Plug-In Hybrid Electric Wrangler Still on Track for 2020 Release Date

[KnG818]

Warm fuzzies. The same as 90+% of today's "green" vehicles. Its how most people justify buying a new vehicle they will just dispose of and replace in a few years again -- "this one is so speshul, I maek planet clean by buying it. see what a good person me is!"

The electricity could be much cleaner than that, but it would require the greentards to stop blocking the construction of modern nuclear power plants like they have been for the last several decades ... forcing more coal and gas plants to be built instead.

Well said and agreed

Sponsored

 

[Adamoni]

Wranglers are notoriously bad on gas, what makes anyone thing they wont be just as bad consuming electricity?

What's the point or what's the savings?

People seem to think electricity comes from thin air. Electricity takes just as much fossil fuels to produce.

...again, what's the point?

I’ve done zero research but raising the flag here. Electricity takes energy to make, yes, but I’ll bet it consumes less resources per mile even when you factor in everything, it to mention the pollution factors?

 

[KnG818]

I’ve done zero research but raising the flag here. Electricity takes energy to make, yes, but I’ll bet it consumes less resources per mile even when you factor in everything, it to mention the pollution factors?

Electric cars reminds me of a balance transfer.

Pay off one card only to carry the balance over to another.

Your credit score(or emissions score) remains the same.

 

[misanthrope]

Just a little information for the readers here:
First, though much of the electricity on the public grid is produced via the burning of fossil fuels, it is generally far more efficient, mainly due to economy of scale, and is usually cleaner. The advantage results in the newer MPGe ratings, which try to put PHEVs and EVs apples-to-apples with ICE vehicles when comparing cost per mile. Even the Pacifica get 84MPGe. Second, many of us would easily produce enough electricity using our current (pun?) solar electric systems, which often produce a surplus, to be able to charge a PHEV on a daily, commuter basis. Third, if the system is like the Volt, it would be a series PHEV, which means it's actually electric all of the time, so the engine serves only as a generator to recharge the battery. In this case, you would see a smaller 4 cylinder engine performing this task to reduce weight. This would mean the vehicle would have all of the instant torque of an EV, with the added range and versatility of a traditional ICE. Unfortunately, the Pacifica PHEV (upon which the Wrangler PHEV will almost certainly be based) uses a series-parallel system, which simply engages the ICE when the batteries are depleted enough to engage it (except in reverse, interestingly enough, which is always electric). So it can run all-electric for some of its advertised range, but engages the ICE depending on the demands of the driver and the battery status.
Finally, with the increasing demands on our aging in inefficient power grid, the US will be forced to turn to different forms of electricity production beyond fossil fuels while also making already overdue upgrades to the grid itself. Wind farms and solar are a start, but more flexibility is needed. Nuclear may never really take hold in this country while the images of Chernobyl and Fukushima remain in our collective memories, and the NIMBY attitudes of the entitled prevent even the most innocuous improvements. The Shoreham NPP has been sitting idle here on Long Island since its completion in 1984, and will never be operational, off-shore wind farms draw protests and opposition every year and we don't have the acreage for a large scale solar farm, but people want to run power cables to CT and NJ (regardless of the environmental impact) to tap into their nuclear output. NIMBY, but I'll use your nuclear-produced electricity, thank you very much.

 

[flot]

I bought my Jeep as an around-town daily driver. My normal week of driving is 95% city and largely under 45 mph. If I could get a reliable, powerful electric powertrain in a Wrangler I'm definitely in their target demographic.

I'd be very happy going all-electric for my short commute to work every day, and I have a Ram that is 10x the vehicle for long road trips, so I don't need anything more than a 50 mile daily range.

I frankly don't trust FCA to build gen1 without a few major screwups, but give it a few years and I'd think hard about it. I assume that at least one of the vehicles I buy in the next 8 years will be either hybrid or electric. If FCA gets it right, it'll be a Ram TRX in 2025 and an electric Wrangler shortly after.

 

[Bren]

Soooo...no overlanding or all day off road trips?

