Most capable Rubicon?

[OffroadCalling77]

Suprized to even see anyone voting for V8 version or Rubi. Since when bunch of extra weight and excessive power was neded for offroading ( for which wrangler ment to do).
V8 is Ultimate Malcrawler in my opinion, especially with exhaust.

Damn people are sour here sometimes. I love all Wrangles. Least favorite is a High Altitude + angry eye grills, but to each their own. This isn’t some special club.

Sponsored

 

[Killed by Death]

Voted 2 door but 4 door could carry more ammo if ur a bad shot

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

Suprized to even see anyone voting for V8 version or Rubi. Since when bunch of extra weight and excessive power was neded for offroading ( for which wrangler ment to do).
V8 is Ultimate Malcrawler in my opinion, especially with exhaust.

Define "bunch of extra weight," please. 5% increase in weight over the v6 or 300lbs. However, a 60%+ increase in power and even bigger for torque. I feel like there is a misconception around the weight variance...

 

[OffroadCalling77]

Define "bunch of extra weight," please. 5% increase in weight over the v6 or 300lbs. However, a 60%+ increase in power and even bigger for torque. I feel like there is a misconception around the weight variance...

A sour soul is what they’re called.

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

A sour soul is what they’re called.

Right?

Same people claiming it is so much heavier probably toss winch, extinguisher, light bars, skid plates, radios, water storage, step rails, brush guards, seat covers, rock lights, air compressor, heavy duty tire holder, bigger wheels, bigger tires, heavier suspension, etc etc and make all the purchases without weight being a primary factor of the item they selected.

Don’t BS and claim the 392’s 5% (300lbs) weight is a disqualifier.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Right?

Same people claiming it is so much heavier probably toss winch, extinguisher, light bars, skid plates, radios, water storage, step rails, brush guards, seat covers, rock lights, air compressor, heavy duty tire holder, bigger wheels, bigger tires, heavier suspension, etc etc and make all the purchases without weight being a primary factor of the item they selected.

Don’t BS and claim the 392’s 5% (300lbs) weight is a disqualifier.

I'm not sure who's numbers to believe, but searching I find a standard JLUR weighs 4400lbs. A 392 weighs 5100lbs. That's a 700 lb difference not 300 lbs. I don't think it's a deal breaker by any means, and obviously the 392 has the power to make up for it. My only concern is that the 392's axles, steering, etc are not beefed up to support the extra weight and power combined. People are out here twisting shafts in the rocks with 14% less weight and 65% less horsepower. Not that most 392 owners are actually using them on hard trails, but I wouldn't call it the most capable if the shafts don't hold up under hard use.

 

[Outrun]

I'm not sure who's numbers to believe, but searching I find a standard JLUR weighs 4400lbs. A 392 weighs 5100lbs. That's a 700 lb difference not 300 lbs. I don't think it's a deal breaker by any means, and obviously the 392 has the power to make up for it. My only concern is that the 392's axles, steering, etc are not beefed up to support the extra weight and power combined. People are out here twisting shafts in the rocks with 14% less weight and 65% less horsepower. Not that most 392 owners are actually using them on hard trails, but I wouldn't call it the most capable if the shafts don't hold up under hard use.

Has anyone done the torque conversion of a 3.6 Rubi compared to the 392 while they are both in 4low? It's probably close considering crawl ratios?

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

I'm not sure who's numbers to believe, but searching I find a standard JLUR weighs 4400lbs. A 392 weighs 5100lbs. That's a 700 lb difference not 300 lbs. I don't think it's a deal breaker by any means, and obviously the 392 has the power to make up for it. My only concern is that the 392's axles, steering, etc are not beefed up to support the extra weight and power combined. People are out here twisting shafts in the rocks with 14% less weight and 65% less horsepower. Not that most 392 owners are actually using them on hard trails, but I wouldn't call it the most capable if the shafts don't hold up under hard use.

Googled "JLU Rubicon Weight" or "JL 392 Weight" and went with gross weight on both vs curb weight (for real world application, fuel/fluids). Can also go to the jeep website and compare. It shows wider track on 392 and smaller turning radius (suprisingly). Of note, pretty sure the weight and dimensions are for the base soft top, manual, JLUR vs Hardtop 392 (more options at base). 2" higher better clearance and water fording.

Nothing at all wrong with either and both are extremely capable, but that wasn't the OP's question in the survey.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Has anyone done the torque conversion of a 3.6 Rubi compared to the 392 while they are both in 4low? It's probably close considering crawl ratios?

