Sponsored

The worst engine choice. The 392.

lowmpg

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Threads
32
Messages
751
Reaction score
1,410
Location
Kent Island, Maryland
Vehicle(s)
2021 Rubicon
The 392 is by far the worst engine to choose to be in your Wrangler.

Think about it. What’s a rubicon built for? Off-road.

You don’t go fast off-road except maybe in dunes, but, even then you don’t ever go over 99 mph…

You can’t stay at an off-road park for the whole weekend without worrying about refueling halfway through your second day.

If you’re actually overlanding you’re going to have to worry about fuel much more than the weekend warrior offroader.

You have to use 91 or above fuel to power this monster.

Besides Jeep limiting your options for interior color, small exterior color palette choices, and required options on the 392. The con that makes this the worst choice to wheel on the weekend, overland for the week, and even daily drive (especially in today’s fuel price state) is the fuel mileage. The 392 has a drinking problem.

Also I know some like to go fast. However, when you lift a Jeep and throw 37-40in tires on it, 1, you’re going to be slower and 2 it feels a lot more sketchy to be going 80mph in any wrangler with that build regardless of engine!

I’m sure there is some extravagant reason that the 392 is the best wrangler to buy for some crazy build with endless fuel cans and being pulled on a trailer or something, but, most people won’t do that.

So basically what I’m saying is the 392 really limits your your range too much.

With all that said. I still love the 392 just for the soul reason that it’s so cool.

If that isn't trolling a squad, I don't know what is. That said I'm sure for some the 392 is heaven, but for me buying a motor that can't break 112 because of the vehicle it is in makes no sense for 80k.
Sponsored

 

jmccorm

Well-Known Member
First Name
Josh
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Threads
54
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,275
Location
Tulsa, OK
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Systems Engineering
With all that said. I still love the 392 just for the soul reason that it’s so cool.
Props to OP! If I had to develop a marketing slogan for the 392, that would be it. Even if by accident, OP captured the essence of the buying decision with nothing but a delightfully clever turn-of-phrase:

They've told you all the reasons why you shouldn't buy yourself one. It doesn't matter. "It's a 392!" It grabs for you that soul reason.​

Well that, and it doesn't hurt being a Jeep Wrangler and all!
😁
 

jmccorm

Well-Known Member
First Name
Josh
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Threads
54
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,275
Location
Tulsa, OK
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Systems Engineering
I would have rather seen the 5.7 Hemi from the RAM added as a few thousand $ engine option.
I'm afraid that just isn't meant to be.

When Stellantis announced 2023 as the final production year for the Hellcat engine, they also said not to expect any more powerful choices in engines for the Wrangler. At least... not ones that are powered entirely by internal combustion. 😉

The future of muscle cars is electric.
And the future of Wranglers too, one would hope!
 

Sponsored

Uncommon Sense

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
224
Reaction score
459
Location
Chicago
Vehicle(s)
Sting Gray '22 392XR
I'm afraid that just isn't meant to be.

When Stellantis announced 2023 as the final production year for the Hellcat engine, they also said not to expect any more powerful choices in engines for the Wrangler. At least... not ones that are powered entirely by internal combustion. 😉

The future of muscle cars is electric.
And the future of Wranglers too, one would hope!
I have '22 392 on order. However, I am also hoping that they come out with a 4xE where performance is the priority. Basically, I want 392 performance but a hybrid / electric in a Jeep.
 
OP
OP
jkuhn1113

jkuhn1113

Active Member
First Name
Jon
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
37
Reaction score
95
Location
Warrensburg MO
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, JLWillys (2 door), YJ
Occupation
Missouri Army National Guard
Just trying to imagine the person who visits an enthusiast forum just to s#!t on the vehicle. Dude, go for a walk or scroll instagram. Your opinion is not worth the server space.
Guess you didn’t read the whole thing lol. The 392 is awesome!
 

BradyW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brady
Joined
Nov 13, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
324
Reaction score
1,044
Location
Weatherford TX
Vehicle(s)
2021 392XR
Vehicle Showcase
1
I Have a 3.0 Rubi that is great both on and off road. Also have a TJ that is a blast and a Bronco on order. Just yesterday the wife mentioned she would really like a 392 since we've never owned a sportscar....thinking the Bronco may be replaced before it ever makes it in driveway...or get it and sell it for a slight profit ro go toward the 392!
Full disclosure...she also likes the new Grand Wagoneer but I'm thinking the grandkids will always remember grandma's 392 over a wagoneer 😆
Trust me. The first time grandma floors it when already doing 60 and the 392 goes into trophy truck mode the grandkids will NOT forget it!

