Which Compromise to Make - 3.6L eTorque, 3.0L TD, 392

[Yardstick]

I know I want a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon, but I keep going around in circles with these engine choices. I had a JK that was lifted and on 37" tires and that was a nice way to get around off-road. I'd like to have that capability again in a JLUR, but I wish I could have that simple V6 without eTorque and ESS or the Diesel without all the emission complications and ESS, or the 392 with a 4:1 transfer case. We all know that we want to lift and put big tires on these things. With that in mind and with the choices available in 2021, which compromise would you make and why?

Sponsored

 

[Dan M.]

From what I've read the only downside of the diesel is the extra cost. (I haven't driven one myself). In your situation, I would go with that.

 

[Yardstick]

Indeed, there is some extra up front cost to the diesel. It looks like the oil changes can be expensive and the fuel filter needs to be changed more regularly. Diesel fuel also tends to be more expensive at the pump than 87 octane gas. There's also the additional consumable DEF. That torque does seem worth the hassle though. Engine longevity is the other question mark.

 

[Aonar]

My thinking might just be skewed (all who know me will agree) AND since perception is reality, here is MY reality: 392=speed+70K plus price tag, Diesel=torque, electric=TOO high a cost to "fill her up" and no public places for me to do so other than at home, Regular gas engine=been there, done that on non-work vehicles for years. I also ordered the JLURD for the "typical" longevity of the engine. ALSO the warrantees are different on diesel vs non-diesel. Yep I ordered the diesel for multiple reasons which made sense to me (some listed, some not). GL with your decision!...TOP war. is diesel, bottom, gas. Also, view miles/powertrain difference.

 

[aldo98229]

EcoDiesel’s track record is too spotty for my liking.

FCA claimed it had fixed all the problems of the original EcoDiesel, but buyers kept complaining of a variety of problems when the engine first relaunched last year.

The number of complaints have quieted down since then, which suggests FCA jumped on it right away. But the problems with the first-gen EcoDiesel didn’t really start until they hit 50,000+ miles. Add to that a ridiculous price premium for the motor, all that added weight in the front, cheap gasoline prices; I just don’t see it.

To me, EcoDiesel looks great on paper and perhaps in some very specific applications, but is one of those things you better be careful what you wish for.

 

[Yardstick]

I thought the powertrain warranty on the diesel was longer. Was it longer on 2020 models? It looks to me like they all have the potential for problems or longevity. Granted, I'm only getting the distorted sense of reliability from forum information. From my own experience, I have a terrible track record with batteries. Doesn't matter if it's a vehicle starter battery, RC car battery, cell phone battery, etc... They all seem to have less capacity and shorter lives than I would hope/expect. The Jeep wouldn't be a daily driver for me, so I'm wary of having a big expensive battery around that just sits in AZ's heat. That's my biggest objection to any hybrids (mild or full), really.

 

[Zandcwhite]

With the massive increase in torque, would you even miss the 4-1 tcase in the 392? Assuming the transmission will be the same, 4.7-1 1st gear and 2.72 low range should be more than enough torque multiplication in my opinion.

 

[Yardstick]

I'm sure the 392 would climb anything with the higher 2.72:1 gearing. My concern would actually be slowing it down enough on steep downhills. We have a 4Runner which has a higher ratio t-case than even the 392 Wrangler and it can get moving a little faster than I want it to in steeper terrain. Maybe it would be useful to compare the actual final crawl ratio on both. I'm not sure what the first gear transmission ratio is on the Toyota.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I'm sure the 392 would climb anything with the higher 2.72:1 gearing. My concern would actually be slowing it down enough on steep downhills. We have a 4Runner which has a higher ratio t-case than even the 392 Wrangler and it can get moving a little faster than I want it to in steep stuff.

I assume they will still have hill decent control like our 2019 does. Set the desired speed and it crawls down even the steepest hills. Depending on the 4Runner it either has a 2.8 1st gear if it’s an auto or 3.8 if it’s a manual. Our 4.7 1st gear is low by comparison.

