Who else is happy with the Pentastar?

[joeym7]

Here is the vid I mentioned, I am going to watch it again:

Sponsored

 

[Snake Eyes]

Just to add on

Love my Gladiator engine. And since we are throwing in our others….Traded in this pocket rocket for my gladiator. It had launch control with a 0-60 of 4.2. Low weight and perfect balance. Passing power incredible. People never realized what it had until all they saw was my license plate in the distance.

 

[cb4017]

It's fine.

I suppose it's all relative and subject to your own experience and expectations.

My last few vehicles had pretty underwhelming performance and I didn't expect the gladiator be quick quite or high performance vehicle so I was pretty happy with the engine and got more or less what I expected.

Also the way I drive doesn't really demand any more performance then offered.

Just what I was thinking.
My first car in HS was a 51 Ford with flathead 6. I grew up on cars from the 60s on. Anyone who thinks the 3.6L is a slug should try driving a car from the late 70s-early 80s. Now those were slugs.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Just what I was thinking.
My first car in HS was a 51 Ford with flathead 6. I grew up on cars from the 60s on. Anyone who thinks the 3.6L is a slug should try driving a car from the late 70s-early 80s. Now those were slugs.

When three things collided for the perfect storm against cars with HP:

Insurance companies - HP was toned down, compression lowered, engines of high displacement generally on the way out.........insurance companies "incentivized" owning a car with a modest engine.
Oil embargo - when the national speed limit is 55, what good is 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? You could (legally) only drive so fast.
CAFE/emissions - high HP in those days meant high fuel consumption, lower MPG, and high emissions

On the other hand, it didn't take much to make the cars from the 70s and 80s go fast. Isky, Crane, Edelbrock, Hooker, Headman, Offenhauser, and a host of others helped.

A neighbor drives his Ford flathead V8 to the salt flats each year to run it..... he's got a cool selection of performance parts for the flathead engines. A bumper sticker on his 48 Ford says "Just say no to valve covers".

- Gene's Ford -
flathead V8, T5, front brakes and spindles from my 73 Javelin, custom lowering plates to set scrub radius while lowering the front end a bit, and more.

 

[Charles 236]

I really like the 3.6 Pentastar and upgraded Pentastar engines. Easy to work on, great power for such a (relatively) simple engine. When the Pentastar first came out about ten years ago, I told the young techs in the shop to get used to them, those 3.6s were going to be the main engines in Chrysler products. When the Pentastar is combined with the eight speed transmission, it has excellent performance for it's size. I have never seen any chassis dyno numbers on the Pentastar, but I believe that it will put more power to the wheels than most of the big engines from the '60s and '70s, speaking as one who has driven and worked on many of those cars and trucks.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I really like the 3.6 Pentastar and upgraded Pentastar engines. Easy to work on, great power for such a (relatively) simple engine. When the Pentastar first came out about ten years ago, I told the young techs in the shop to get used to them, those 3.6s were going to be the main engines in Chrysler products. When the Pentastar is combined with the eight speed transmission, it has excellent performance for it's size. I have never seen any chassis dyno numbers on the Pentastar, but I believe that it will put more power to the wheels than most of the big engines from the '60s and '70s, speaking as one who has driven and worked on many of those cars and trucks.

Sort of hard to directly compare............. since HP is the ability to do work over time, or the rate at which work is done - that being said, even if I added weight to my 73, the Gladiator would have a tough time making it 1320 feet in the same amount of time or less than this............
But then, to be a fair test, I'd have to add 1500 pounds into the car since the Gladiator is a pretty heavy vehicle. That 1500 pounds may just be the equalizer. Fun test.

The car is 3300 pounds without me in it - so it's really an unfair advantage.
Am I correct that the Gladiator is roughly 4800 pounds, maybe it's 4900, depending on transmission and other equipment?

It's easy to think back to fast cars of the 60s and 70s and the brute power between the front fenders, but we forget the weight differences.
Strip 1500 pounds from the Gladiator and it's going to get a whole lot more "Zippy" for sure.
And all of that is being done in a fraction of the weight and displacement of the 70s.

 

[Charles 236]

Yeah, the change of horsepower ratings from "gross" to "SAE net" in '72 makes the '72 and up engines look far weaker than the earlier ones. I realize that vehicles have gained a good bit of weight since the '60s and '70s. But I do know that my wife's 3.6 Charger has enough get up and go to be competitive with an average late '60s "muscle car". The weight of modern vehicles "masks" the performance and makes it feel slower than it actually is. The average truly "stock" (not super tuned for the magazine testing) muscle car ran closer to 15 second quarter mile times than most old timers (myself included) would like to admit.

 

[WhyNotJeep]

A 2 door JL Rubicon with the auto and no top or doors would have to be a fast little Jeep.

 

[rr11]

I had a 69 Boss 302 (gradation present in 70) great power, but the suspension was terrible. Rear end would brake loose on a hard curve. Tried one a few years back and thought that my 06 GT was a much better handling car. I still miss that car my Ex totaled it in 74 of course with the oil embargo it was not worth much at that time.

 

[Reasoner]

I think for driving around town at moderate/lower speeds, it’s fantastic. Plenty of power for zipping around on the city roads here.

However, If I really want to stomp on the gas, I feel like it’s pretty disappointing. I am coming from a 2-door 2.0 turbo though. So I miss the extra oomph.

Although a bit slow, I will say that the pentastar feels very smooth. Much smoother than the turbo. It is extremely predictable and the power curve seems very straight. The 2.0 turbo is definitely faster overall, but was a bit ‘jumpy’ at times.

I also had a 2018 Tacoma once, and the power delivery seriously felt like it was either 20% or 100%. It was awful. It felt slower than the pentastar the majority of the time driving, and you would have to mash the pedal to get anything out of the engine, which would send it screaming like a rocket. It was basically either super slow or super fast. Horrible for city driving. I hated that truck.

While the gladiator doesn’t seem to have the same oomph as the Tacoma or 2.0 turbo when mashing the gas, it’s very easy find and use the entire range of power, unlike the others.

 

[badtux]

The Pentastar is boring. That's both good and bad. As a boring engine, it's easy to maintain and doesn't have a lot of complexity to make it hard to repair. As a boring engine, if you're towing something heavy it's rather underwhelming. As a boring engine, it can be okay unloaded with the right gearing, but you're never going to confuse it with a sports car.

I deliberately chose boring because boring is reliable and if I wanted a sports car I would buy one. I do envy the Ford folks with their Ecoboost engines, which both get good fuel economy and if you stick your foot into it have great grunt, but they're barely less complex than the Ecodiesel. So.

Boring. But boring isn't necessary bad.

 

[Geoarch]

I've had my JT for about 6 months now, and I have to say I'm surprisingly happy with the Pentastar. I was on the fence about going diesel but couldn't justify it for many reasons. Cons outweighed the pros for me. The Pentastar starts easy in really cold weather. It's quiet. Does just fine towing my TT. Has more than enough power for what I use it for. I came from a V6 Tacoma and I like it better than that engine.

That's good to hear about the Tacoma. My JTR Manual comes 7/1 and I'm selling my Tacoma TRDPro, and was wondering. I did test drive an auto Rubicon and was impressed with that. We'll see in a week and a half.

Edit: I’ve now had my MT JTR for two weeks and hands down beats the TRDPro that was also a manual. I will say that the torque is similar, but the Jeep “feels” more powerful on the road even though the JTR is about 500 lbs heavier. Installed Mopar lift and Warn winch and 315/70R17s today and we’ll see. Low range is definitely lower, and I haven’t had a straight axle since my 73 CJ5 in the 80s. Have a wheeling trip planned next week and I’ll get back with my impressions then.

 

[XraytecH]

I like it a lot better now after a Re-Gear to 4.88

But of course we all want more.

 

[Greg Biggs]

I love it. I have zero complaints. The only thing I’d rather have in it is the 5.7L which obviously isn’t offered.

You. are not alone. I too am quite happy with the Star engine. That 5.7 I had in 2016 RAM would be so sweet in my Mojave. Ive seen where that 392 bumps up the price to like $100,000 !! I believe Ill just keep my 3.6 L

 

[Geoarch]

You. are not alone. I too am quite happy with the Star engine. That 5.7 I had in 2016 RAM would be so sweet in my Mojave. Ive seen where that 392 bumps up the price to like $100,000 !! I believe Ill just keep my 3.6 L

I assume you’ve had it through a Montana winter? How’d it do? We don’t get quite as cold down here in NM, but get to single digits fairly often.

Sponsored