Standard Engine..??

[The Great Grape Ape]

Since the manual transmission is only offered with the 6 cyl, I think it will be the base engine. Unless they decide to make the auto standard and charge a premium for the manual/pentastar combo but that would be a departure from what they have done in the past.

This is one of the issues that is a bit of a challenge. Usually the manual transmission is cheaper, but it's also based on the idea that it's a low cost to develop and implement. Under all previous rumours the 6MT was being dropped, in order for it to be saved they went outside their current parts bin and get something like the Tremec 3160. This no longer makes it the low cost option the NSG was, and FCA might not only have to pay much more than before to offer one, they may also want to use it to push people into a certain up-sell tier to ensure margins from the enthusiasts who are willing to pay for a manual.

There used to be a large discount for the MT, but the gap is closing with some vehicles like the Miata/MX5 and Chevy SS it's a small or zero price difference option. For some premium cars it has been a price premium over the DCT. While I don't see it being a premium for the manual, I can see it being zero dollar option though as it's likely as costly to implement vs the spread out costs of the moe ubiquitous ZF8 which is in everything.

I also think making it a $0 option also helps FCA see if people truly WANT a manual transmission or were just being cheap and wanting a $1,000+ discount on MSRP. Which helps them plan how long it remains.

Having both currently I'm very interested in how this plays out, the cottage JK got it for both reasons, not only is it a fun change of pace from the 5spd JKU, but it's nice to get that discount on a cottage vehicle. If it were a $0 option in the JL, I'd still get it, but if it becomes a premium trim option only requring extra unnecessary bling (since backup cam is now included), then it would get dropped from consideration.

Sponsored

 

[MotorMan]

It hurts to try to imagine a 4 door JLU Rubicon (with hard top, KM2s and steel bumpers) powered by a 4 banger. Come to think of it, the JLU Rubi is 99% likely to be Diesel or Pentastar only.

 

[JAY]

I'm not sure where we have reported 2.0L as the base engine. If you can point me to it, I'll correct it.

Judging by the info we have, the 3.6L manual will be the base engine/transmission. If you are unfamiliar with the current JK packagaging here is an illustration:

Dealers were allowed to place JL ghost orders (no pricing) at the FCA dealer meeting we reported. Assuming what FCA previewed reflects the final packaging, it showed:

• 3.6L manual will be the $0 cost entry configuration (i.e. 23G).
• 2.0L (auto only) will be the 24G upcharge. On the JK, the 24G simply adds auto for $1400. Remains to be seen what a new engine/auto will add here.
• 3.6L auto will be a clickable option on all trims and door configurations, like adding a tech group or hard top.

The 2.0L appears to be delayed by a few months, but we'll have more info next week.

We're going to post a major update on production timing for all of the engines/configurations next week so stay tuned. It'll shed some more light on these questions (and likely raise even more questions in its place).

 

[MotorMan]

I'm not sure where we have reported 2.0L as the base engine. If you can point me to it, I'll correct it.

Judging by the info we have, the 3.6L manual will be the base engine/transmission. If you are unfamiliar with the current JK packagaging here is an illustration:

Dealers were allowed to place JL ghost orders (no pricing) at the FCA dealer meeting we reported. Assuming what FCA previewed reflects the final packaging, it showed:

• 3.6L manual will be the $0 cost entry configuration (i.e. 23G).
• 2.0L (auto only) will be the 24G upcharge. On the JK, the 24G simply adds auto for $1400. Remains to be seen what a new engine/auto will add here.
• 3.6L auto will be a clickable option on all trims and door configurations, like adding a tech group or hard top.

The 2.0L appears to be delayed by a few months, but we'll have more info next week.

We're going to post a major update on production timing for all of the engines/configurations next week so stay tuned. It'll shed some more light on these questions (and likely raise even more questions in its place).

Much appreciated, Admin! I might have been mistaken in thinking you have reported the Hurricane as base engine.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

That's very interesting, and changes a lot with regards to expectations, at the very least making it more realistic to see a higher tune on the engine.