My 9yr old hates loud things but loves it whenever we need a little more spirited throttle in the Jeep.
 

BradyW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brady
Joined
Nov 13, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
324
Reaction score
1,044
Location
Weatherford TX
Vehicle(s)
2021 392XR
Vehicle Showcase
1
I have '22 392 on order. However, I am also hoping that they come out with a 4xE where performance is the priority. Basically, I want 392 performance but a hybrid / electric in a Jeep.
We have a Pacifica hybrid and I sold my Tesla 3 Performance to buy the 392XR. I was intrigued by the 4XE because I love electric power trains but was turned off by how even going to 35" tires voids the warranty.
 

Sponsored

Uncommon Sense

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
224
Reaction score
459
Location
Chicago
Vehicle(s)
Sting Gray '22 392XR
If that isn't trolling a squad, I don't know what is. That said I'm sure for some the 392 is heaven, but for me buying a motor that can't break 112 because of the vehicle it is in makes no sense for 80k.
The thing is most cars people love are not practical. Sports cars that go 200+ mph aren't practical and 99% of them will never ever be driven on a track. Typical sports car driver never uses a tenth of what they are capable of... same with vehicles like jeeps.

If being practical and makes sense were the main criteria, everyone would drive sedans or minivans.

For some of us, we try to get as close to practical without giving up the fun and soul stirring characteristics we crave.

I am not an off roader. I am going to be mall crawling like a mofo. I wanted a vehicle that is practical in that I can throw some stuff in the back, namely kids. I also want a vehicle that has a retro design and I can easily personalize it to my taste. I also wanted a vehicle that is some what simplistic and not overly luxurious (have you seen what kids do to a cars interior?). The jeep checks all those boxes.

Finally, I love fast cars. However, I don't need to go 150 mph. I want to scoot to 60-75 mph as fast as possible making as much noise as I can.... the 392 gives me all of the above, plus is fast. What is there not to like?

Yeah, there are better rock crawling setups. There are better desert runners. There are better sports cars. There are better family haulers.

My 392 is just the perfect jack of all trades for my purposes.
 

2nd 392

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 20, 2021
Threads
11
Messages
4,965
Reaction score
7,757
Location
Ca
Vehicle(s)
Grand Cherokee srt.V10 Dodge 4x
The thing is most cars people love are not practical. Sports cars that go 200+ mph aren't practical and 99% of them will never ever be driven on a track. Typical sports car driver never uses a tenth of what they are capable of... same with vehicles like jeeps.

If being practical and makes sense were the main criteria, everyone would drive sedans or minivans.

For some of us, we try to get as close to practical without giving up the fun and soul stirring characteristics we crave.

I am not an off roader. I am going to be mall crawling like a mofo. I wanted a vehicle that is practical in that I can throw some stuff in the back, namely kids. I also want a vehicle that has a retro design and I can easily personalize it to my taste. I also wanted a vehicle that is some what simplistic and not overly luxurious (have you seen what kids do to a cars interior?). The jeep checks all those boxes.

Finally, I love fast cars. However, I don't need to go 150 mph. I want to scoot to 60-75 mph as fast as possible making as much noise as I can.... the 392 gives me all of the above, plus is fast. What is there not to like?

Yeah, there are better rock crawling setups. There are better desert runners. There are better sports cars. There are better family haulers.

My 392 is just the perfect jack of all trades for my purposes.
Perfect analogy! A thumbs up was insufficient credit. Completely agree
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
159
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
11,073
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
The 392 is not needed in the Wrangler. But I think it is cool that Jeep offers it. It is tempting, but I love my diesel.

The 392 has 470 lb.-ft. of torque. The 3.0L has 442 lb.-ft. of torque so like the 392 it is traction limited, not torque limited when rock crawling.
Every Rubicon is traction limited when rock crawling, not torque limited. With the 4:1 T-case ratio and 4.10 axle ratio, neither the 2.0 or 3.6 ever breaks a sweat. If a Jeep struggles, then it isn't set up well for rock crawling.
 

NASH392

Member
First Name
James
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
10
Reaction score
17
Location
Conroe392HalfDoors
Vehicle(s)
Rubicon 392
Interesting comment, of which some I agree with. But, if I was buying a new Wrangler as of current, which I am not, it would be the 392.. 👍 I see comments ongoing about fuel economy, plus high octane expense required. The way that I look at it is, if one can afford a Wrangler 392, the fuel cost are a mute point.
Your thoughts are 100% accurate!

My NASH392 consistently produces >35SPG (SMILES PER GALLON) on and/or off-road. I didn’t include passenger SPG, do they count?
 
 



Top