....literally a toaster on wheels lol

Yes overlanding and all day trips. It works the same as a gas Jeep, it just gives you EV range first, and then switches over to a full size 3.6L Penta (assuming it's the same system as Pacifica).

If anything, this has the potential to be even better for overlanding. Hear me out. I'm going to make a couple of assumptions here, but I'm trusting Jeep to get this right. They might not.

First of all, as someone who owns a Wrangler and a Tesla Model 3, and who lives in the city, this can replace both of those cars. The Wrangler is an amazing city car. Tight turning circle, fits in tight spots (2door), don't car if anyone bumps it while parking, can park in that last street spot full of snow, great visibility, etc. The only downside: My JK averages 12 mpg around town.

I'm going to assume the PHEV gets 30 miles of EV range. That's what the Pacifica gets, and that's a few years old now. 30 miles would easily cover 95% of my daily driving needs. Plug in at night, leave with a fresh charge every morning. I'd only use gas on weekends. Cheaper to own. The electricity generated on the grid is cleaner per mile than gas, and gets cleaner over time.

On the trail, think of the benefits of having a giant battery on board. Let's assume for a moment that the gas motor will retain the ability to recharge the batteries, like the BMW i3 does. Why would you want to do that? So that you arrive at a campsite with a full charge and let the batteries run your climate, lights and accessories all night long.

EV motor torque is also much higher, and can modulated with much more precision. Both would be great for wheeling and crawling.

I'm psyched for the PHEV.

 

[Gee-pah]

Wranglers are notoriously bad on gas, what makes anyone thing they wont be just as bad consuming electricity?

What's the point or what's the savings?

People seem to think electricity comes from thin air. Electricity takes just as much fossil fuels to produce.

...again, what's the point?

Fair point, especially when driving up to some electric port away from home. In fact, as profit making enterprises I wouldn't be a bit surprised if such electric stations used coal, if legal and cheapest, to produce their electric if public outcry didn't prevent it.

But if you're running solar panels at home, or buying juice off the grid that's made as such, or with other renewables like wind..well, that could be a cleaner solution, maybe. Even the fossil fuel produced electric the power company produces, as mentioned in another post above, is bound to be produced more efficiently given its scale.

Yes, these rigs are not the end all be all to a fossil fuel absent economy. Yes, they're being designed mostly to appease government standards. But their getting companies involved in the transition--that even if you don't believe greenhouse gas warnings (bias: I do) they address the limited amount of the stuff we still have to tap.

I'm curious to see just how much this rig saves and what headaches if any early adopters face. I've got to think the thing might weigh more with batteries and all, which means more gas consumed when running the ICE portion, but I don't know.

Hasn't the off-roading commuting been anticipated the immediately electric torque--or maybe that's for an all electric model some day?

Does anyone have more specs on it, including weight?

 

[Gee-pah]

. In this case, you would see a smaller 4 cylinder engine performing this task to reduce weight.

I don't know, I'm just asking, can the engine be smaller given that batteries weigh a lot? Do the batteries weight more than the possible reduction in engine size?

which simply engages the ICE when the batteries are depleted enough to engage it (except in reverse, interestingly enough, which is always electric).

Well that's a deal breaker! Are you saying I can't do high speed "donuts" in reverse in the school's prior-to-being snow plowed parking lot or I risk getting stranded?

.
Finally, with the increasing demands on our aging in inefficient power grid, the US will be forced to turn to different forms of electricity production beyond fossil fuels while also making already overdue upgrades to the grid itself.

Again I ask--I don't know--will the money be there after making necessary infrastructure changes to transport electricity, like we see needed in California, to on top of this expense, upgrade power product methods without raising costs to consumers to unaffordable levels? I hope so. Maybe the expense can be drawn out across many years of useful service life.

.
Wind farms and solar are a start, but more flexibility is needed. Nuclear may never really take hold in this country while the images of Chernobyl and Fukushima remain in our collective memories,

Maybe, but the groups of people who opposed nuclear when movies like The China Syndrome were released, are now championing nuclear (e.g Greenpeace) given it's limited affect on climate change--not that disposing spent radioactive fuel rods doesn't come with its own challenges.