Unfortunately that delay isn't very comforting that there won't be problems with this engine if they are having trouble launching it at the same time.

 

[four low]

O Thank you, Admin !! The V6, Manual, are a Must for me, as I insist on "Driving" the vehicle, and because its FUN to be actively Engaged in driving . Now that I know it's the Base engine, I'm very relieved.
The delay in the 4 Turbo might be software with that 8spd auto, same as it was in the (faux) Cherokee and Renegade ?

 

[BillyHW]

Having trouble understanding why anyone would want to pay *more* for a smaller engine.

 

[MotorMan]

Is that an "Altitude" appearance package for the Sahara?

 

[Shumx2]

Having trouble understanding why anyone would want to pay *more* for a smaller engine.

Check cars like the mustang where the turbo 4 is positioned above the V6 base engine. And those buyers arguably care even more about displacement/power.

 

[Shumx2]

Is that an "Altitude" appearance package for the Sahara?

I know they had the Sahara Altitude package for 2014-15, not sure if current year has it but looks like it's going to be offered for 2018 JK.

 

[Armycop]

The turbo may develop torque faster than the 6 and won't be as affected at higher altitudes. Plus turbo engines are easier tuned. I still prefer the 6 cyl or diesel but I'm afraid of the diesel pricetag or if they bundle it with a bunch of other crap I don't need like GM does with the Colorado/Canyon twins.

 

[orey22]

Whats needed for better mpg ? Lighten up vehicle ; increase aerodynamics ; smaller, more fuel efficient engine ; reduce parasitic drag on engine by delegating workload to stand alone systems ( electric power steering, electric water pump ). The increased drag of a generator under load is offset by the duty cycle not being continuous ; the belt-driven water pump is always robbing power; likewise the belt-driven power steering pump.
I think the 4 T , with the 8 spd Auto, is a strictly MPG effort to meet CAFE standards. How it will do in Real World, off road, will be interesting to see. A 500lb weight reduction from current (3800 lbs) will bring it to TJ fighting trim, almost.
The old YJs and TJs, with their 125-145hp 4 bangers weighed in at 3,000 lbs. Their fuel economy , real world from my experience, was 23, absolute best, typical 18mpg, combined.
I can't wait for this endless Suspense and Speculation to end, with an ACTUAL JL to see, drive, Test !!
My no frills 2015 JK 2 dr, gets 17-18 combined. Thats at 3800 lbs, 3:73 gears, 6spd manual.

No doubt, I've always wondered why the Jeep Wrangler has to get heavier, and bigger with each version. I may be in the minority, but I'd like a small Jeep Wrangler, I don't need one that keeps growing bigger and heavier.

 

[WXman]

Why do people think the "4 banger" will be gutless? This is NOT the 2.5L engine we saw on YJ/TJ that couldn't even turn a 33" tire. This new 4-cylinder turbo engine will likely make more torque than the Pentastar V6 and won't be affected by altitude changes like the V6. It'll be an engine that pulls hard and may have a higher MPG rating as well.

In short, it's not 1992 anymore.

 

[MotorMan]

Why do people think the "4 banger" will be gutless? This is NOT the 2.5L engine we saw on YJ/TJ that couldn't even turn a 33" tire. This new 4-cylinder turbo engine will likely make more torque than the Pentastar V6 and won't be affected by altitude changes like the V6. It'll be an engine that pulls hard and may have a higher MPG rating as well.

In short, it's not 1992 anymore.

A turbo 4 is a turbo 4. I'm sure it will be a great and fuel efficient engine, but there is no replacement for displacement. It will have its problems, as all new turbo italian engines do. A turbo 4 lacks the refinement, reliability and sound that a V6 has.

(Idk how to get rid of these attached pics lol)

 

[Vegas_Sirk]

Having trouble understanding why anyone would want to pay *more* for a smaller engine.

My guess is if they are charging more it will most likely make the same or more power then the 6 and produce better fuel economy. That would be a reason for people to select over the V6.

Sponsored