Which JL engine are you most interested in?

[JTman]

First and foremost the Wrangler isn't "designed to tow" or get 'great MPG', it's designed to be a "Convertible Off-roading 4x4", any towing capabilities will be tacked onto that basic concept, even in the JT which will need to compromise some towing capabilities for its other party pieces, but like the Power Wagon and Raptor do.
As such, whichever engine is put in there will still be limited compared to a dedicated hauler, and narrow margins.

Yea and really only the diesel engine would qualify as anything resembling a powerplant adequate for heavier towing or hauling. 260 lb-ft from Pentastar and 300 lb-ft from Hurricane engine is pretty anemic for that.

Sponsored

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Yea and really only the diesel engine would qualify as anything resembling a powerplant adequate for heavier towing or hauling. 260 lb-ft from Pentastar and 300 lb-ft from Hurricane engine is pretty anemic for that.

Yeah, I don't think either would be a 'good fit' for dedicatedd haulers/towers, but they are sufficient for lugging aound what one would usually associate with a Wrangler, for the small camping/cottage stuff like SeaDoo, SkiDoo, Outboard Fishing boat, pop-up camper, that kinda stuff. For that those engines are fine, and outdo any small pickup from our childhood that did those things.

The problem is too many people want to simply equate the Wrangler with a 'truck' because it's in the segment and ignorantly think it should be hauling top numbers with it without considering that all of those dedicated haulers give back towing capability when going with the hardcore off-road version, like the Power Wagon, Raptor, TRD Pro, etc all have lower numbers than their pavement counterparts, but can remain useful at towing cottage gear and hauling day to day stuff, just not expected to haul a fifth wheel. But that's where people are more realistic in not expecting a 1500 to haul the same as a 3500HD dually, whereas they all seem to expect the Wrangler to haul the same as a dedicated full-size PU truck. It's not a car, it's not a truck, it's a Jeep!

The better way to think of the Wrangler is as a spectrum of capability between a convertible Mustang and a base Ram 1500, not as an analog of either on its own, you trade off between the two, or see it as adopting some of the benefits of both.

The Pentastar can still tow 7,250 in a Ram with 3.55 gearing , and that's a tow rating that would likely have satisfied the majority of wrangler towers had that been the JKU's rating. So we don't really know the Pentastar (or Hurricaine's) limit as it doesn't even get the higher gearing of the diesel to see how it does with towing gears. Even a halfway ratio like the 3.73 in a Sahara might have yielded more capability in a Ram, let alone the 3.92 the Ecodiesel can get. But it's obvious that for numbers wise it would provide capabilities beyond what the frame & suspension could keep up with in a Wrangler.
Though there is no arguing that the Ecodiesel would be better suited and perform smoother, but so would a Hemi. But for the Wrangler's typical target load, the Pentastar and Hurricane would be able to handle it just fine, just slightly less than other options, but again the barrier doesn't come from the engine, it comes from other components downstream in the powertrain. That's also where the JT changes the script a bit, since it's getting it's own production line, it will likely not just be a truck bed added to a JL powertrain, it will get the proper components to move it in that spectrum closer to the 1500 numbers and further from the Mustsng, all while still offering some off-roading in a convertible package.

The point being, and this is not directed at you or your comment just the tone of others here and in the Wrangler community in general, arguing against the Pentastar & Hurricane simply because of the EcoDiesel being X% better is as ignorant as saying the EcoDiesel sucks because it can't haul half or a third of what the Cummins does; they all have their place, and generally handle their segments pretty well. We always want more, but it ends up being a balance of what wil work, and far too many people want to try and tow their house behind a sports car instead of buy the proper Power Wagon or HD truck for the job.

Undoubtedly the JL will have better towing and payload than the JK, but I doubt that will solely be due to the Ecodiesel, and more likely due to the other upgrades instead, even more so with the JT. Even with the Hemi mods AEV says it can't tow more because of other limiting components.

 

[The Mad Duck]

So the upgraded Pentastar going into the JL is reportedly not getting direct injection afterall, so that's one advantage it'll have over the direct injected 4 cylinder turbo Hurricane ... no potential carbon buildup.

I Been Contacting Some Old Co-Workers and Friends. ( I Worked for Chrysler a Total of 38 & 1/2 Years)
My Reading of the Smoke Signals & Tea Leaves Says the Pentastar DI Engine Has Disappeared from the Radar Screen !

 

[AgingTJ]

I used to be firmly in the diesel camp. I really liked the low end torque, range, reliability, economy, and fuel stability it purportedly offers. But with higher fuel prices, much higher initial cost, Higher maintenance cost, and *#%! DEF, economy is a non starter. The reliability seems to be a myth based on what I've seen from friends diesels.

I like the idea of the Hurricane 4, 300hp/300tq seems great on paper, but, what's the low end torque going to look like. Down low is where you need it in a Jeep.

As someone else mentioned the Pentastar isn't all that great in the torque department either, although almost certainly better down low than the 4.

