2011 Wrangler rollout this summer

[4Rescue]

"The [Pentastar V6]'s torque exceeds 90 percent of its peak value from
1,600 to 6,400 rpm"
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html

that would make torque at 1600 rpm at least 234 ft-lb.

Also in the article quoted is news that Chrysler has a direct injection
version of the V6. That means better fuel economy and maybe better
power, at the expense of extra noise. The article says the direct
injection motor will be used in trucks and the Wrangler because their
owners won't care about the noise!

Good find Haven, guess I was wrong about the power-band. THat's great news. I'll still reserve judgement untill I see it myself eh but 234ft./lbs. @ 1400 is near diesel like and WAY more suited to truck usage IMO and off-road driving then the Current set-up.

I am howeer kind of leary about figures coming out of detroit these days . Seems like they're all making some odd and somehwat bloated claims just to out-do one another to try to generate some sales these days. Kind of like the 60's muscle car era all over again.

I...
However the current engine doesn't make "far more HP" at all. It's rated at 202HP, where the last of the 4.0 I-6 were 190HP. I think you were confusing that with the I-4 option they offered back then (147HP.)

Actualy I thought that the 3.8 had more HP then that... I'm worng all over the place...not a good night for me eh :snorkel: I thought that they made 220 or so, my bad. Having owned quite a few 4.0L's I was never very happy with the feeling of the new JK motor but then I prefer my tractors to a bit truck like, not the other way around

Cheers

Dave

 

[RedDog]

No diesel, no sale. If Volkswagen can do it, they can do it. Our office manager just bought a new TDI Jetta and the thing idles quieter than my TJ while adhering to all emission requirements. She commutes 200 km per day (return) into the city from a cattle ranch and doubled her fuel mileage vs. the Chrysler Sebring she traded in.

For the record diesel here is cheaper than gasoline.

 

[RedRocker]

I waited and waited for a decent engine in a JK, diesel, V-8, even a V-6 with some guts, to no avail. I bought an 06 LJ Rubi, not exactly a power house, but the 4.0 is a great engine and has been around a while.

 

[6Pins]

Out of curiosity, how many of these complaints about power are on JK's with automatic transmissions? I've got a manual in mine (which I did need to factory order) and while it's not the fastest thing on the planet, I can keep up with traffic on I-95 when I head to south to the in-laws, and it is more than sufficient to climb the hills and mountains around the Blue Ridge Mountains where I live.

Yes a diesel is nice and desirable, but unless that comes along, I don't see any glaring faults with it.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Yes, the new motor is much more modern. I have done some work on it and it should be a big improvement over the current engine. Not sure about a turbo in a jeep however - I would pass on one due to durability and complexity concerns. Also, not much benefit to my type of driving and not great towing as well. Much rather have a supercharger for that. I do work for Eaton and they have some impressive stuff coming out that would be really interesting in a Wrangler type vehicle.

Why would a turbo have durability or complexity concerns? It's one extra rotating shaft? When was the last time you heard somebody say "I don't want a turbo diesel in my truck, those turbos are unreliable" ?

Why would they not be great for towing? A small turbo can make more low end torque, and much more horsepower later on, than an Eaton blower.

It's not the 80's anymore. Turbos have come a long way. Superchargers are still stuck with horrible thermodynamic efficiency.

Here's an example of a modern turbo system:

175 ft-lbs of torque at 2600 rpm, at only 7psi, non-intercooled, on a 2.0L engine. And that's at the wheels, so about 200 crank.

Here's the same engine, with an Eaton blower, roughly the same boost level.

The supercharged engine has an advantage below 2300rpm. I guess if drive at that RPM a lot...

 

[Root Moose]

Excited about this new engine!

I'm also interested to see the new interior. I've heard some stuff but am reserving judgement till I see it.

 

[Metcalf]

I swear! I am going to have to build my own vehicle from scratch to get what I want. The J8 is the closest thing on the market....and its still missing a lot of details I want. I wish they would do a consumer level diesel jeep. The Liberty diesel did well from what I remember, even with some issues from the factory it has a strong following. They also offer a diesel option in every other market except the USA....that is just like a slap in the face!

 

[keithro]

Better V6 with a 5 Speed Automatic this time, the gearing is too wide on the 4 speed!

