Standard Equipment List for 2018 Wrangler (JL) - Sport, Sahara, Rubicon

[The Great Grape Ape]

Interesting anomallies;

Only the Sport has a Rear View mirror?

Only Sport gets Fog Lamps... the others are?

Sport gets no “Wrangler” Badging.

Remote Keyless isn’t forced on all, only standard on Sahara and Rubi, not Sport.

Sport gets no Security system, not that different from base Sport-B really.

What does a ‘premium wrapped bezel’ entail on a Sahara?

Sponsored

 

[Uscolt45]

Thanks for posting this! The one thing that caught my eye was the molded in-color fender flares for the Rubicon. From perusing these forums it seems that was one of the desired updates. No paint chipping like the Sahara and no black fading for the Rubicon. Assuming I'm understanding it correctly lol.

Molded In-Color Fender Flares

 

[Mattyp1214]

this is awesome. Only sorta wish I ordered the body color flares. I’m confused on which ones come with it if not since it is listed as standard. Will not checking the box on the order be the ones in the picture we saw yesterday?

 

[DanW]

Yes you can, I'm not sure if that delay is true...just received this update on my dual top order. October build date.

What is YGE, the 5 additional gallons of gas? Is that a large tank option? If so, count me in! I've never heard of this.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

What is YGE, the 5 additional gallons of gas? Is that a large tank option? If so, count me in! I've never heard of this.

No, they ‘ship’ with 5 gallons of ‘free’ gasoline.

This has been a feature for years, likely to address some silly tax/accounting rule.

 

[DanW]

No, they ‘ship’ with 5 gallons of ‘free’ gasoline.

This has been a feature for years, likely to address some silly tax/accounting rule.

Lol, well, hopes dashed. That's big of them to spring for 15 bucks worth of gas upon receiving 50 grand for a new Rubicon. I'm really touched by that heartfelt gesture.

I wonder why it appears on some order forms, but not others?

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

It’s appeared on pretty much all of mine in recent years, and it’s not just Jeep. They are required to provide some fuel to allow you to drive of the lot to a fuel station. It’s kinda typical, but most dealers will actually include a full tank in addition to the base requirement, sometimes as a mfr promotion, sometimes just dealer choice.

BTW, not only is it not an extended tank, the new JLU has LESS capacity than the JKU by over a gallon.

 

[DanW]

It’s appeared on pretty much all of mine in recent years, and it’s not just Jeep. They are required to provide some fuel to allow you to drive of the lot to a fuel station. It’s kinda typical, but most dealers will actually include a full tank in addition to the base requirement, sometimes as a mfr promotion, sometimes just dealer choice.

BTW, not only is it not an extended tank, the new JLU has LESS capacity than the JKU by over a gallon.

Yeah I'm not too worried about the reduced capacity. This thing is sure to do much better than my 3.8 JK. It should wind up with either exactly the same actual range or maybe a tiny bit better. I took a trip last week with my buddy. He had a 2 door JK and was needing fuel much more often than my JKU. I'd be more concerned about range with the 2 door. Still, I'd LOVE to have the option for a tank with 5 gallons greater capacity.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Yeah, unfortunately 85L -> 80L is a noticeable drop, and even with the fuel savings innthe pentastar and the ZF8, it’s still a push in the wrong direction for anyone who does long treks (I usually do a few multi-thousand kilometer treks every year or so (this Summer coast-to-coast 15K).

I would’ve much prefer 5Litres more fuel than less... and really 100L seems like an easy ask really.

 

[guarnibl]

I really wish that they would put 3/4 ton truck size tanks in the JLU. I.e., 27+ gal. That said, I cannot see the JLU doing much better than JKU as far as fuel economy. Maybe a 2 mpg increase tops on highway. City should improve significantly with the 8 speed auto.

 

[DanW]

I really wish that they would put 3/4 ton truck size tanks in the JLU. I.e., 27+ gal. That said, I cannot see the JLU doing much better than JKU as far as fuel economy. Maybe a 2 mpg increase tops on highway. City should improve significantly with the 8 speed auto.