Then there's the hybrid. Done right it has the greatest potential to be what I want. Forget the four independent wheel motors idea that keeps getting thrown around. The range of speeds that a Jeep wheel would need to operate at would necessitate some sort of transmission at each corner, way to much un sprung weight. But that doesn't mean hybrid doesn't have real advantages for off highway vehicles. The low end torque and, especially the fine control of that torque, from an electric motor can be just awesome. The electric motors benefits would compliment perfectly with a turbo 4. A hybrids advantages are realized almost exclusively at low speed start and stop situations, meaning for much of our uses the fuel economy could be great and perhaps make a real contribution to range. The potential for software to contribute to the vehicles capabilities is there. For example, imagine the case where the Jeep had become airborne. When it lands the drivetrain components will be shock loaded potentially causing breakage. But, the electric motor could be quickly and momentarily sped forward to decrease that shock on the components. Now most people don't jump their Jeeps, but I have, and paid the price. Now imagine if you will the case where a wheel is spinning and suddenly gains traction. Again the drivetrain is shock loaded. The electric motors could be quickly braked, or even reversed depending on the motor/engine arrangement, to decrease that load. Imagine if you could run with smaller components, the weight savings and extra clearance you could enjoy. The motor could also be used to essentially gear down the engine almost infinitely, again depending on arrangement, for crazy low crawl rates. So as I see it, the hybrid has the potential to be by far the most capable option. Though I have no idea how likely any of this would be realized is, and then there's the batteries , oh the batteries, wohht wah. The fly in the ointment for hybrid.

Then there's future engines. The Pentastar is scheduled to end production mid cycle for the JL, and there's rumors of an inline 6 being developed to replace it based on the same heritage as the Hurricane 4. 400hp and 450ft/lbs of flat inline 6 torque anyone? Yes please!!

 

[Dackel]

I like the idea of the Hurricane 4, 300hp/300tq seems great on paper, but, what's the low end torque going to look like. Down low is where you need it in a Jeep.

The 2.0T in the Alfa Giulia should be a good guide to how the Hurricane 4 will perform. It makes its full torque (306 lb-ft) at just 2000 RPM.

Compare that to the Pentastar which doesn't make its full 260 lb-ft until 4800 RPM.

Pretty clear which one will pull a lot better down low.

 

[Closure]

How will the 4cyc turbo sound on a wrangler though? Engine and exhaust note wise.

V6 or a hemi if one was offered has a nicer sound imo for a wrangler but I could be wrong.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

The 2.0T in the Alfa Giulia should be a good guide to how the Hurricane 4 will perform. It makes its full torque (306 lb-ft) at just 2000 RPM.

Compare that to the Pentastar which doesn't make its full 260 lb-ft until 4800 RPM.

Pretty clear which one will pull a lot better down low.

Well that's far from the whole story, you fail to mention that the pentastar generates almost 90% of its torque around the 1500RPM mark and 95% by the 2000 RPM mark, then slowly adding the last 10ft/lbs over the next 2800RPM because it's a very flat torque curve.

Most impotantly, the 2.0T is not a good guide to how the Hurricane will perform in the Jeep as it will be a different design as well as different tune than that in the Alfa. Also, the 2.0T is made in Italy, the Hurricane 4 will be American made, so not only a design gulf between them, but a veritable ocean.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/fours/hurricane.html

Many of the reviews sofar find the Guilia 2.0 a bit sluggish and doesn't really engage until the 3,000+ RPM mark, so while the engine might theoretically be capable it isn't showing up in testing, which may have to do with the TorqueFlite transmission whose torque converter is more about smoothness and efficiency, which was the issue with the NAG1 in the JK. Which may make much of this a moot point depending on setup.

Until we see the production torque curves especially from the Jeep variant, it isn't apparent which will do better truly 'down low', as most pedestrian gasolines turbos not found in exotics/sports cars have rather poor numbers very low, and then surge inconsistently. The Wrangler is unlikely to get the same level build & tune as the Alfas.

Also the new upgraded Pentastar delivers it's torque earlier that the previous version, so we also don't know what the Pentastar in the JL will look like either, even in the old version in the Wrangler gave back power versus the GC and Ram variants.

For towing the turbo will likely give the get-up and go torque needed to best the Pentastar, but it'll be right next to it gawking in awe at the Ecodiesel. Also it's unclear how the Hurricane will do truly rock-crawling 'down-low', and that may be at the expense of highway efficiency under load as seen in the Ecoboosts which are too often on-boost.

Additionally, the tiny turbo will likely stuggle off-road, because it will probably be slow/laggy to react as noted in the Guilia reviews, be harder to feather, and probably be quicker to overheat if it is constantly on & off boost while moving slowly over terrain & obstacles.

However, until we actually see the engine in Wrangler guise, we have no idea how it will be setup & tuned, so basing it on an exotic Euro implementation isn't really a "good guide to how the Hurricane 4 will perform".

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

How will the 4cyc turbo sound on a wrangler though? Engine and exhaust note wise.

V6 or a hemi if one was offered has a nicer sound imo for a wrangler but I could be wrong.

Engine and exhaust note will likely be typically turbo-y , but hey they can always do what they did in the Alfas and add artificial engine noises out the speakers.

Of course those speakers work better when you have the top on, whereas that Hemi would sound better with the top off.... especially going through a mountain pass or tunnel.

