Overall who's pretty pleased with the power output of their Gladiator

[Alabama Mud Machine]

ONLY if it's a manual non-synchronized transmission, synchronizers take all the skills out of shifting a manual.

Far from the truth... You've obviously never shifted a newer Ford MT-82 at redline... It's got synchros, but there are times it don't act like it! I've owned 2 GT's with them... It takes some serious skill and practice to go from 2nd to 3rd on redline while keeping the car straight and monitoring the road. Luckily I'm pretty damn good.

Sponsored

 

[5JeepsAz]

Way to miss the point.



The MT itself is traditionalist. The asshat berating anyone who doesn't own one is an elitist. That is unless you daily something with non-boosted drum brakes, manual steering boxes, and a carburetor.

Old doesn't mean better.

I resemble that remark! If by asshat you mean A/T denier we agree. While not an asshat denier, I am an asshat obstructionist when it comes to my Jeep. Because A/Ts are for cars. Clutches are for off-road. So to recap, AI is bad, mechanical shit that worked well 50 years ago should not be digitized, and no way should steering or pedals have an international translator computer interpreter between driver and road. Hats off to all who liked their techno transmissions. I'm with the M/T Club.

 

[5JeepsAz]

Thank you! It's nice to see someone who still has a set of nuts. Any hot rod or muscle car with a V8 should have a manual transmission behind it, unless you are handicapped, or it is strictly a drag racer. And if you don't know how to drive a manual, go buy a ricer, you shouldn't own a muscle car with a V8.

You handle the car disputes. Cars are not Jeeps. If a car guy invents some post modern digital device because they want to go fast, and some thin neck uses it to improve the supply chain, it's hard to argue against invention. So I stick..hehe.. to jeeps. I don't buy fancy Jeeps. Each his own. Happy with owning an old school badass jeep truck, with a M/T... Now. Is the trackhawk a car or a Jeep? That debate will bring on the elitists

 

[ArkansasPig]

It’s not as far as the wife’s minivan or her G-class. However, she can’t drop the top and ditch the doors. It’s fast enough considering it’s a Jeep!

 

[Alabama Mud Machine]

You handle the car disputes. Cars are not Jeeps. If a car guy invents some post modern digital device because they want to go fast, and some thin neck uses it to improve the supply chain, it's hard to argue against invention. So I stick..hehe.. to jeeps. I don't buy fancy Jeeps. Each his own. Happy with owning an old school badass jeep truck, with a M/T... Now. Is the trackhawk a car or a Jeep? That debate will bring on the elitists

To me, the GC TH might as well be a car. Same with all SUV's that aren't full-size. To me, full-size is half-ton, like a Tahoe, Expedition, etc... And even then, it bugs the f*** out of me when someone calls it a "truck"...Same with a Jeep Wrangler. It's an SUV...It's not a truck, just because some idiot at your DMV labeled it as one. The Jeep Gladiator is actually a Truck by definition (physically separate bed & cab on 1 single frame)...But a Wrangler is a unibody SUV... Same goes for the Ridgeline, El Camino, Ranchero, or any other hybrid unibody with a bed...Still an SUV.

Don't think I'm some fancy car dude... I've been building 4x4 offroad trucks for over 20 years, and welding and custom fab for just as long. I've owned hot rods, Harleys, quads, dirt bikes, crotch rockets, etc... throughout that time, as well. So, I've dabbled heavily in just about all thing that go fast... And all of them will leave you just as broke.

 

[LoJac963]

I don't live at the same elevation as you but I was surprised at how much more responsive off the line the Gladiator is than the lighter, more powerful Canyon I traded for it. The Canyon was definitely faster but needed revved out where there's rarely a need to rev out the Jeep. The engine is also much quieter and smoother.

I feel you there. I traded my 16 Canyon SLT for mine. The V6 in the Canyon may have been more powerful on paper but I was constantly in the upper RPMs to get the thing to move. I drove it insanely hard. Plus I had one of the Canyons with the "chuggle" in the transmission in addition to never being able to find the correct gear.

My Rubicon is amazing with the 4.10s. Contrary to what others have said, I do feel like it is a rocket ship with those gears coming from my Canyon. Passing in the city is practically effortless for this V6. I love the hell out of this engine and the 8-speed!

 

[Rottwheeler]

To me, the GC TH might as well be a car. Same with all SUV's that aren't full-size. To me, full-size is half-ton, like a Tahoe, Expedition, etc... And even then, it bugs the f*** out of me when someone calls it a "truck"...Same with a Jeep Wrangler. It's an SUV...It's not a truck, just because some idiot at your DMV labeled it as one. The Jeep Gladiator is actually a Truck by definition (physically separate bed & cab on 1 single frame)...But a Wrangler is a unibody SUV... Same goes for the Ridgeline, El Camino, Ranchero, or any other hybrid unibody with a bed...Still an SUV.

Don't think I'm some fancy car dude... I've been building 4x4 offroad trucks for over 20 years, and welding and custom fab for just as long. I've owned hot rods, Harleys, quads, dirt bikes, crotch rockets, etc... throughout that time, as well. So, I've dabbled heavily in just about all thing that go fast... And all of them will leave you just as broke.

The Wrangler is NOT a unibody... it is body on a full length frame. The old Cherokees were unibody (body structurally connects the front and rear sub frames).

 

[Rottwheeler]

Not sure where this thread went south... thought it was about whether we are happy with our JT's performance. Having had CJs, TJs, LJs, JKURs... I am pretty pleased with my JTR power "out of the box." While my pure trail rig has a MT, my JTs is my DD and the 8sp AT keeps the revs where they ought be and makes it a pleasure to drive. Haven't regeared and no worries about pulling out into highway traffic with 37"s. I like it!

 

[Alabama Mud Machine]

The Wrangler is NOT a unibody... it is body on a full length frame. The old Cherokees were unibody (body structurally connects the front and rear sub frames).

Ok lets get technical... It's a 1-piece tub body on a frame with no partitions......Hmmm doesn't that sound like a UNI-body? It does to me...

"The prefix uni- which means “one” is an important prefix in the English language. For instance, the prefix uni- gave rise to the words unicycle, uniform, and unison."

 

[Blade1668]

Well I do like my JT does it have the right level of power, so far I'm not quite a fan of V6 vs inline 6 but I like that I'm getting 23 mpg average. Heck I've had a 72 429 4barrel T-bird and 350 4barrel olds then a 400 2 barrel Ford Explorer P/U then I went to Jeep solid axles 4.0 inline 6 and didn't miss anything from them. I drove stupid fast cars in Europe and power loaded V8s here. FYI a 91 Comanche would get up and go on Autobahn.... I had mine past 165 kph and the Viper is a trip on the Autobahn. I have learned to slow down and see things. If I need more power I can shift in to low with transfer case..

 

[Alan_Hepburn]

...But a Wrangler is a unibody SUV...

I thought the Wrangler is a body on frame, with a true ladder frame up under that body...

 

[Rottwheeler]

I thought the Wrangler is a body on frame, with a true ladder frame up under that body...

You are correct!

 

[Rottwheeler]

Ok lets get technical... It's a 1-piece tub body on a frame with no partitions......Hmmm doesn't that sound like a UNI-body? It does to me...

"The prefix uni- which means “one” is an important prefix in the English language. For instance, the prefix uni- gave rise to the words unicycle, uniform, and unison."

https://www.autonews.com/article/20170626/OEM01/170629864/body-on-frame-vs-unibody-pros-and-cons

 

[JPHains9724]

I'm very pleased with the power output of my truck. It gets up and goes when I need it, I'm still getting 20-22 mpg. I'm at about 16k miles.

 

[LostWoods]

https://www.autonews.com/article/20170626/OEM01/170629864/body-on-frame-vs-unibody-pros-and-cons

This ladder frame resists twisting better than a unibody vehicle,

...what? I'm sure it makes a point in there what a unibody is (a shell mated directly to subframes) but there is sure some bad info in there.

Unibody vehicles are more rigid, even at their reduced weight, because the entire shell of the vehicle is resisting that force. What makes the frame desirable off road is the ability to flex without damage. By allowing the body to move independently of the frame, you can use the chassis as part of the suspension while flexing and not break anything.

The carrying weight thing is just because it's an order of magnitude easier to engineer a frame that can haul and tow and then slap a body on top of it than it is to engineer a shell that can support the same weight. There's nothing stopping a company from building a massive subframe under a unibody vehicle but when you're giving up most of the benefit of going unibody, simplicity wins out to reduce failure points.

Sponsored