LOL that's a 40 year old motor! You realize you're just making his point for him right?
Unfortunately its horrid reliability pretty much negates any and all of its positive characteristics.
That's a 5L v8 in a "muscle" car? Pathetic compared to a 5k pound brick powered by a minivan v6. The Bronco raptor powered by a modern twin turbo v6...is still slower. The JL is amazing compared to any standard. The most off road capable vehicle from the factory ever built...is quicker than 90s and even most early 2000s sports cars. Bring the 392 into the conversation it's even more ridiculous.
Yes, a 40 year old motor is pathetic compared to a modern motor. I don't think anyone here will disagree with you when you apply that to just about any two motors that fit those descriptions. It also matters that you happened to pick a particularly pathetic old motor. I mean, you could have picked the Buick 3.8l turbo from that era and your comparison does not go well at all.
I guess it depends on your definition of "any". But the JL is NOT amazing in the power department compared to any other modern SUV from any competing brand. It's also NOT amazing in the quality department compared to ALMOST any other modern SUV from any competing brand. There are however, MANY categories where the JL IS amazing.
Like I said, all those off road competitors have more power on paper... and manage to still be slower (and far worse offroad). Even the grand national only managed 245hp out of its larger and turbocharged v6. Is the JL beating modern sports cars? Only if you let me pick the track. Is it impressive just how quick it manages to be with its little minivan v6? Hell yes it is. I don't get the 40 year old motor argument either, go back 40 years from that fox body 5.0L... and you still had 200hp v8s? Maybe it's not simply an age question?
That Buick turbo V6 put out nearly 350hp. It was WAY underrated from the factory. But it's not important really because it's one, somewhat niche, example...the point was that you picked a particularly bad example of a 40 year old motor to compare to a current production engine. In 2026.
It's 30k better off road than other Jeeps?
Then in that case its because people enjoy looking like they are competent and rugged and they cant be seen in anything less than a v8 otherwise they wouldnt be a man.
With this rental Taos I sorely miss driving over curbs, which was a daily thing to beat gridlock, the little things people take for granted when driving a Wrangler, the Taos poor departure angle sucks also, and we haven't even left the city.
Yes but I feel that’s a Stella issue. The engine itself is so cool. Anyway - it’s a brand new piece of engineering. It takes a few generations to iron out. It took BMW almost 20 years to turn the abysmal 4.4L TwinTurbo V8 into the S68-power-and-reliability leader it is now.
The JL does 0-60 in ~6.1... but 7.1 for the Silverado turbo 4 is faster? Sounds about like the Bronco fans math now. 6s 0-60 is quick for anything that can run the Rubicon trail period. Most other rigs I've built up to run the trail were likely double that. And if we're bringing in modern v8s, why are we comparing them to the v6? The 392 exists and is still available. I think anyone who's doesn't any time at the track would agree that the fox body is probably the basis of more drag/bracket cars than any vehicle ever and yet it's a bad example of 0-60? To me it's the perfect example of just how pathetic vehicle performance was from the mid 70s to the mid 2000s. Slower than a stock JL is wild for one of the most raced vehicles in human history.
