Sponsored

summer4x

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
285
Reaction score
370
Location
Rotating Orb
Vehicle(s)
many
Sign me up. Screw all you Gas Mileage Worriers. If gas mileage is a major concern, then the Wrangler isn't, and never has been, the right vehicle. I'll let my daughter have my 3.6 JL, and I won't worry about the Hemi's Gas Milage, too much power, too much weight, blah blah blah blah!!! Me, I will just have some fun, because my testicles are still attached.
Soooo, I want one!!
It's great you have an opinion, but it's irrelevant when it comes to what the "right vehicle" is for somebody else. The fact of the matter is that most people care about mileage, because it is part of the overall cost of ownership. As mileage goes down, so does the prospective buyer pool. How many people would buy a vehicle if it got 1 mile per gallon? The answer is very few. How about if it got 100 miles per gallon? The answer is A LOT. It's not about having testicles attached, it's about math and economics.

PS - I ended up going with the Jeep Rubicon over the 4Runner in part because I expect the 2.0 Rubicon to get substantially better mileage. I like to avoid the gas pump as much as possible. That's one reason I sent my 2012 Ram 3500 diesel packing after 2 years - the thing was an absolute fuel pig, and was getting 5 mpg less than my other diesel truck. It adds up over time.
Sponsored

 

rubileon

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Threads
27
Messages
728
Reaction score
551
Location
Water over dirt planet
Vehicle(s)
JLUR RHD 3.6
I still think FCA is going the wrong way about this. Wrangler should get the 5.7 and have it be a lower cost option, the 392 is just not practical and will be way too expensive. If Jeep put the 5.7 as an option for the wrangler for ~$5k they would probably have at least a 25% take rate or more. It would be the perfect engine for the Jeep.
I'm a big fan of the 6.4 but the problem with it is, a lot of people get the V8s for the sound and you don't get to hear the 6.4 at WOT for more than maybe second or two in daily driving because of speed limits. You might get to hear the 5.7 for a bit longer.

If it's all about power and torque then a turbo V6 or an I6 will do.

Yeah, it’s a damn Wrangler, if you want to measure 0-60 times, get a sports car, or better yet, some of the fantastic BEVs coming online.
It's just a measure of performance that kids can understand. Small numbers.

Anyone notice on the interior shot from the overhead view that the driver seat leather is already stretched? That didn’t take long.
G forces?

How come the article doesn’t even mention the half doors? It’s like Jeep asked them not to mention it, as if it’s just for attention and not for real. Why is it so hard for Jeep to bring them back? The investment is probably a fraction compared to introducing a new engine. Anyways, just complaining.
They always pick the Prius drivers to review Jeeps.

And the embarrassment that an engine really close to the weight penalty of a 392 (but no more than a 3.0 Wrangler Diesel) only has as much power as Ford’s 3.0 V6 turbo or a tuned 2.7 v6 turbo.
Yes it's a bit of a puzzle. Even Toyota's old 5.7 is DOHC, has lower compression and produces more power and more torque lower in the RPM band.

Engine: Toyota 3UR-FE
Camshaft: DOHC with VVT
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 4
Compression ratio 10.2
Power 270kW @ 5600rpm
Torque 530Nm @ 3200rpm

Engine: Jeep 5.7 V8
Camshaft: Pushrod with VVT
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 2
Compression ratio 10.5
Power 259kW @ 5200rpm
Torque 520Nm @ 4200rpm


Neither is match for Nissan 5.6 V8

Engine Code: VK56VD
Camshaft: DOHC with VVT & Lift
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 4
Compression ratio 11.2
Power 298kW @ 5800rpm
Torque 560Nm @ 4000rpm





ESS doesn't really require anything at all, really. Of all the vehicles I've ever seen that did start-stop, only the Wrangler uses 2 batteries. Somebody in engineering was clearly sniffing a lot of glue that day! lol. It is recommended to use a better/higher quality starter motor, since it gets used a lot more.
The whole design team was high. Must be coming down after seeing how the Bronco robbed their house.
 

DaltonGang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Threads
74
Messages
2,792
Reaction score
3,910
Location
Houston, Tx
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler JLU Sport S, Rubicon Suspension, Tires, and Rims. Firecracker Red
It's great you have an opinion, but it's irrelevant when it comes to what the "right vehicle" is for somebody else. The fact of the matter is that most people care about mileage, because it is part of the overall cost of ownership. As mileage goes down, so does the prospective buyer pool. How many people would buy a vehicle if it got 1 mile per gallon? The answer is very few. How about if it got 100 miles per gallon? The answer is A LOT. It's not about having testicles attached, it's about math and economics.

