TheRaven
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2020
- Threads
- 6
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 4,176
- Location
- Reading, Pennsylvania
- Vehicle(s)
- Sold
Absolutely. Engine choices should have been the 3.6l or 5.7l at launch, switching over to the 2.0l and 5.7l at some point later on. We could still have the diesel and 392 as lower volume options. This seems like such a simple no-brainer but clearly FCA feels like it makes more sense to have two very different engines making almost the same power as options. Having been through both a 2.0l and 3.6l JLU and seeing what FCA considers production-ready design and construction, I can't say that i'm surprised...just disappointed.Because it would have been a great engine in the Wrangler, and should have cost a lot less than the 392. What I think he’s saying is that they should have offered the 5.7 for the same upgrade price they did in Grand Cherokees. Something on the order of $3,500 to $5k. The take rate would have been enormous.
Sponsored