The worst engine choice. The 392.

[Vinman]

The 392 is a great power-plant for those want to build a beast.
A lot easier to swap in much heavier axles to run 40’s while still having the power to turn them than it is to do an engine swap to get the desired power back.
That being said, I think a hemi with around 350-375 HP that runs on 87 octane would be ideal.

Sponsored

 

[ekometti]

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!

Somehow I don't think there are enough resources to build battery packs for hundreds of millions of drivers, plus replacements.

 

[jl73660]

To the OP, seems to me that the only people complaining about the 392 engine in the JLU are those who probably can't afford it. This thing is flat out amazing off road, just ask those who have them and actually have real life experience with it.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Worse than the non-etorque 3.6L? How?

 

[W4V3]

To the OP, seems to me that the only people complaining about the 392 engine in the JLU are those who probably can't afford it.

This is true for many things. I belong to a couple of camera forums and a mandolin forum, and we get threads like this all the time about how high-end stuff is junk. If it's too expensive and you want it, save for it. If it's too expensive and you think it's junk, move on.

 

[rkwfxd]

Only negative to the 392 is you can’t get it in a 2 door.

 

[wolf]

A Ford coyote engine or such would be an alternative or not?adapters can be made for anything. ?

Yes!

 

[Strommen95]

To the OP, seems to me that the only people complaining about the 392 engine in the JLU are those who probably can't afford it. This thing is flat out amazing off road, just ask those who have them and actually have real life experience with it.

You should probably read OPs post next time and not just the title.

 

[Gobirat]

There are those who could care less about rock crawling and off roading a 392 respectfully. Reason I bring it up is I ordered a 23, 392 xtreme recon. I wanted it mostly for fun. A friend had one and let me drive it and it was just plain fun. And the sounds were incredible. And I think they will desirable down the road when that motor gets pulled. To OPs post, he has valid points!

 

[Archeonomy]

If you are basing your decision on practicality you are probably not buying a Wrangler to begin with.

 

[Bzinsky]

392 makes a lot of practical sense.

Same reason I bought a fast pickup to manage my properties.

I needed a pickup truck, but I didn’t want to be bored out of my mind while I’m driving it.

392 is the same thing. Sure an almost 500hp v8 isn’t going to help much off-roading going over technical obstacles, the wranglers bread and butter……..but it sure as hell going to be way more fun on your way there

 

[RKB]

Presonally, I don't think the 392 makes sense in a cinder block on wheels.

I would have rather seen the 5.7 Hemi from the RAM added as a few thousand $ engine option.

I would be down to buy one of these!

 

[mini2nut]

The Wrangler 392 is a vehicle that shouldn’t exist. It hits the limits on physics, appeals to a small car enthusiast audience and is a low volume vehicle.

Jeep could have easily given us a 5.7 V8 Wrangler. Did they? Nope. Leadership decided to go all out and stuff the corporate 16-plug 392 Hemi under the hood instead.

My guess is that in 2018 Tim Kuniskis, head of Jeep Brand, FCA – North America, had a hunch that he would be promoted to Head of Passenger Cars, FCA – North America in 2019 and wanted to leave his legacy with the Wrangler 392. He was probably the driving force behind getting the Wrangler 392 project green lighted by the senior management team.

I have a strong feeling that 2023 will be the last model year for the 392. With roughly 7k built in 2021 and 4500 built in 2022 it is guaranteed to be a future collectible in 15-20 years. I will be curious to see how many 392’s get assembled in 2023.

 

[Musicman]

I like my 392 because it goes BRAAAAAAP!!

 

[Zandcwhite]

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 it's set up right, a lifted JL doesn't feel at all sketchy on the freeway at 85mph+ or in the desert at 100+. Or 2019 drove 5200 miles on a cross country roadtrip in May, with 3.5" of lift, 38's, and 5.38 gears with the cruise set between 80 and 90. The only issue we had was even the 2.0t gets real thirsty at those speeds. I'd even bet the 392 doesn't get any worse mileage at that point. If you're just wheeling at an off road park, odds are you might put in 100 miles in a weekend, no the 392 isn't that thirsty. The Rubicon trail is 18 miles, you could run it off the 392 for 1 mpg, and most report more like 12-15. The range isn't an issue. I used to wheel a wagoneer on 37's, that averaged 7-9 mpg. Even then gas was rarely an issue. There just aren't many trails that you need 100 miles of range let alone the 200+ that the 392 still achieves. Guys in stock geared saharas and sports get about the same mileage when they go to 35's. Range is rarely an issue. The 4 gallon difference in a JL means a lifted 392 likely has more range than a lifted JL regardless of engine choice.

Sponsored