No more Wrangler?

[Root Moose]

So....why did Jeep drop the I6 for the JK? A beloved motor years through that was quite arguably more appropriate for the JK.

The rambler engine was a fine tractor motor but it was having difficulties keeping up with emissions standards. They did pretty much everything they could to it short of a major redesign. The DIS system was the last "bolt-on" mod they could do.

I think the 3.8 is a fine motor. The 3.8 would have worked well in the TJ. The JK is a bigger vehicle; people would probably complain about the 4.0 in the JK. They should have offered the JK with the 4.8 V8 as an option.

 

[NOMADIC_LJ]

I know 3 JK owners (all 4 door models) and they HATE the V6 dog that came under the hood. For the 2 door it seems more appropriate but (from what I hear) Chrysler f'ed up not offering a V8 option at least.

When I bought my LJ I was looking at the JK coming out then. I saw the pictures and after driving one I bought my LJ. Electric windows? really??

Jeep as a whole will be fine. I think its one of the brighter spots for Chrysler.

 

[Zeero]

I know 3 JK owners (all 4 door models) and they HATE the V6 dog that came under the hood. For the 2 door it seems more appropriate but (from what I hear) Chrysler f'ed up not offering a V8 option at least.

A whole 3 4 door owners...well then they must be right. :elkgrin:

Look Nomadic, I'm not being an MMM, really, I have read your other posts and you're a level dude, so no worries. :victory:

But, that said, I gotta say this...I am in a very unique position, being an Expedition leader, forum owner, and JK enthusiast....I know just a touch over 200 JK owners, all whom I have met and trail ridden with, about %90 of them are 4 door owners, and they all say without question the 3.8 V6 is a more than adequate motor.

The only INTELLIGENT upgrade for the JK as far as drive goes is a diesel motor and gearing....max. 5.13's.

Anything else is for speed junkies, mud boggers and rock crawlers and people who couldn't care less about fuel consumption.

As it stands, and as we are on an appropriate forum for it, the JK and the 3.8 are a more than acceptable motor and vehicle for expedition travel.

Modified correctly the JK, with its 3.8 V6, will perform modestly and well in a long term expedition format, as, in my opinion, they were designed to do.

The only area Chrysler messed up on, was failing to offer the VM diesel in North America for the Wrangler, yet they dropped diesels into the Liberty and the Grand Cherokee.....but that was Chryslers doing. If Jeep were stand alone, it wouldn't have happened that way.

Again, Nomadic, no offence here, just my opinion. :sombrero:

 

[Pskhaat]

I don't think many are debating the adequacy of the 3.8v6, rather that other gasoline options available to Jeep (even I would continue to argue in another thread the I6) that would have made more sense.

Adequate is subjective when pulling 4 adults and gear towing a trailer at 13,000' up top highway grade.

The engine's fine, but can we not all agree there are better options? Correct me here, but do we collectively know that the 3.8v6 was targeted for the JK platform from the very beginning?

 

[computeruser]

I know 3 JK owners (all 4 door models) and they HATE the V6 dog that came under the hood. For the 2 door it seems more appropriate but (from what I hear) Chrysler f'ed up not offering a V8 option at least.

I've heard this, too, but remain somewhat confused - how is it that the whole rest of the world gets by just fine with engines putting out 202hp and 240lb/ft, yet we find this grossly inadequate? Is the powerband-gearing pairing so messed up that the thing has to be flogged to get anything out of it?

A Jeep is never going to be a Corvette, but it isn't supposed to be...

 

[JPNCA]

Hey its the curse of the Jeep.
Bantom
Willys
Kaiser
AMC
chrysler?

 

[Pskhaat]

First I don't own a JK but have driven many. I would definetely own a JK if I could fit the family in it, with any motor. OK, there so let me give a generic rant not necessarily specific to Jeep:

...202hp and 240lb/ft, yet we find this grossly inadequate? Is the powerband-gearing pairing so messed up that the thing has to be flogged to get anything out of it?

IMO yes that is indeed part of it, but we (this type of off-highway community) load these things up to GVWR with various equipment and gear and beyond, lift and increase air resistance, through large tires on them, tow trailers. THEN we drive 80mph to get to the trail head.

Not a Jeep thing, but my LC80 does amazingly well in power off-highway or anything less than 55mph even with the toughest grades. Demanding 75mph+ at GVWR out of her is a real chore. The LC100+'s V8 cures this but leaves the low-end IMO lacking.

It is a very tough fenceline to decide on which side to fall. I'm sure the JK's v6 was a compromise for each side and has left arguments on each side too.

One more thing, compare where the HP peak is in RPMs as well as where the torque peak is in RPMs. A quick search yields (someone correct me) that the 3.8 is overbored (96/87) which is a rule of thumb at a torque compromise to get the RPMs up enough for HP figures.

The torque peak is @4000 and the HP @5000 meaning that there is little if any operable torque rise. Contract to the earlier off-hwy friendly I6 where it's making torque right off of idle. With torque peak higher gearing should be kept possibly artificially low at leat in early gears. How many JK owners drive on the hwy nearing ~4000rpm? To compensate for that I'm sure the JK's intake runners are very short (?) to help flatten the curve allowing for a decent highway feel across the band but which would make one rely on the skinny pedal for off-hwy obstacles rather than the "grunt" of the slowing engine.

There are compromises everywhere in engine design.

 

[NOMADIC_LJ]

The only INTELLIGENT upgrade for the JK as far as drive goes is a diesel motor and gearing....max. 5.13's.

The only area Chrysler messed up on, was failing to offer the VM diesel in North America for the Wrangler, yet they dropped diesels into the Liberty and the Grand Cherokee.....but that was Chryslers doing. If Jeep were stand alone, it wouldn't have happened that way.