 

[Yardstick]

Ours has a crawl control (2020 TRD Off-Road model) but even that seems to let it get going a little faster downhill than I want sometimes. It doesn't seem quite as refined as the crawl control in the 2014 JKUR was.

 

[rickinAZ]

With the high center of gravity, low traction tires, and boxy shape, the Wrangler is the antithesis of the vehicle-type for a near 500 bhp engine. [watch YouTube for upcoming Cars & Coffee mishap videos]

As for speed, I remain skeptical. As soon as someone matches (or gets within one second of) the Demon's touted 9.6 second quarter mile time, please let me know. FCA hasn't been the best source for reproduceable performance figures.

 

[Zandcwhite]

With the high center of gravity, low traction tires, and boxy shape, the Wrangler is the antithesis of the vehicle-type for a near 500 bhp engine. [watch YouTube for upcoming Cars & Coffee mishap videos]

As for speed, I remain skeptical. As soon as someone matches (or gets within one second of) the Demon's touted 9.6 second quarter mile time, please let me know. FCA hasn't been the best source for reproduceable performance figures.

https://www.motor1.com/news/389262/dodge-demon-stock-quarter-mile-record/
Over a year ago, someone beat dodges 9.65 with back to back 9.57 and 9.58 runs.
The trx they rated at 4.5 seconds 0-60, car and driver hit 60 in 3.7. Given a good DA and a well prepared track, each of FCA's numbers has been matched or beaten in stock vehicles from what I've seen. Clearly they aren't going to publish their worst runs or have Joe blow driving when they are using the numbers for marketing. I think this is why it often takes a while for people to match these figures, few people are going to make as many runs as dodge chasing that best case number in a bone stock car. It's much easier and cheaper to mod your stock vehicle in chase of more speed.

 

[Spank]

With the high center of gravity, low traction tires, and boxy shape, the Wrangler is the antithesis of the vehicle-type for a near 500 bhp engine. [watch YouTube for upcoming Cars & Coffee mishap videos]

This plus the fact they kept the axles and suspension virtually the same makes me wonder how long it'll be before axles, tie-rods, pitman arms, and other suspension parts break apart when folks slap 35s and 37s on them and hit the trails.

I really want to be onboard with the 392, but I seriously doubt Jeep even spent six months doing actual road and trail testing with this powertrain. Doing a simple 5.7 Hemi swap in a JK never ended at just the engine.

 

[rickinAZ]

I really want to be onboard with the 392, but I seriously doubt Jeep even spent six months doing actual road and trail testing with this powertrain. Doing a simple 5.7 Hemi swap in a JK never ended at just the engine.

I think that the words that you are too kind to use are: "rushed to market" (thank you Bronco).

Previously, the main impediment (according to FCA) to installing a Hemi was that the engine's placement didn't allow adequate crumple zones. Did they actually change anything to remedy that?

 

[rickinAZ]

https://www.motor1.com/news/389262/dodge-demon-stock-quarter-mile-record/
Over a year ago, someone beat dodges 9.65 with back to back 9.57 and 9.58 runs.
The trx they rated at 4.5 seconds 0-60, car and driver hit 60 in 3.7. Given a good DA and a well prepared track, each of FCA's numbers has been matched or beaten in stock vehicles from what I've seen. Clearly they aren't going to publish their worst runs or have Joe blow driving when they are using the numbers for marketing. I think this is why it often takes a while for people to match these figures, few people are going to make as many runs as dodge chasing that best case number in a bone stock car. It's much easier and cheaper to mod your stock vehicle in chase of more speed.

I stand corrected.

Actually, I was being purposely over-the-top in that statement. If a performance metric or bhp/torque claim is put out there, it shouldn't take an act of Congress to match them. For example, the acceleration numbers published by Porsche can be matched by most owners in the first afternoon. Dodge's 9.6 claim is WAY less obtainable than that. Last night I was reading an old C&D in which they turned an 11.6 quarter with the Hellcat (797 bhp) - two seconds slower. That's a lifetime.

Sponsored