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

[Deleted member 9101]

If I knew the answer to that, I would be employed by ford to fix the issue. 4 in the past month or two burned on the highways here. Common issue in our parts.

Florida Highway Patrol has a fleet of them that get run pretty hard and they haven't had a single one catch fire...lol.

 

[autism family travels]

Florida Highway Patrol has a fleet of them that get run pretty hard and they haven't had a single one catch fire...lol.

well, as mentioned 4 new Fords with ecoboosts have caught fire on the roads here in the past month or two. It is odd for sure. Our 2 5.0s are dandy. I love that motor.

Either way, the bronc is way overpriced when you compare a similarly spec'ed JL. screwed by the sasquatch pricing. They have that overpriced by 4k here.

 

[Jurfie]

No it doesn't. It runs on 87.

I don't think that's right; the SRT 6.4 (which is the one in the Wrangler 392) needs premium. The 6.4 in the Ram is not the SRT version and runs on 87.

 

[Explorerinil]

I don't think that's right; the SRT 6.4 (which is the one in the Wrangler 392) needs premium. The 6.4 in the Ram is not the SRT version and runs on 87.

I ran my 2014 grand Cherokee SRT with the 6.4 for 100,000 problem free miles from day one when bought new running it on 87 octane. When I bought it for my wife the dealer said run it on 87, I never questioned that and that’s what we did until we traded it in recently for a Tahoe.

 

[Jurfie]

I ran my 2014 grand Cherokee SRT with the 6.4 for 100,000 problem free miles from day one when bought new running it on 87 octane. When I bought it for my wife the dealer said run it on 87, I never questioned that and that’s what we did until we traded it in recently for a Tahoe.

Okay, maybe I should have qualified: premium is recommended. I tend to follow the manufacturer’s recommendation, but it may run just fine on lower octane. YMMV (at your own risk).

 

[autism family travels]

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.

 

[Jurfie]

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.

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.

 

[Explorerinil]

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.

The SRT grand Cherokee I had ran fine, or knock for 100,000 miles on 87, and the dealer told me to run that in it. The 392 Jeep will come down in price, just like the challenger hellcat when it came out.

 

[autism family travels]

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 would put the higher octane stuff in too. The ecoboost needs that as well. ANY turbo motor should really. I am comparing apples to apples here. I would not buy the 392, nor would I buy a new bronco with the prices the way they are. both are extremely overpriced. One because the low milage of the hemi in the jeep and two, the insanely overpriced sasquatch package for the bronco. Simple.

 

[TrailWhalePowerwagon]

powerwagon requires midgrade with the 6.4... i say require because its recommended but as stated... who the hell would want to deal with engine knock and lower power. I would never go lower then the recommended for longevity and reliability purposes.

 

[wADVr]

The knock sensors should reduce if not eliminate the knock but at a performance cost Also most of these engines never see the real loads to create much knock anyway. The 8 speed won’t let you lug the engine much and the short gear ratio separation keeps the revs high when going through the gears. If your 90%-WOT to maintain speed you’re driving a 6 cylinder or doing to much..

IMO, the 5.7 should have been the normal mass distributed engine option along with the diesel for the JK/JL and have special packages for the 6.4/Hellcat etc engines. Just like the WK2 Grand Cherokee, Ram1500... I do appreciate the last effort in keeping the V8 alive though.

 

[Explorerinil]

powerwagon requires midgrade with the 6.4... i say require because its recommended but as stated... who the hell would want to deal with engine knock and lower power. I would never go lower then the recommended for longevity and reliability purposes.

It’s not required but recommended, 16,000 miles on my power wagon all running cheap Costco 87, runs great, no issues here. Several 6.4 hemi service trucks in my area, all run 87, one with 200k on it... all run fine.

 

[billiebob]

I wish they would offer it on the Sport rather than the Rubicon.

And it should be in the JT!!
This would be an incredible combination.... if it were tuned to tow.

 

[Todd780]

I wish they would offer it on the Sport rather than the Rubicon.

And it should be in the JT!!
This would be an incredible combination.... if it were tuned to tow.

View attachment 640017

Yep, towing performance is what would keep me out of a JT.

 

[Septu]

HP premium fuel gulping V8's where cool back in the day on the boulevard. Not today and not needed in a off road Jeep. I will be keeping my JLR V6, plenty of power.

Lack of power when towing in the mountains was something that I always noticed with my 2012 JKUR and my little M101 coming in at ~1500 lbs wasn't heavy by any means. I notice it even more with my current 2010 sport with a 6spd (2012 was an auto). It was just one of the reasons I'm moving to a Grand Cherokee with the 5.7L V8.