Peak math is easy, although the difference in torque is even larger in the 3-4K rpms. 392 is 470ftlbs x 2.72x3.73x4.7 1st gear=22,412ftlbs at the axle. 3.6L is 269ftlbsx4x4.1x4.7= 20,734ftlbs. Not a huge difference at peak torque. From dyno chart averages, at 3500 rpm the 392 is putting out 410ftlbs at the wheels or 19,570 with gearing. The 3.6L is putting out 210 ftlbs at that rpm, or 16,187 with gearing. 18% more power for the 392. Don’t the 392 xr’s come with the same 4.56 gearing though? Being this thread is about most capable we should be talking XR package (not available on 2 doors, giving both 4 doors another advantage in this poll btw). The math with both geared 4.56 extends the 392 out to ~24% more torque in lo range.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Googled "JLU Rubicon Weight" or "JL 392 Weight" and went with gross weight on both vs curb weight (for real world application, fuel/fluids). Can also go to the jeep website and compare. It shows wider track on 392 and smaller turning radius (suprisingly). Of note, pretty sure the weight and dimensions are for the base soft top, manual, JLUR vs Hardtop 392 (more options at base). 2" higher better clearance and water fording.

Nothing at all wrong with either and both are extremely capable, but that wasn't the OP's question in the survey.

Fuel and fluids are factored in to curb weight, gross weight assumes maximum payload, you’re doing it wrong. If you put them both on a scale in factory trim, the 392 will be about 700 lbs heavier. If you load them with the same gear, still 700lbs heavier. If you load them to max payload by putting an extra 400lbs in standard JLU, yes the 392 will only weigh 300lbs more, but that is a stupid comparison as nobody weighs their stuff, they bring what they bring. Your same gear in each Jeep is going to weigh the same.

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

I'm not sure who's numbers to believe, but searching I find a standard JLUR weighs 4400lbs. A 392 weighs 5100lbs. That's a 700 lb difference not 300 lbs. I don't think it's a deal breaker by any means, and obviously the 392 has the power to make up for it. My only concern is that the 392's axles, steering, etc are not beefed up to support the extra weight and power combined. People are out here twisting shafts in the rocks with 14% less weight and 65% less horsepower. Not that most 392 owners are actually using them on hard trails, but I wouldn't call it the most capable if the shafts don't hold up under hard use.

Dang… Are people twisting shafts on stock rides?

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

Fuel and fluids are factored in to curb weight, gross weight assumes maximum payload, you’re doing it wrong. If you put them both on a scale in factory trim, the 392 will be about 700 lbs heavier. If you load them with the same gear, still 700lbs heavier. If you load them to max payload by putting an extra 400lbs in standard JLU, yes the 392 will only weigh 300lbs more, but that is a stupid comparison as nobody weighs their stuff, they bring what they bring. Your same gear in each Jeep is going to weigh the same.

Honest mistake. I assumed dry weight vs wet weight (like motorcycles). If that is the case then just compare engine weight? The standard JLUR weight online looks to have manual, soft top, plastic vs steel bumpers, 2" lower, etc. etc. If we want to look at identical vehicles with different engine.. and weight is the main concern then disseminate the variance between your focus (the engine). Is that fair?

The 392 engine alone is 700-800 lbs, from what I can tell. I would still say that is around 300lbs variance from the V6.

Not sure where the other ~400lbs would come in, but I have read the hardtop is like 124 lb variance. Manual vs Automatic is probably 70ish. So that would be about half of the variance right there.

Anyway, no wrong choice... my answer is the same at 15% weight increase or 5% weight increase when you figure >60% hp & torque. Out the gate, the 392 has more capability than standard JLUR... 2 door has some perks based on length.

I do have a question, why would the v8 not offer more towing and/or payload?

 

[Zandcwhite]

Dang… Are people twisting shafts on stock rides?

Not so much stock 33's, but 35's (xr stock) and 37's definitely.

 

[BeepBeepIssaJeep]

Not so much stock 33's, but 35's (xr stock) and 37's definitely.

I wonder if they would cover the 392 XR with twisted shaft under warranty. Or would they say the Xtreme Recon was meant for other usage lol

 

[Zandcwhite]

Honest mistake. I assumed dry weight vs wet weight (like motorcycles). If that is the case then just compare engine weight? The standard JLUR weight online looks to have manual, soft top, plastic vs steel bumpers, 2" lower, etc. etc. If we want to look at identical vehicles with different engine.. and weight is the main concern then disseminate the variance between your focus (the engine). Is that fair?

The 392 engine alone is 700-800 lbs, from what I can tell. I would still say that is around 300lbs variance from the V6.

Not sure where the other ~400lbs would come in, but I have read the hardtop is like 124 lb variance. Manual vs Automatic is probably 70ish. So that would be about half of the variance right there.

Anyway, no wrong choice... my answer is the same at 15% weight increase or 5% weight increase when you figure >60% hp & torque. Out the gate, the 392 has more capability.

I do have a question, why would the v8 not offer more towing and/or payload?

I voted 392, especially if we are factoring in the xr package being available. For the guys arguing that the 392’s weight is the deciding factor, they'd likely argue the lightest JLUR is the most capable. With that line of thinking they'd go soft top, manual, etc, and the 700lb difference would still apply. As far as towing and payload, the axles, breaks, etc aren't upgraded on the v8, which is likely the limiting factor. My truck has the 5.7L hemi and a 10k towing capacity, clearly the 392 isn't power limited.

Sponsored