 

[4Rescue]

No diesel, no sale. If Volkswagen can do it, they can do it. Our office manager just bought a new TDI Jetta and the thing idles quieter than my TJ while adhering to all emission requirements. She commutes 200 km per day (return) into the city from a cattle ranch and doubled her fuel mileage vs. the Chrysler Sebring she traded in.

For the record diesel here is cheaper than gasoline.

Yep... My mom just bought herself a TDI Jetta Sport-Wagon and that thing is AMAZING!!!! Get's 52mpg and can pass in 6th gear...NEVER short on power and I love the 6spd manual. Odly enough she traded in A late 90's Chrysler Sirus w/320k on the odo that handled amazingly (the Sirus/Stratus twins were very wide and hadled amazingly with a good suspension under them), had some modest power and still got 32+mpg... Sure seems like cars are almost going backwards these days.

I'm really dissapointed at the lack of diesels in in the US but that's noting new eh I've been beating that drum for years...

Cheers

Dave

 

[JK-Mg1212]

Why would a turbo have durability or complexity concerns? It's one extra rotating shaft? When was the last time you heard somebody say "I don't want a turbo diesel in my truck, those turbos are unreliable" ?

Why would they not be great for towing? A small turbo can make more low end torque, and much more horsepower later on, than an Eaton blower.

It's not the 80's anymore. Turbos have come a long way. Superchargers are still stuck with horrible thermodynamic efficiency.

Here's an example of a modern turbo system:

175 ft-lbs of torque at 2600 rpm, at only 7psi, non-intercooled, on a 2.0L engine. And that's at the wheels, so about 200 crank.

Here's the same engine, with an Eaton blower, roughly the same boost level.

The supercharged engine has an advantage below 2300rpm. I guess if drive at that RPM a lot...

Sounds like you like turbos. Expensive when they die to replace. Not sure what you mean about 80's tech. Audi just adopted an Eaton system (moving away from exclusively using turbos) and the Vette motor is a screamer (to just name a couple recent examples). You will see many more supercharged boosted engines in the future - even small displacement applications. Turbos can be a good solution but just not for me in a Jeep type vehicle. I personally like the lower rpm grunt that a supercharger can produce in an off-highway vehicle. So yes I do tend to spend a lot of time at lower rpm when off road. In all honesty I would rather just have a torquey engine with sufficient power that is not boosted for off- highway but I think the trend will be much lower displacement as we go forward. Did Eaton produce a SC for the Zetec?

 

[Root Moose]

Buddy of mine just bought a Audi A3. 2.0 liter turbo that only gets 200 hp.

We were joking last night that it must be setup for efficiency cause it certainly ain't power. He's getting almost 300 hp (normally aspirated) out of his S2000 so it's a bit of a running gag. He complains hat the new A2 has no low end torque. LOL

 

[alosix]

Sounds like you like turbos.

And it appears you like superchargers, we get that

Expensive when they die to replace

I guess that depends on you def of expensive. $600 to $1000 for a vital engine part that has good durability doesn't seem all that bad to me.

The only normal vulnerability for a turbo is ingesting something. So long as the intake is intact and the exhaust doesn't feed anything into it I don't see an issue. In any normal case, if your exhaust throws something @ the turbo that would kill it you have much bigger issues than a dead turbo.

Now, there is a bit of a caveat there some manufacturers that believe they should put a cat in the space between the engine and the turbo. Those manufacturers (Subaru) should be beaten for that.

 

[alosix]

Buddy of mine just bought a Audi A3. 2.0 liter turbo that only gets 200 hp.

We were joking last night that it must be setup for efficiency cause it certainly ain't power. He's getting almost 300 hp (normally aspirated) out of his S2000 so it's a bit of a running gag. He complains hat the new A2 has no low end torque. LOL

Those things are one hell of an undertuned mess from the factory. Always have been.

They'll outrun the V6 version with just a little computer work.

Jason

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Sounds like you like turbos. Expensive when they die to replace. Not sure what you mean about 80's tech. Audi just adopted an Eaton system (moving away from exclusively using turbos) and the Vette motor is a screamer (to just name a couple recent examples). You will see many more supercharged boosted engines in the future - even small displacement applications. Turbos can be a good solution but just not for me in a Jeep type vehicle. I personally like the lower rpm grunt that a supercharger can produce in an off-highway vehicle. So yes I do tend to spend a lot of time at lower rpm when off road. In all honesty I would rather just have a torquey engine with sufficient power that is not boosted for off- highway but I think the trend will be much lower displacement as we go forward. Did Eaton produce a SC for the Zetec?

