Tipster says 6 engines and several top options for 2018 Wrangler JL / JLU

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
1,775
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
To get improved MPG, aerodynamics have to be improved ( we've seen this from Spy Pix) and Weight has to be reduced.
500lbs less, bringing it down to 3100-3200 lbs, would improve mpgs.
Gearing, transmission, tires have been pointed out.
Real- World mileage, with 3:73s, , more aggressive tires, all that stuff we like to add on (weight increase) means any "real" mpg increase will be on paper, 3:21s, street tires.
Will be interesting to see what REAL figures are.
Diesel is dying, Europe is implementing tougher standards, some cities are going to ban Diesels , or tax them out of existance.
Higher initial cost, expensive maintenance intervals, higher cost of diesel fuel translates into a niche that will not have large sales segment.
Military has no such constraints, so will be there in force.





Advertisement

 

The Doc

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
31
Reaction score
4
Location
Illinois
Vehicle(s)
2011 Wrangler Unlimited, Future JT Pickup (hopefully)
Likely you won't see a large difference in the fuel economy from the Hurricane. The problem is that it being suck a small base displacement, it will struggle to push the unaerodynamic brick of a Wrangler through the wind on the freeway. So it, will likely be on boost quite often.

It may still get an MPG or two over the Pentastar, but likely won't be as big a delta as had the base displacement been 2.4L which would've had a better chance of cruising without boost.
Agreed, with small displacement turbos how you drive it is even more determinative of how many miles you get between refueling. It'll make the biggest gains on the highway without traffic but hardly any difference (or even worse) in real world city mileage. That said, it will at least make up for it with better torque, which seeing as how the current 3.6 is so underpowered AND gets poor mileage is an improvement.
 

AVENTUS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
407
Reaction score
79
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Vehicle(s)
BMW 750li sport
Agreed, with small displacement turbos how you drive it is even more determinative of how many miles you get between refueling. It'll make the biggest gains on the highway without traffic but hardly any difference (or even worse) in real world city mileage.
So what do you expect/calculate the real world city/hwy mileage will be on street tires, 3:21s, and driving like grandpa,wearing feathery light sandals, in no particular hurry?

22/30 ? Or nowhere close ?
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
22/30 ? Or nowhere close ?
The problem with your number is the highway number. The Wrangler with the 2.0L is not going to beat the lighter and more aerodynamic Cherokee with the 2.4L NA engine which barely makes 21/30MPG in FWD trim (21/28MPG in AWD).

I would say more realistic would be 20/26 under ideal conditions which is still a significant boost over the current Wrangler models. Much better city miles than the current .

And I think even 25 HWY is optimistic as an EPA number in a vehicle that will struggle at times to keep true highway speeds, the only advantage is the EPA's highway window stick test isn't 75 MPH but 60 MPH where those extra 5-15 MPH for the majority of highway drivers will greatly impact the need for power out of the unaerodynamic brick. (PS axle gearing likely will matter much less too because the 8-speed will already have that covered, so 3.73 and 3.21 likely won't derive npmuch difference because even with optimal gearing the engine will need to be in a certain RPM in order to generate enough HP to overcome air resistance at highway speed, so anything past optimal then garners diminishing returns because the engine must be @ X RPM to generate Y HP.

It's not a linear push against air resistance in fact it's geometric where power to overcome air resistance air resistance is commonly calculated as speed squared (air+rolling resistance is usually seen as cubed), and therefore requires much more HP for that extra 10+ MPH than that basic 60MPH test.

Only the EPA supplimentary testing has a highway component with two brief runs for a few second to 70 and the 80 MPH, but that doesn't make it to the sticker number, which may be why the 2.0 tiny turbo will look good on paper, because it can probably go 60MPH without boost earning it a good sticker #, but likely need to be on boost to to and beyond 70.
 

AVENTUS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
407
Reaction score
79
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Vehicle(s)
BMW 750li sport
Thanks^

So where do you think the respective mileage would be with the 2.2 Deisel ? Or the 3.0 Deisel ?
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
So where do you think the respective mileage would be with the 2.2 Deisel ? Or the 3.0 Deisel ?
Now that 2.2 diesel easily could make more than that 30 number. I would guess minimum equivalent to the Cherokee AWD numbers 21/28, but I suspect even signficiantly better than that, likely in the 22/30+ range. According to the Australian Jeep site, the 2.8CRD has a combined cycle of 8L/100KM which is 29.5 Miles/USGallon, wiht he Pentastar bejng 11.4/20.7 , so considering the EPa number is 17/21MPG 18 combined , then they may have more optimistic cycles than N.Am. but the 2.2L should be more efficent than the old 2.8L especially with the 8speed auto as well. The Ecodiesel will likely be at or under the Cherokee number (I'd say around 20/28+ is quite possible).
*The thing to remember about the 2.2L is that it will still struggle at higher higway speeds, so reality may not match the EPA numbers as often.

