn't noticed, BELOW that isn't bad, should you have occasion to try it. I don't make a habit of it, but it will run smoother in 4th at 34 mph than it will in fourth at 40!!!. This means it is a bad tune, bad design, whatever. The 3.6 is also so mechanically full of bad sounds that I hate revving it; as it seems like it will blow apart. My TJ with the anemic, 120 hp, N/A four cylinder, would out pull the 3.6 below 2000 rpm all day long. If I'd wanted a Lexus, I would have bought a Lexus.

Why do you need pulling power below 2000 RPM if the transmission is geared accordingly? Have you been off-road yet? This things a dream on the trails and I'm coming from a '99 TJ 5 speed with the 4.0L.

Sponsored