 

[orey22]

No matter which of the three engines shows up in the 18, 4cyl, 6cyl, or turbo Diesel, I'm interested to see the mpg of each. I'm a highway driver in my wrangler, so this issue matters the most to me. When Jeep had the inline 4 and 6, I believe the 4 only offered around 2 more mpg's per mile, not a great increase. Will Jeep offer an engine that gets a significant increase over say the base line pentastar, I'm starting to think they will not. If it's 22 - 24- and 25 mpg respectively, in any order, that'll force me to get a pentastar with the manual. Now if the Diesel pushes 30mpg on highway, that'll change my mind in a big way, even if I have to stomach the automatic, which will kill me not to have a manual transmission.

Should be interesting to follow.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Likely the biggest change in MPG will come from the 8-speed transmission which has a much larger spread and lower ratio overdrive gears compared to the NAG1 auto, and slightly wider/taller ratios than the NSG370 manual.

I suspect the 4cyl will still gve back a lot of efficiency in pushing a brick into the wind, often being on boost at higher hwy speeds, but the diesel should get a bit more MPG out of it than the Pentastar.

Now, based on the more aerodynamic Grand Cherokee which is 29/34 Hwy for Penta/Eco according to FCA's most optimistic numbers, it's unlikely to get that same 5mpg extra from the less aerodynamic Wrangler, so the value of that MPG remains questionable. However the Manual Pentastar vs Auto EcoDiesel might give you a few more MPG difference due to the ratios, so might end up being more than 5MPG diference from those two combos making it a tougher choice than auto vs auto.

 

[Swanky]

No matter which of the three engines shows up in the 18, 4cyl, 6cyl, or turbo Diesel, I'm interested to see the mpg of each. I'm a highway driver in my wrangler, so this issue matters the most to me. When Jeep had the inline 4 and 6, I believe the 4 only offered around 2 more mpg's per mile, not a great increase. Will Jeep offer an engine that gets a significant increase over say the base line pentastar, I'm starting to think they will not. If it's 22 - 24- and 25 mpg respectively, in any order, that'll force me to get a pentastar with the manual. Now if the Diesel pushes 30mpg on highway, that'll change my mind in a big way, even if I have to stomach the automatic, which will kill me not to have a manual transmission.

Should be interesting to follow.

Same as my commute is 80 miles round trip 5 days a week and my current 1.0 fiesta averages 41mpg. The gas mileage figures are what i am waiting on, I hope it gets similar gas mileage to the subaru's.

 

[Davos77]

How will the 4cyc turbo sound on a wrangler though? Engine and exhaust note wise.

V6 or a hemi if one was offered has a nicer sound imo for a wrangler but I could be wrong.

You can pretty much expect the turbo 4 cyl won't sound great. Hard to get small displacement turbo engines to sound nice. Hard to fight physics... turbos use exhaust gases to spin its turbine so it robs a lot of sound.

Pentastar should sound better, both engine and exhaust, unless you prefer turbo spool noise.

 

[orey22]

Same as my commute is 80 miles round trip 5 days a week and my current 1.0 fiesta averages 41mpg. The gas mileage figures are what i am waiting on, I hope it gets similar gas mileage to the subaru's.

My fingers are crossed, but what really makes me pause is the fact that the JL and JK will be sold together, so Jeep is not likely to have JL models that blow away the JK on mileage, so the JK Pentastar will probably compare favorably to the JL's 3 choices. My guess is all three engines will be within 2-3 miles per gallon of each other, but I'm hoping I'm wrong, and the Eco Diesel is one bad ass engine all around.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

My fingers are crossed, but what really makes me pause is the fact that the JL and JK will be sold together, so Jeep is not likely to have JL models that blow away the JK on mileage,

What makes you think that? The JK production is simply to allow the JL line to spin up and start producing vehicles, not to compete with each other, and certainly not to allow the JK to take anything away from the JL. As soon as FCA can stop JK production to move over to the JT it will as the JL and JT are far more important than adding any JK sales.

 

[orey22]

What makes you think that? The JK production is simply to allow the JL line to spin up and start producing vehicles, not to compete with each other, and certainly not to allow the JK to take anything away from the JL. As soon as FCA can stop JK production to move over to the JT it will as the JL and JT are far more important than adding any JK sales.

I say this based on what Jeep has done in the past. My TJ with the inline 6 got around 18-20 highway MPG, my JK with the pentastar gets 19-21 highway MPG. Now if Jeep is planning on the JL jumping to 28-30 MPG from the 19-21 my JK gets, that's great, I'm all for it.

Who in their right mind would buy a JK that gest such bad MPG when the JL can be bought also. Maybe the JK's will be priced less, there's not a lot of pricing info. available yet. Again if Jeep is being forced to sell the JK and JL together because of retooling at Toledo, it doesn't make much sense that one model would blow away the other in terms of MPGS, but again I hope that the JL does get better MPG's

All I'm saying is from Jeep's past record I don't see the MPG's jumping all that much, but I hope they do nevertheless.

What are your guesses as to the JL's 3 power train options in terms of MPGs?

Sponsored