Like I said in the other threads & forums, I suspect it will be the diesels that pull up the CAFE numbers, not the Hurricane. And really, between the TinyWhineyGasTurbo4 and that 2.2L diesel, that diesel far and away makes more sense in the lineup, as does the Ecodiesel. Both sit significantly enough outside the Pentastar to make a true differentiator.
 
Last edited:

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,260
Reaction score
7,374
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
Don't hang your hat on great numbers for the diesel. The Chevy Colorado ZR2 is rated 19/22 with a 4 cylinder Duramax and a 6 speed auto. The ZR2 will have better aero than the JL, although the JL might get 2 more gears. The curb weight of a ZR2 4 door is over 4700lbs, which is 400lb more than a current JKU. If they get the JKU under 4,000lbs, then maybe you could see north of 25mpg highway with the diesel. Maybe.

I hope they do a little better, but I'm not holding my breath, especially for the JKU Rubicon.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Don't hang your hat on great numbers for the diesel. The Chevy Colorado ZR2 is rated 19/22 with a 4 cylinder Duramax and a 6 speed auto. The ZR2 will have better aero than the JL, although the JL might get 2 more gears. The curb weight of a ZR2 4 door is over 4700lbs, which is 400lb more than a current JKU.
Or... 1,000 lbs more than the JK. However even when comoaring to the JKU, remember that 4700lbs is the base 4x4 2.8L ( 4691lbs for 5' box , 4711lbs for 6' box ) , the ZR2 weighs closer to 5,000 lbs , but the base 4x4 with the the same old VM 2.8L with GM badging that the Wrangler has gets 22/30MPG in 2WD and 20/28 in 4WD; plus the ZR2 has the 4.10 axle, and the regular base 2.8L has the 3.42 axle.

So many of those factors that are not the same.

The export Wrangler at least keeps things somewhat comparable and even with the old 2.8L its already getting close to 30MPG, so weight savings, better transmission would definitely put the 2.2 over the top, and keep the 3.0 in the same ballpark.... unless, as has already been stated... you max things out, like the axles, tyres, and off-road gear like the Rubicon.

In any case the diesel is a long way off, if it ever, so 'haning your hat on great numbers' is pointless regardless of the source of comparison.
 

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
1,775
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
FCA is fighting the EPA on Diesel Emissions, Real or Memorex . Expect actual driving conditions , rather than Dyno, to be required for determining actual emissions, and types of pollutants. This will give even less incentive to continue Diesels as a passenger vehicle option.
In my Opinion, diesel will not make it as a long term option.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
The 2.8 Duramax is a VM?
That's it's origin, from when GM owned 50% of VM, and continued after they divested that stake.

It's a slight tweak of the VM design to meet US emission, but not as muh of a tweak as VM's latest version of that platform which improved power and emission , however that updated VM variant doesn't appear in the Wrangler. Not sure what its destination is.

The current export Wrangler version is the variant that would fit just slightly before GM's.

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/1511-2016-chevrolet-colorado-2-8l-duramax-diesel-first-drive/
" The diesel engine with 181 hp and 369 lb-ft of torque used in the ’16 Chevy Colorado is not completely new to the North American market. A previous generation of the VM Motori–based powerplant was offered in the Jeep Liberty... "

An interview with an engineer who worked first with VM then GM then VM then GM involved in the project;
http://www.trucktrend.com/features/...m-manager-and-chief-engineer-gm-duramax-2-8l/

TT: In making it so clean, has the U.S. version lost any performance?
NM: We have tuned it slightly differently and reduced its peak power a little bit compared to the global version, partially for emissions but also to give U.S. customers the best low-end torque performance. U.S. customers typically load and tow with these vehicles, so they need them to react promptly to acceleration.
 