.and the NIMBY attitudes of the entitled prevent even the most innocuous improvements. The Shoreham NPP has been sitting idle here on Long Island since its completion in 1984, and will never be operational,

In our great grandparents generation DC and AC current fought it out for the standard. One of the reasons AC one, I understand, was the ability to step and down current so electricity could travel great distances from its production site. This said, why places like Shoreham and Indian Point were built so near population centers (aside from need to attract the people with the skills to run such places) remains a bit of mystery to me---not that the powers that be didn't have their reasons or know these risks.

.
off-shore wind farms draw protests and opposition every year and we don't have the acreage for a large scale solar farm,

Maybe "wave energy" --current produced from the surf--will prove more acceptable to environmentalists and accountants alike in the future.

​

 

[cosine]

first off, i think its great to see the auto industries are working in producing environmental friendly vehicles. ev vehicles. sound pretty neat as to the perks in saving fuel, performance, etc. however, i personally dont see my self in getting or driving one because of the hassle in checking to see if i have enough juice to get somewhere. and finding a charging station to recharge and hoping it not tied up. the downside is the limited charging stations and waiting for a charge. of all the places i've been to, there been a few charging stations to be found. and of those few stations, there is 2 charging units and 3/4 of them are being used. the other issue i would have is any maintenance or problems that might accure down the road, like battery replacements, electrical issues, etc. thats going to cost a lot more over and about the high cost in the initial purchase of a ev vehicle.

not to get off topic, but the smaller displacement motors are not all that great either. i find them to work harder in moving what ever vehicle. and putting turbos, seems to help, but just adding to the cost, and problem that will come down the road.

i rather have a gas motor v6 as a minimum for the compact to mid size and v8 for the the size vehicles. to me they are much more reliable and maintenance will not be sticker shocked. and there's plenty of gas station to be found that will only take 5 minutes to fill up.

 

[misanthrope]

I don't know, I'm just asking, can the engine be smaller given that batteries weigh a lot? Do the batteries weight more than the possible reduction in engine size?



Well that's a deal breaker! Are you saying I can't do high speed "donuts" in reverse in the school's prior-to-being snow plowed parking lot or I risk getting stranded?



Again I ask--I don't know--will the money be there after making necessary infrastructure changes to transport electricity, like we see needed in California, to on top of this expense, upgrade power product methods without raising costs to consumers to unaffordable levels? I hope so. Maybe the expense can be drawn out across many years of useful service life.



Maybe, but the groups of people who opposed nuclear when movies like The China Syndrome were released, are now championing nuclear (e.g Greenpeace) given it's limited affect on climate change--not that disposing spent radioactive fuel rods doesn't come with its own challenges.



In our great grandparents generation DC and AC current fought it out for the standard. One of the reasons AC one, I understand, was the ability to step and down current so electricity could travel great distances from its production site. This said, why places like Shoreham and Indian Point were built so near population centers (aside from need to attract the people with the skills to run such places) remains a bit of mystery to me---not that the powers that be didn't have their reasons or know these risks.



Maybe "wave energy" --current produced from the surf--will prove more acceptable to environmentalists and accountants alike in the future.

​

So much to reply to:
The smaller engine would only apply in the series PHEV set up, where the engine only serves as a generator for the battery, and never actually drives the vehicle. So a 1.3-2.0 4 cylinder should suffice.

High speed reverse donuts would be even better, considering the instant torque available with the electric running gear (Mmmmm...donuts).

Infrastructure is the REAL wildcard here. If the added demands of smart homes, high demand electronics and EV/PHEV aren't accounted for, it will only be a matter of time before we start to see widespread system overloads, brownouts and failures, resulting in "fuel" shortages like those seen in the 1970s. Maybe the $100,000,000 we're saving by not building the wall could be used to fulfill another campaign promise to repair and upgrade our crumbling infrastructure.