Agree 100%. A powered diesel rubi would be top notch!

Again, Nomadic, no offence here, just my opinion. :sombrero:

Hey no worries man, were all just stating opinions here:ylsmoke:

 

[JIMBO]

:wings: Donner pass,7000 ft, loaded JK, trailer, camping gear

-----------------------DUCK-SOUP----------------------------

:victory::bike_rider::safari-rig::safari-rig: JIMBO

 

[Zeero]

4000 RPM on the highway?? What highway are they driving on??

On the highway, I routinely cruise at around 110km/hr, I think that is around the 55-60 MPH mark. No need at all, to go any faster than that.

Loaded out with 1000 lbs of gear, at 110 km/hr, my tach reads just a hair over 2000 RPM and just under 2100 RPMs.

The fuel last an agreeable length of time and distance, and the JK isn't overworked at all, up and down the hills of Central Ontario in the Canadian Shield, in extremely high humidity and excessively freezing cold.

A good option to reduce RPM's when towing trailers is re-gearing to 4.88's or 5.13's. That would solve any issues anyone has. The motor in itself is fine.

 

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: Well said and very true

First I don't own a JK but have driven many. I would definetely own a JK if I could fit the family in it, with any motor. OK, there so let me give a generic rant not necessarily specific to Jeep:



IMO yes that is indeed part of it, but we (this type of off-highway community) load these things up to GVWR with various equipment and gear and beyond, lift and increase air resistance, through large tires on them, tow trailers. THEN we drive 80mph to get to the trail head.

Not a Jeep thing, but my LC80 does amazingly well in power off-highway or anything less than 55mph even with the toughest grades. Demanding 75mph+ at GVWR out of her is a real chore. The LC100+'s V8 cures this but leaves the low-end IMO lacking.

It is a very tough fenceline to decide on which side to fall. I'm sure the JK's v6 was a compromise for each side and has left arguments on each side too.

One more thing, compare where the HP peak is in RPMs as well as where the torque peak is in RPMs. A quick search yields (someone correct me) that the 3.8 is overbored (96/87) which is a rule of thumb at a torque compromise to get the RPMs up enough for HP figures.

The torque peak is @4000 and the HP @5000 meaning that there is little if any operable torque rise. Contract to the earlier off-hwy friendly I6 where it's making torque right off of idle. With torque peak higher gearing should be kept possibly artificially low at leat in early gears. How many JK owners drive on the hwy nearing ~4000rpm? To compensate for that I'm sure the JK's intake runners are very short (?) to help flatten the curve allowing for a decent highway feel across the band but which would make one rely on the skinny pedal for off-hwy obstacles rather than the "grunt" of the slowing engine.

There are compromises everywhere in engine design.

My pic above, at Donner with a load, shows the JK cruising at level/slight incline, around 2200 rpm (with OD) and the Auto downshift, to around 4000/4300 rpm for steep climb

It does it easy and with my loud Flowmaster duel-takes any drone, lug/ sounds away, but

Still gets around 18 mpg, in all the flat freeway travel

:coffeedrink::bike_rider::safari-rig::safari-rig: JIMBO

 

[alosix]

Hey its the curse of the Jeep.
Bantom
Willys
Kaiser
AMC
chrysler?

That does appear to be the deal there doesn't it. Sad thing is that for each of those Jeep was one of the few things they were making money on and one of the few things they could sell when they needed to raise money.

GM probably would have bought it and sold them under the Hummer line a while ago, but that's not going to happen now.

To get to the motor argument. I've owned a TJ in various stages of build for about 12 years and had a year with a stock 4 door rubi. The TJ (AW-4, 4.10s, and 33s) was considerably quicker than the rubi. It had less trouble towing (though was harder to drive towing).

The 3.8, for the stock rubi wasn't bad. Drove nice with the 6 spd. Power was reasonable, but after driving the TJ it felt slow. I'd also imagine that they'd feel really sluggish with the auto tranny in them.

The 4 doors probably should have had at least the 4.7 V8 as an option. The 2.8 VM motor should have been in there from the start.

Jason

 

[nwoods]

The origional article has been updated to indicate that Jeep Wrangler is not on the table:
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2009/05/jeep-ram-to-stay-with-newco/

 

[Zeero]

It still is undefinitive, and I think the majority of Jeep enthusiasts would like to see Jeep go stand alone and separate from Chrysler.....who clearly doesn't have the interests in what the common Jeep enthusiast is looking for.

The JK, the way it was released was marginally accepted by the Chrysler execs. We need to get these trucks into the hands of the Jeep team and really hit the market with a real product.

 

[JPNCA]

That does appear to be the deal there doesn't it. Sad thing is that for each of those Jeep was one of the few things they were making money on and one of the few things they could sell when they needed to raise money.

GM probably would have bought it and sold them under the Hummer line a while ago, but that's not going to happen now.

To get to the motor argument. I've owned a TJ in various stages of build for about 12 years and had a year with a stock 4 door rubi. The TJ (AW-4, 4.10s, and 33s) was considerably quicker than the rubi. It had less trouble towing (though was harder to drive towing).

The 3.8, for the stock rubi wasn't bad. Drove nice with the 6 spd. Power was reasonable, but after driving the TJ it felt slow. I'd also imagine that they'd feel really sluggish with the auto tranny in them.

The 4 doors probably should have had at least the 4.7 V8 as an option. The 2.8 VM motor should have been in there from the start.

Jason

Good point Jeep lasted ror a reason. Don't get me wrong I have a TJ, WJ and I just sold my CJ5 to a buddy that had more time than I did. I am a Fan and hope the brend lasts! :victory: