Official: Jeep Wrangler 392 LAUNCH EDITION Starts at $73,500 Base Price. Build & Price Now Up

[Rob97RR]

OK let's clear this up. The 2" lift is over the stock Wrangler. It is only 1" over the Rubicon.

I'm curious what your source is for this. Everything I can find on the forum, from members who've added it to their JL Rubicons disputes that. Most of them state that the Mopar 2" lift adds at least 2 inches to the Rubicon, and often more, with some claiming to have gotten closer to 3. According to several threads, the Mopar 2 inch lift adds as much as 3.5 inches to non-Rubicon JL's, resulting a nearly identical ride height to other Mopar lifted Rubicons. And that's primarily because the stock Rubicon suspension is already 1 inch taller than the the others. I'm wondering if that 1" stock difference is where the confusion lies, or possibly where you're getting the 1" number from?

I'm relatively new to the world of JL's, and I admittedly don't have any info about this beyond what I can find searching here on the forums, so if you are in fact correct about this, I would like to know the source.

Sponsored

 

[pnut]

I'm curious what your source is for this. Everything I can find on the forum, from members who've added it to their JL Rubicons disputes that. Most of them state that the Mopar 2" lift adds at least 2 inches to the Rubicon, and often more, with some claiming to have gotten closer to 3. According to several threads, the Mopar 2 inch lift adds as much as 3.5 inches to non-Rubicon JL's, resulting a nearly identical ride height to other Mopar lifted Rubicons. And that's primarily because the stock Rubicon suspension is already 1 inch taller than the the others. I'm wondering if that 1" stock difference is where the confusion lies, or possibly where you're getting the 1" number from?

I'm relatively new to the world of JL's, and I admittedly don't have any info about this beyond what I can find searching here on the forums, so if you are in fact correct about this, I would like to know the source.

Source is someone on another group who works for Jeep and shares limited information. For whatever reason he was at liberty to share this detail. He is usually vague but on this point he was very clear.

 

[Rob97RR]

Source is someone on another group who works for Jeep and shares limited information. For whatever reason he was at liberty to share this detail. He is usually vague but on this point he was very clear.

Thanks for the answer, that's interesting. I went sluething to confirm what you guys were saying, and you guys are correct. In the SPECS section on Jeeps website, which, in hindsight is where I should have started, it says the standard Rubicon's total height is 73.6" and the 392's total height is 74.5". So I stand very corrected.

Did the guy who leaked that detail mention why that is?
I'm wondering if maybe the "unique suspension geometry" that Jeep mentioned in the reveal actually sits an inch lower than the standard Ruby, so they add the 2" lift to offset it?

 

[shrinkhead]

Whatever the inch the lift is enough to run 37s easy with the right wheels of course.

 

[CockneyUSA]

Visit the Jeep site and compare the versions. The 392 is only 0.8” taller than the Rubicon. Then check out Motortrend article where it mentions the lift and the clearances.

 

[Nickp01]

A lot of assumptions...But anyway...wait a year and we should see the 3.0 Straight Six with some miles behind it in the GC, have some news as to when it replaces the Pentatstar, and prob have news of when the twin turbo, (Non-Budget Performance Version) will be out to replace the 5.7 HEMI and hopefully make it into the JL & JT in some additions.

I’ve had several people tell me I’m assuming too much or that people will keep them stock.

If there is a single 392 launch edition on 33’s one year from now I will eat my hat.

 

[TCMC]

Thanks for the answer, that's interesting. I went sluething to confirm what you guys were saying, and you guys are correct. In the SPECS section on Jeeps website, which, in hindsight is where I should have started, it says the standard Rubicon's total height is 73.6" and the 392's total height is 74.5". So I stand very corrected.

Did the guy who leaked that detail mention why that is?
I'm wondering if maybe the "unique suspension geometry" that Jeep mentioned in the reveal actually sits an inch lower than the standard Ruby, so they add the 2" lift to offset it?

I wonder if the fact the Reg Rubi comes with a soft top as standard equipment vs. the 392 with a hard top. The soft top sits a little higher then the hard top. Maybe I'm reaching

 

[Dudley Dawson]

Nope, he is on to something. And there are many more wishing the same as him. I'm sure we aren't the only two who want to see a 5.7 for a small upcharge and less than the diesel available on base model Sport on up. They can forego the gizmos, fulltime 4x4 if possible and that newfangled snorkelhood. Yo JEEP! Hey, keep the 392 and keep the diesel, just please add an affordable 5.7!

I was disagreeing with his assertion that an I-6 or 5.7 option is now somehow “desperately needed” for the JL to compete with the forthcoming Bronco. And as I said, for more reasons than what’s under the hood. But count me in for a cheaper V-8 option or 392 made available across other trims. This will only add to an already impressive and unprecedented line-up of power plant options for the Wrangler.

 

[0II392II0]

Dr

I'm curious what your source is for this. Everything I can find on the forum, from members who've added it to their JL Rubicons disputes that. Most of them state that the Mopar 2" lift adds at least 2 inches to the Rubicon, and often more, with some claiming to have gotten closer to 3. According to several threads, the Mopar 2 inch lift adds as much as 3.5 inches to non-Rubicon JL's, resulting a nearly identical ride height to other Mopar lifted Rubicons. And that's primarily because the stock Rubicon suspension is already 1 inch taller than the the others. I'm wondering if that 1" stock difference is where the confusion lies, or possibly where you're getting the 1" number from?

I'm relatively new to the world of JL's, and I admittedly don't have any info about this beyond what I can find searching here on the forums, so if you are in fact correct about this, I would like to know the source.

So I was at the dealer today just to sit in a JL and mess with the uconnect and verify that you can turn off the advanced brake system as I have no interest in it, and as I was asking the 2 sales managers as they were sitting together what the actual lift was(I already thought it was just +1 over the JLUR). Either way neither knew shit, but it hit me! If it is in fact the Mopar Fox shocks with no alterations that means that the loss in lift would be in the springs. If that's the case, hopefully someone will produce a springs rated for the 392 that would give the extra lift and flex the shocks should handle. That is though all hypothetical, but I don't see why not.

 

[Rosco P]

I may just pop in some spacers on top of the stock setup temporarily.

 

[pnut]

I may just pop in some spacers on top of the stock setup temporarily.

That’s my plan. 1 or 1.5 spacers. Just enough to fit 37s without it looking stupid and while still being functional.

 

[Kuczy]

I may just pop in some spacers on top of the stock setup temporarily.

Same here

 

[m5guy]

I may just pop in some spacers on top of the stock setup temporarily.

Yep. Looking at the Teraflex 1.5" spacers. So many unknowns, need to get a few 392's in our hands, quickly please (yep, impatiently waiting).

 

[Rosco P]

Yep. Looking at the Teraflex 1.5" spacers. So many unknowns, need to get a few 392's in our hands, quickly please (yep, impatiently waiting).

M5? You dabble in the BMW?

 

[m5guy]

M5? You dabble in the BMW?

I might have a weakness for a certain German auto manufacturer.

Sponsored