PS - I ended up going with the Jeep Rubicon over the 4Runner in part because I expect the 2.0 Rubicon to get substantially better mileage. I like to avoid the gas pump as much as possible. That's one reason I sent my 2012 Ram 3500 diesel packing after 2 years - the thing was an absolute fuel pig, and was getting 5 mpg less than my other diesel truck. It adds up over time.
Good for you and your good gas milage. Have you tried to "Hypermile" it yet? :LOL: I dont think I agree with your logic. In todays "Fun Vehicles", and the Wrangler is fun, building one to try to please as many as possible, might, in the long run, alienate even more buyers. Building the 392 is smart business sense. It is a testosterone war, within the car companies. Just look at it. Raptor vs Rebel, Camaro vs Mustang vs Challenger. Wrangler vs Bronco. Corvette vs ????. We live in the Muscle Car days, now. I dont see people(most people) so concerned with gas mileage when shopping for Wranglers. Those that do, are in the small minority. So bragging rights are on the line. If they build the 392 Wrangler, people will definitely buy all they make.

..
 

Kyanche

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Threads
7
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
1,373
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
2020 Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
I think it’ll be amazing if they make both the hybrid and the 392 from a perspective of just how many different kinds of people love jeeps! :)
 

Brenden

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brenden
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
51
Reaction score
58
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
2021 rubicon unlimited manual, 2021 Ram 1500 ecodiesel crew
Engine: Toyota 3UR-FE
Camshaft: DOHC with VVT
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 4
Compression ratio 10.2
Power 270kW @ 5600rpm
Torque 530Nm @ 3200rpm

Engine: Jeep 5.7 V8
Camshaft: Pushrod with VVT
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 2
Compression ratio 10.5
Power 259kW @ 5200rpm
Torque 520Nm @ 4200rpm


Neither is match for Nissan 5.6 V8

Engine Code: VK56VD
Camshaft: DOHC with VVT & Lift
Valves/Ports per Cylinder 4
Compression ratio 11.2
Power 298kW @ 5800rpm
Torque 560Nm @ 4000rpm

The 5.7 in the ram is 395 hp (295 kw) and 410 ftlbs (556 nm) everyone needs to know the facts before throwing the 5.7 under the bus. The current gen 5.7 has amazing dive ability and absolutely rips your feeling frisky. My truck gets 18 normal 50/50 city/interstate driving and 21 to 23 if all highway. Has no ESS. It does have MDS. I deactivate it every time I start it. I came from a 3.5 EcoBoost. I don't miss it.
 

Sponsored

DadJokes

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Threads
75
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Indiana
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
Sahara
The 5.7 in the ram is 395 hp (295 kw) and 410 ftlbs (556 nm) everyone needs to know the facts before throwing the 5.7 under the bus. The current gen 5.7 has amazing dive ability and absolutely rips your feeling frisky. My truck gets 18 normal 50/50 city/interstate driving and 21 to 23 if all highway. Has no ESS. It does have MDS. I deactivate it every time I start it. I came from a 3.5 EcoBoost. I don't miss it.
I knew. It’s not “throwing it under the bus”. It just doesn’t make sense in keeping up with the competition WHEN considering the weight penalty. You may as well take the extra power of the 392 with little to no downside based on personal experience with the recent 5.7 and recent 392. I know the mpg difference is insignificant whatever the EPA rating is.
 

porcusRex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
108
Reaction score
79
Location
georgia
Vehicle(s)
subaru
if the do a hemi, it will be a boutique item, dealers will add market adjustments and it will pretty expensive and if they cant get the millage up there will be a gas guzzler tax.

while i think this is pretty cool, i would much rather have a turbo 3.0. one of the main reason is range. im not interested in a vehicle to take off road on an extended excursion if i have to worry about running out of gas and if the thing gets around 10mpg its range is gonna suck. and i dont see them putting a larger gas tank in it to address that issue.
 

DadJokes

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Threads
75
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Indiana
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
Sahara
if the do a hemi, it will be a boutique item, dealers will add market adjustments and it will pretty expensive and if they cant get the millage up there will be a gas guzzler tax.

while i think this is pretty cool, i would much rather have a turbo 3.0. one of the main reason is range. im not interested in a vehicle to take off road on an extended excursion if i have to worry about running out of gas and if the thing gets around 10mpg its range is gonna suck. and i dont see them putting a larger gas tank in it to address that issue.
My 15 392 Challenger with Eco mode (4 cyl mode that is essentially a 3.2L 4 cyl) that weighed 5k loaded on a trip got just shy of 29 mpg both ways at 70mph. Take a couple for a brick shape, 2-3mpg for additional weight and I think it can get respectable hwy mpg. The torque of the 392 is outstanding at low rpm and across the rpm range so no steep gears are needed. That should help fuel consumption but that’s more difficult to guess. At least you wouldn’t need a DEF tank.
 