Nuclear seems the best, easiest and most immediate solution, but there are only 2 reactors currently under construction anywhere in the US, and they're both part of the same complex in Georgia (Vogtle 3 and 4). AC and, more recently High Voltage DC being used in Europe, do allow for high voltages to be transmitted over long distances, then stepped down locally, but the economics of interstate commerce muddies the distribution of nuclear power produced out-of-state. Wave powered generators (and, even better, tide powered generators) are being tested and studied worldwide, especially in places with big disparities between high and low tides. While environmental impact and long term maintenance studies need to be completed, in my opinion, this type of energy production can't come soon enough, especially with 50% of the population of the US living within 50 miles of the coasts.

Additionally, and possibly most problematic here, is the resources and materials being used in the construction of high-capacity batteries. China has a virtual stranglehold on many of the rare earth elements needed for batteries and superconductors, and a reliance on a foreign power for these ingredients undermines our national interests as much as our reliance on world oil. How will manufacturers meet the demands for these materials as it increases exponentially over the next decade or two? Battery advances are being made every day (advanced carbon batteries show the greatest promise), but will innovation come soon enough?

 

[misanthrope]

first off, i think its great to see the auto industries are working in producing environmental friendly vehicles. ev vehicles. sound pretty neat as to the perks in saving fuel, performance, etc. however, i personally dont see my self in getting or driving one because of the hassle in checking to see if i have enough juice to get somewhere. and finding a charging station to recharge and hoping it not tied up. the downside is the limited charging stations and waiting for a charge. of all the places i've been to, there been a few charging stations to be found. and of those few stations, there is 2 charging units and 3/4 of them are being used. the other issue i would have is any maintenance or problems that might accure down the road, like battery replacements, electrical issues, etc. thats going to cost a lot more over and about the high cost in the initial purchase of a ev vehicle.

not to get off topic, but the smaller displacement motors are not all that great either. i find them to work harder in moving what ever vehicle. and putting turbos, seems to help, but just adding to the cost, and problem that will come down the road.

i rather have a gas motor v6 as a minimum for the compact to mid size and v8 for the the size vehicles. to me they are much more reliable and maintenance will not be sticker shocked. and there's plenty of gas station to be found that will only take 5 minutes to fill up.

Your concerns are exactly what the PHEV try to address: by having an on board ICE, you will always have access to electricity/power so long as you have gas in the tank. The additional benefits come with the ability to charge when possible and avoid the use of gas as much as you can. Don't forget about the advancements made in regenerative braking, which takes all of that momentum normally lost to heat via brake friction and reroutes it back to the battery, resulting in much lower energy losses.
I agree that full EV aren't for everyone, at least not yet. But the tech in a PHEV is definitely more targeted to those of us who want as little intrusion into our ICE world as possible., while still increasing efficiency and reducing our carbon footprints.
EV/PHEV systems, when intelligently implemented, are much simpler than most ICE systems, with many fewer moving parts. Ideally, you'd have a sealed electric motor at each wheel and no other drive train to speak of: a small displacement, light weight ICE would serve as a back up generator for the battery, and a sealed battery pack kept low to lower the center of gravity. The FCA system is not an ideal one, but that will come in time. Doing away with transmissions, axles, U/CV joints, differentials, transfer cases and traditional friction braking systems will further reduce weight and, most importantly, long term costs, and the ability to control the power applied to each wheel individually without mechanical systems will improve on/off road performance.
In time, all of these advances will be as commonplace as fuel injection, turbo charging and airbags, all things originally opposed by "car guys".

 

[KnG818]

Your concerns are exactly what the PHEV try to address: by having an on board ICE, you will always have access to electricity/power so long as you have gas in the tank. The additional benefits come with the ability to charge when possible and avoid the use of gas as much as you can. Don't forget about the advancements made in regenerative braking, which takes all of that momentum normally lost to heat via brake friction and reroutes it back to the battery, resulting in much lower energy losses.
I agree that full EV aren't for everyone, at least not yet. But the tech in a PHEV is definitely more targeted to those of us who want as little intrusion into our ICE world as possible., while still increasing efficiency and reducing our carbon footprints.
EV/PHEV systems, when intelligently implemented, are much simpler than most ICE systems, with many fewer moving parts. Ideally, you'd have a sealed electric motor at each wheel and no other drive train to speak of: a small displacement, light weight ICE would serve as a back up generator for the battery, and a sealed battery pack kept low to lower the center of gravity. The FCA system is not an ideal one, but that will come in time. Doing away with transmissions, axles, U/CV joints, differentials, transfer cases and traditional friction braking systems will further reduce weight and, most importantly, long term costs, and the ability to control the power applied to each wheel individually without mechanical systems will improve on/off road performance.
In time, all of these advances will be as commonplace as fuel injection, turbo charging and airbags, all things originally opposed by "car guys".