$800 for a basic journal bearing turbo, $1400 for a top-flight ball bearing job. I can't help what the OEM's charge at their parts counters, but aftermarket prices are not that bad.

Eaton didn't directly produce a blower, but Jackson Racing and Powerworks both made kits using Eaton blowers. The JR kits were pretty abysmal, the Powerworks kits were not bad.

I almost think the only reason an OEM would use a blower anymore is that they WANT to restrict power. They want the torque of forced induction, but don't want to make silly power at the top end, so they use a blower instead. Also on a V-engine, a blower is much easier to package, and easier to pass emissions.

Buddy of mine just bought a Audi A3. 2.0 liter turbo that only gets 200 hp.

We were joking last night that it must be setup for efficiency cause it certainly ain't power. He's getting almost 300 hp (normally aspirated) out of his S2000 so it's a bit of a running gag. He complains hat the new A2 has no low end torque. LOL

Yeah... VW is weird. Well, many of them (Subaru included) are still not optimizing the turbos. A lot of them are using KKK or IHI turbos which just aren't as good as the Garrett's, and usually with journal bearings instead of ball bearings, and some aren't even water cooled yet which is retarded.

The big problem with the Audi's though is... of course it feels gutless, how much does it weigh? An A4 quattro is like 3800lbs? So with all that traction and only 200hp, and usually with an auto trans... pfft! Forget about it.

So long as the intake is intact

Exactly. And if that same something went through a N/A engine, it would probably take out the valves anyway. So that's nothing unique to turbos.

Now, there is a bit of a caveat there some manufacturers that believe they should put a cat in the space between the engine and the turbo. Those manufacturers (Subaru) should be beaten for that.

Yeah, it is stupid, but it's not really Subaru's fault. That's more due to EPA regulations, particularly cold start emissions. You know, there's typical government bungling. Let's make a rule that really makes it hard to use a technology that can greatly improve mileage and thus emissions any time the engine is *not* cold.

 

[jingram]

Not sure how I missed this thread, but clearly coming to the party a little late. I have had quite a bit of experience with both roots type eaton setups and various turbo setups through the years, both factory and aftermarket.

02 Nissan Xterra SC: OE Spec Eaton M62
92 Honda Civic: JR Kit - Eaton M45
02 Subaru Impreza WRX - Mitsu TD04
04 Mitsu Lancer Evo - Custom t3/t4 hybrid
97 Integra - T28 custom

Modern OEM turbo setups are very reliable these days. Hell, even older setups were very reliable even without multi bb turbos and water cooled jackets. Clearly, you starting upping the boost or opening things up, slapping on a bigger turbo, etc. things change, but I wouldn't be averse to running an OE turbo setup. As others in this thread mentioned, there are a number of rock solid oe turbo applications and honestly, look at most heavy equipment or 18 wheeler and nearly all are running turbos. That isn't to say that turbos are without their faults, certainly they have their share... thing is, nearly all of them can be addressed with proper turbo sizing or moving to a variable vane or sequential turbo setup. That being said, not aware of any OE application that is currently using VV tech. Now, aftermarket setups are a different story entirely and unless the vehicle came with a turbo from the factory I would never go down that route in an expedition vehicle (mechanical diesel notwithstanding).

That all being said, in a expedition oriented setting, I can really see the merits of a roots/twin screw based Eaton setup over either a turbo or centrifugal SC setup. Sealed units, if a belt breaks you are simply NA with no issues, albeit NA with lower compression and hence power. Sure there is parasitic loss since they are belt driven, but in this application the losses shouldn't be great. The biggest issue is detonation/heat soak, but hard duty cycles should be taken into account by the OEM. Nissan is a prime example. While everybody knocked the SC on the Xterra/Frontier for low power output, I never heard much issue about detontation.

As was stated earlier though, the best solution though really is all motor if at all possible on a gasser. Typically cheaper fuel in truck applications and less to go wrong as there are simply less pieces to the puzzle. Especially important if you are in an area where you need to seek out service where understanding of turbo or SC setups simply isn't available.