Maybe not much, but if the 3.6 is say, 4% more efficient, and it is 140lbs lighter than it's JK equivalent, you could see up to 2mpg with the auto, and maybe 1mpg with the manual. If you factor ESS, then I could see 20 and 22 for the manual and maybe 21 and 22 or 23 for the auto. 2mpg is a 10% improvement, which is significant. The diesel will do better, but its higher entry fee, (especially over the 3.6/manual), maintenance, DEF fluid, and the higher cost of diesel fuel in most places wipes it out and then some, for me, so I don't consider that an advantage. The 2.0 will add to weight reduction and if it takes full advantage of technology and the turbo, I could see 21 or 22 city and maybe 23 or 24 highway. Btw, I've not considered aero improvements, which Jeep claims are real, even if not obvious to the naked eye. I really think we'll see 20 and 22 for the manual, and 21 and 23 with the auto. A 2mpg increase in average economy, with a drop from 22.5 to 21.5 gallons, makes it a wash.

A 22.5 gallon tank getting an average of 19mpg goes 427.5 miles. A 21.5 gallon tank getting 20 mpg goes 430 miles. I call that a wash, so I'm not upset about it. More realistically, subtract 1mpg for my real world driving habits. Maybe 2. It still works out about the same.

Truth is, my JKUR with the 3.8/manual and 33's is lucky to get 18.5 on the highway with a tailwind. I think I'll see much better mileage with the JLUR 3.6 manual with 33's from the factory. We'll see.

 

[guarnibl]

Right now the current auto gets 16/21 for the JKU.

8 speed auto and ESS will improve city mileage drastically. I would expect to see city mileage around 18-19 for that setup (closer to the grand cherokee, since drag is less of a factor around town). Highway I only anticipate we'll see a 1 mpg gain.

I.e., 18-19/22-23 is what I am expecting for 8 speed auto and ESS. 140 total pound difference will not impact fuel economy unless it's rotational weight that was removed, which it isn't.

 

[DanW]

Maybe not much, but if the 3.6 is say, 4% more efficient, and it is 140lbs lighter than it's JK equivalent, you could see up to 2mpg with the auto, and maybe 1mpg with the manual. If you factor ESS, then I could see 20 and 22 for the manual and maybe 21 and 22 or 23 for the auto. 2mpg is a 10% improvement, which is significant. The diesel will do better, but its higher entry fee, (especially over the 3.6/manual), maintenance, DEF fluid, and the higher cost of diesel fuel in most places wipes it out and then some, for me, so I don't consider that an advantage. The 2.0 will add to weight reduction and if it takes full advantage of technology and the turbo, I could see 21 or 22 city and maybe 23 or 24 highway. Btw, I've not considered aero improvements, which Jeep claims are real, even if not obvious to the naked eye. I really think we'll see 20 and 22 for the manual, and 21 and 23 with the auto. A 2mpg increase in average economy, with a drop from 22.5 to 21.5 gallons, makes it a wash.

A 22.5 gallon tank getting an average of 20mpg goes 427.5 miles. A 21.5 gallon tank getting 20 mpg goes 430 miles. I call that a wash, so I'm not upset about it. More realistically, subtract 1mpg for my real world driving habits. Maybe 2. It still works out about the same.

Truth is, my JKUR with the 3.8/manual and 33's is lucky to get 18.5 on the highway with a tailwind. I think I'll see much better mileage with the JLUR 3.6 manual with 33's from the factory. We'll see.

Thanks, Guarnible. I just checked EPA ratings for the 2017 JKU, and I was high on the city estimations. That means a 2mpg avg increase would be greater than a 10% improvement. Also, my 2008 rating is 15/19, so 18.5 isn't as bad as I thought for that old brute!

As a side note, I'll be really surprised if I use the ESS. I don't like the wear and tear that I would percieve with it, stopping and starting like that. Maybe in a drive-through at a fast food joint, but not on the road.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

You need to fix that last paragraph, 2 posts up, you messed up your numbers, I think you meant 19MPG and then 20MPG.

Like I said the loss of capacity essentially gives back the gains in efficiency, which is annoying after hoping for another 20-40+ miles range with the improved aero, axles, transmission, engine, etc. to allow for longer treks.
This also reduces the distance for off-roading too which again is totally unnecessary, especially with a slightly longer wheelbase providing more space with which to place a few extra litres in a JLU.

Sponsored