You'd probably melt into a puddle of mud if you knew how much carbon emissions just one volcano emits.

Focus on changing/improving the manufacture of parts etc etc etc. Electricity is nothing more than a balance transfer.

Liberal logic at its finest.

 

[misanthrope]

You'd probably melt into a puddle of mud if you knew how much carbon emissions just one volcano emits.

Focus on changing/improving the manufacture of parts etc etc etc. Electricity is nothing more than a balance transfer.

Liberal logic at its finest.

Hang out on a forum long enough and some douche will make anything political. To simplify is one thing, to intentionally mislead is, well I guess, presidential. Using electricity to fuel a car is nothing like a balance transfer, unless you factor the interest you make in differing accounts into the equation. To further fix your misleading analogy: if I can transfer my money from a non-interest bearing checking account into a high-yield savings account, why wouldn't I? If you took a few minutes to educate (I know, educated people are all liberals) yourself on what an MPGe is, you would learn about the efficiency found in different energy supply systems, and you would realize that your "balance transfer" analogy is flawed, at best.

As far as your volcano reference, again you aren't very well educated: volcanic emissions of CO2 worldwide generate around 200 million tons. CO2 emissions by automotive and industrial activities are around 24 billion, with a B, tons.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/). So your horrible, terrifying, super-ultra-mega-dangerous neighborhood volcanoes are contributing less than 1% of human emissions.

I'm not quite feeling like a puddle of mud, so much...there's no such thing a liberal logic or conservative logic, there's just logic. You want to know my political stance, buy me a beer and we'll talk. You might just be surprised...(unless it's a foreign-owned Miller/Coors/Budweiser, in which case we have nothing to talk about. I don't drink that rubbish. I only drink American beers).

 

[cosine]

misanthrope i agree with your reply and not trying to step all over this technology. i'm going to be one of those hard to convince type of guy, stay old school and keep things simple. with all of these batteries, generators, etc are just more reason why i wouldnt try it out because when something craps out, it will cost more $$$ to fix or replace. i'm stay with the gas and simpler technology.

 

[KnG818]

Hang out on a forum long enough and some douche will make anything political. To simplify is one thing, to intentionally mislead is, well I guess, presidential. Using electricity to fuel a car is nothing like a balance transfer, unless you factor the interest you make in differing accounts into the equation. To further fix your misleading analogy: if I can transfer my money from a non-interest bearing checking account into a high-yield savings account, why wouldn't I? If you took a few minutes to educate (I know, educated people are all liberals) yourself on what an MPGe is, you would learn about the efficiency found in different energy supply systems, and you would realize that your "balance transfer" analogy is flawed, at best.

As far as your volcano reference, again you aren't very well educated: volcanic emissions of CO2 worldwide generate around 200 million tons. CO2 emissions by automotive and industrial activities are around 24 billion, with a B, tons.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/). So your horrible, terrifying, super-ultra-mega-dangerous neighborhood volcanoes are contributing less than 1% of human emissions.

I'm not quite feeling like a puddle of mud, so much...there's no such thing a liberal logic or conservative logic, there's just logic. You want to know my political stance, buy me a beer and we'll talk. You might just be surprised...(unless it's a foreign-owned Miller/Coors/Budweiser, in which case we have nothing to talk about. I don't drink that rubbish. I only drink American beers).

Oh stop it.

I never once claimed volcanoes emitted more CO2 than humans.

Chill out guy.

Sponsored