stewart

New Member
First Name
Stewart
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Location
UK
Vehicle(s)
JK Wrangler Rubicon Trailhawk Cherokee
The 2.2 Diesel is a Alfa engine and Offered in Europe in the Cherokee. It's reliability is not as proven as the 2.8 VM engine as also used in the thousands of London Black cabs over here in the UK! Also he 2.8 is rather noisy and doesn't meet it's claimed MPG figures ! The 3.6 Penatastar has a better emission rating in Paris where they have introduced a new emissions badge ! Compared with many so called Eco diesels ! Market value of diesel cars and vans in the UK is currently Plummeting ! FCA Sold off GEM in 2011? Petrol, hybrids and electric cars are the future as Diesel is reaching the end of it life. Personally I would want the 3.6 again more power / economy would be nice. I can't think about a 4 pot turbo! In a Jeep???
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
The 2.2 Diesel is a Alfa engine and Offered in Europe in the Cherokee. It's reliability is not as proven as the 2.8 VM engine as also used in the thousands of London Black cabs over here in the UK! Also he 2.8 is rather noisy and doesn't meet it's claimed MPG figures !
First the 2.2L MultiJet II is a Fiat Powertrain engine, not Alfa... which makes it sound like something it isn't really. Fiat diesels are every bit as much the respected commodity as VM.
The MJ-II platform is the same one the 3.0L Ecodiesel is derived from also, with VM adopting 'licensing it' to build that variant, so not really unknown in the N.Am market either.

Sure, let's say the 2.8L isn't anywhere near as efficient as stated... as I've said before these are all 'optimiistic PR numbers' when looking even at the EPA's own testing, but it is in many platforms and in many regions so it's a pretty well kniwn and tested commodity.
However, that there are already vehicles with the 2.2L out there like the Cherokee shows some of the characteristics of the platform, even if like the Duramax in a heavier less geared truck, they aren't direct analogues.

The important thing to remember is that first, and foremost, it actually has more power 197 (but less torque 324) than the 2.8L in the Duramax (181/369) and the same HP but both less and more torque than the Wrangler CRD (340 auto , 310 MT) , so highway driving being a function of HP and acceleration being a factor of torque, then the highway component wouldn't favour the Duramax. even before accounting for weight and # of gears / spread.
Now the 2.2L Cherokee (which isn't as fuel efficient as the LR Discovery 2.2L or BMW X3 2.0d) gets a combined UK rating of 49.6 MPG (US 41.3 MPG), soooo... 30MPG (72% efficiency) doesn't really seem all that far-fetched, especially if we're talking about that same overly optimistic 60 mph sticker number as mentioned earlier.

The 3.6 Penatastar has a better emission rating in Paris where they have introduced a new emissions badge ! Compared with many so called Eco diesels !
Yeah, this has been discussed previously, along with the poor emissions performance of small GDI engines like the Hurricane, and how the European landscape changed towards them as well, equally moving away from those teeny weeny 1L / 3cyl solutions that were all the rage, especially in platforms that had an upgraded 'Hot Hatch' variant.

Petrol, hybrids and electric cars are the future as Diesel is reaching the end of it life. Personally I would want the 3.6 again more power / economy would be nice. I can't think about a 4 pot turbo! In a Jeep???
Exactly, and that is the platform strategy in general as we've seen from FCA's roadmap the next stage being HEV. How you generate that power to run the electric motors and charge the batteries is likely fairly flexible depending on whichever solution a) is most marketable, and b) meets with the current regulatory landscape. However despite that being a good fit for the JL, the issue for the whole platform remains the JT, where a diesel engine is really table stakes to just enter the market, and without it the platform becomes less attractive, and likely much less successful.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,260
Reaction score
7,374
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
The Duramax is made by GM in Thailand, as I understand it. It is used globally in various applications, and appears to have a very good reputation. It has been retuned (probably enough to be called a redesign) and set up for US emissions, obviously.
 

AVENTUS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
407
Reaction score
79
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Vehicle(s)
BMW 750li sport
I am not surprised by the addition of the 2.2L diesel as I always considered it a better export option. It's possible entry in the N.Am. market is likely due to the EcoDiesel woes.

It will be interesting to see the tunes they put on the Hurricane. IMO, it was originally going to get a milder tune putting it well under the 3.6 in power, and then the rumours it would get the Alfa tune @ 300HP, likely when someone asked "what is it capable of?"
i certainly hope the 2.2 Diesel is available in the North American market, and can be certified before November, and I think this engine will be very popular amongst younger crowd, for two groups: mileage will be quite good, and it will be cheaper than the larger Diesel engine. I just hope it can be converted into a bio Diesel fairly easily too.

I also see the 2.0 4cyl having the two very divergent variants:

1. turbo tuned for maximum torque/hp

2. Non-turbo tuned for the eco-conscious who don't care if 0-60 takes them 25sec
 

Advertisement




Jim Marsh Chrysler Jeep
 



Advertisement
Top