My Gig Question

[TheGillz]

I've used my completely stock X (only have the limited slip) plenty off road and on difficult terrain....

please, do tell...

Acually never mind. This has been gone over ad nausium in a million different 4.0 v. 3.8 threads, and I doubt anything new could be added to the discusion.

The fact is the JK is a more solid peice of offroad in every way than the TJ except it has the same 6 speed tranny, and the engine. The engine debate is over. Gears fix the lack of low end torque issues.

Yawn.

 

[Root Moose]

Reading between the lines I'm guessing it is the front axle housings cracking that he is alluding too.

Or something else?

 

[madizell]

At the risk of perpetuating a debate I don't really want to get deeply into, I disagree that gears will fix whatever problems a motor might offer: gears can aid in the use of whatever power and torque is available, but can't cause the motor to make more power and torque than it already does, nor do gears change where in the power band power is made.

Jeep rates the new 3.8L V-6 with what, on paper, looks like good power and more than adequate torque (205/237), but where the HP and torque peaks is just silly for an off road vehicle. The last time I was off road on anything that peaked torque at or above 4,000 rpm, I was riding a motocross bike.

As a comparison the old 3.7L V-6 that was used in Jeeps 40 years ago made 160hp and 240 ft/lb of torque, with peaks around 3,000 and 2,000 rpm respectively. A lot more usable off road, but still getting nearly 20mpg on the highway with a Rochester 2bbl carburetor. Because of the insane amount of low end torque, the older V-6 is very tolerant of tire and load changes without needing gear changes.

Gearing changes will tend to make better use of power available at the more limited end of the spectrum, but these same changes will also shorten the useful range of each gear, so there is a trade-off. No one gets a free ride.

 

[Root Moose]

I'll disagree with a caveat.

Samurais with 1.3-1.6 liter engines, 5.12+ gears in the axle, 6:1 transfer cases and 35"+ tires seem to get around rock crawling quite nicely.

But, no one said it was fast or a pleasant highway experience.

What really pisses me off about the JK is the crappy build quality. In this day and age I shouldn't see thin paint in the door jambs. I shouldn't see nasty plastic mouldings around the windshield frame that look like they are about to fly off. I shouldn't see the side of the tub flex inward an inch or more with the impact of closing the rear doors.

I still love them and would likely buy one if the opportunity presented itself. These things wouldn't bother me if I didn't like them. As soon as they came out they made TJs look old fashioned to me.

But c'mon, we've had engineering CAD/CAM software that can do a proper analysis of these issues for a decade or two now. Get with it Jeep.

The cast axle tubes snapping don't bother me. It's annoying as all he!! like the stuff mentioned above but it wouldn't keep me from buying one (like the above). Weld on a truss and be happy.

As far as the engine is concerned, couldn't care. Sure, I'd prefer something with a lower torque peak but it is way down the list of things that bother me about the JK.

$0.02

 

[CA-RJ]

I'm still waiting to hear what you have to say.

It's complete and utter junk.

Do yourself a favor, avoid the Infinity sound package if at all possible, install your own stereo and add a Garmin or Baja540c. :26_7_2:

Though, personally, from someone who has been selling new Jeeps for a while, I wouldn't recommend ANYTHING made by them since 2006 (and that's only because the Wrangler still had the 4.0 then), to anyone who plans on using their vehicle off-road or in difficult terrain.

I could go into detail, but I don't want to offend anyone.

 

[TheGillz]

As long as the thread is officially hijacked....