Bronco Killer: Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 470HP 392 CONFIRMED for 2021 Q1 sales.

[Twistnshout]

And reduce performance at the same time. Who buys a high-displacement, high-horsepower engine (or turbocharged one, for that matter) and doesn’t want to squeeze every bit of power out of it? Or is happy with engine knock? Or is willing to have the manufacturer void the warranty because you didn’t follow their instructions?

And I have an A5; it says to use 91 not 93. And I do. Putting 87 in it once in a while out of necessity (as you allude to in your post) is likely okay, but not on a regular basis.

The 392 Wrangler is what, $70k? More? Not sure as pricing hasn’t yet been released, if I’m not mistaken. If you are able to afford that, you can afford premium gas; if not, you shouldn’t own one. It’s like people who get a dog but won’t give it quality food or take it to the vet because it is too expensive.

I agree with this with the exception of the dog part. My rule of thumb is the dog costs should never exceeds it's replacement value.

 

[Twistnshout]

Love my 3.6 and think it's plenty powerful. Usually you dont need BIG power when wheeling, but who doesnt want more?

I wont be buying one but those that do arent going to care much about premium gas. For me I do care since it likely wont be available where I will be going. For ME I'd much rather get one that doesnt require premium. I could see myself one day going 5.7.

And yes for sure the gladiator needs the diesel or bigger power if one tows a lot. If not the 3.6 works fine.

Since bronco was brought up and the reason jeep went 392, I want to thank bronco! I just wish bronco didnt have the lame IFS. Quite a disappointment for serious wheelers. It will be fun as hell going fast on fire roads with that sweet 2.7 (that catches fire lol), and overlanding. But in real tech a solid axle is preferred.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

today's vehicles will adjust automatically for gas quality. I have a mercedes GLK and an audi A4, Both are listed to run 93, We have had to put 87 in and you cannot tell the difference. They will automatically retard timing to compensate for the lower octane.

There is a noticable difference in performance and fuel economy with an EcoBoost between 87 and 91.

 

[Twistnshout]

There is a noticable difference in performance and fuel economy with an EcoBoost between 87 and 91.

Yeah I've heard the same. I think it's great that ford's turbo's will allow you to go 87, but I havent read anywhere that the 392's have that same flexability. If it did that would change things for me. In fact, if superchargers would allow the same thing I would much rather go that route.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Yeah I've heard the same. I think it's great that ford's turbo's will allow you to go 87, but I havent read anywhere that the 392's have that same flexability. If it did that would change things for me. In fact, if superchargers would allow the same thing I would much rather go that route.

IIRC it's something like a 20-30 HP difference.

The issue with a supercharger is it's harder for the ECM to regulate boost to go along with the timing being pulled back for lower octaine fuel. A turbocharged vehicle just opens the waste gate and it can dump as much as it needs.