Last edited:

MeekoDiesel

Active Member
First Name
Patrick
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
27
Reaction score
46
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLURD Sting Gray , 1948 Willys CJ2A , 1976 Chevy C10 , 1998 Honda Civic
Occupation
Nuclear Operations Technician - Shearon Harris Nuclear Station
This thing will be awesome. People love V8s, period. The sound, the power etc. If people buying high horsepower machines cared about fuel economy they wouldn’t sell GT500s, Hellcats, ZL1 Camaros, upcoming TRX, Raptors (which will soon have GT500 motor thanks to the Ram TRX)
Putting a V8 in a wrangler is a no brainer.

As for CAFE penalties, with all the electric options Jeep is rolling out it won’t matter throwing a 6.4 Wrangler into the mix.
 

SecondTJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
1,133
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
ESS doesn't really require anything at all, really. Of all the vehicles I've ever seen that did start-stop, only the Wrangler uses 2 batteries. Somebody in engineering was clearly sniffing a lot of glue that day! lol.
Every ESS system I’ve seen uses 2-batteries (even Toyota & Honda). Which manufacturer only uses one battery w/ ESS?

Currently, no FCA vehicle with the 6.4 uses ESS, and the 5.7 only gets ESS when optioned with eTorque.

It’s more than just a battery though, stop/start is also rough on engine components. The Gen 1 Pentastar 3.6 didn’t get ESS, because it simply wasn’t designed to handle the constant stress from stop/start.
 

Sponsored

TheRealTVGuy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
375
Reaction score
450
Location
Orlando, FL
Website
www.MyVillageRadio.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 Jeep Wrangler 4xe
I fell like a teenager on his first hot date! NO ETorque bull@@@! when can I sign, I hope they forget the ESS.
( hope there isn't room for it) I'll pay extra just to get rid of that crap.
Motortrend article has me dreaming again, dam wet dreams, havn't had them in decades.
Just FYI, our 2016 Durango R/T with the HEMI doesn't have the ESS, but the 2016 3.6L V6 version we had just prior did have ESS.
 

LooselyHeldPlans

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brandon
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Threads
65
Messages
972
Reaction score
1,162
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2020 3.6 JLUR
Occupation
Several
Not for me, but hopefully the engineering done to make things not break trickles down into the other models.
 

aldo98229

Well-Known Member
First Name
Aldo
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Threads
86
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
27,683
Location
Bellingham, WA
Vehicle(s)
2023 Jeep Gladiator, 2018 Fiat 124 Spider
Occupation
Market Research
Vehicle Showcase
3
This thing will be awesome. People love V8s, period. The sound, the power etc. If people buying high horsepower machines cared about fuel economy they wouldn’t sell GT500s, Hellcats, ZL1 Camaros, upcoming TRX, Raptors (which will soon have GT500 motor thanks to the Ram TRX)
Putting a V8 in a wrangler is a no brainer.

As for CAFE penalties, with all the electric options Jeep is rolling out it won’t matter throwing a 6.4 Wrangler into the mix.
LOL! If Pacifica PHEV is any indication, that Wrangler PHEV is going to be tough to sell.

Blame a steep price premium...and FCA’s poor reliability reputation.
 

Equitasforall

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
543
Reaction score
980
Location
Virginia or Tennessee if in the US
Vehicle(s)
2021 Rubicon 4xe
Occupation
I could tell you, but then....
If people buying high horsepower machines cared about fuel economy they wouldn’t sell GT500s, Hellcats, ZL1 Camaros,
I think a lot of people make huge assumptions on the fuel mileage of high HP sports cars. I routinely got mid to high 20s in my GT500 and high 20s in my ZL1 (even touching 30 frequently.) Now granted I did a lot of cruising, but still played around in them quite a bit. You have to. You can’t NOT get on the gas when you have that kind of power and torque available.

Now don’t get me wrong. Nobody will buy them for their mileage and nobody at the EPA will ever confuse them for a Prius, but the perception is often what we battle with performance vehicles. I had a person say the other day at the gas station when I filled up my Raptor “Damn man... $100 to fill that thing up! Exactly why we shouldn’t sell junk like that with that kind of mileage!” I explained to them that I had gotten 23.7 mpg that trip and that the high cost to top it off was due to the 36 gallon tank and not the mileage. They were floored when I told them, and showed them the calculation.

I care greatly about fuel mileage but don’t make my decision about it, although it does get factored in, along with everything else before I buy. This is one of the reasons I have the V6 Raptor now instead of my 2014 model with the 6.2 V8. More power, torque, better features and handling, while getting 10mpg better than the old one were the others.

But hey... that’s just me. I won’t buy the 392 Wrangler regardless of the mileage.
 
Last edited:

TJJL19

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
TJ
Joined
May 20, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
481
Reaction score
441
Location
19054
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Unlimited Sport
Just FYI, our 2016 Durango R/T with the HEMI doesn't have the ESS, but the 2016 3.6L V6 version we had just prior did have ESS.
There is hope! I know I didn't buy a jeep for the gas millage and if any of these people, on this forum did, they got on the wrong boat!!!
Sponsored

 
 



Top