Jeep: give us a new power plant!

[MPMB]

Reason why no bigger motor en masse for the JT? CAFE standards. The penalty for a 392 Wrangler/Gladiator will be huge, hence the extraneous markup. The end user is going to be paying for the CAFE fine, and then some. So a 5.7L is out of the question until Jeep can sell off the offsetting vehicles.

Reading more of the standards, it's a wholly convoluted policy and somewhat arbitrary.

It's calculated by the total number of vehicles sold, so it's a reactionary measure, and is unfair to brands who can't control what the market wants. There are controls to mitigate market forces, but it's still unfair.

NHTSA in 2016 bumped the penalty for missing the target average. It went to $5.50 per .1 mpg up to $14 per .1 mpg.

That's a 2.545x increase. M-B paid $28.4m in fines between 2010-2015; if they had the new rate applied, it'd be $72+ million. Or, in a "today's money" comparison, your $3.89/gal gas would be $9.90/gal. That's a huge overnight increase.

Back to the top - if the 392 vehicles have to meet (ha!) CAFE standard of say, 24mpg, but it can only squeeze out 14mpg, that's an 11mpg gap Jeep will get fined. At $14/per .1gal, that's a $1540 charge. Or $3080 to the buyer (retail theory - double what it cost you).

CAFE standards should not just penalize brands that miss the target, but award the same money for those that beat the target. Incentivize higher MPGs.

Jeep needs to roll out 4xe (or some hybrid option) to the Renegade; that's a great fleet vehicle for places that don't want a Prius fleet. Then the Cherokee.

I never really looked into CAFE standards. Now I know why auto manufacturers make all these weird little cars; like why Jeep rolled out the Patriot and the smaller vehicles (pun intended). And why Chevy and Ford are offering 4- & 6- cylinder engines in full-size trucks.

Sponsored

 

[Caraholic]

I still can't get over the fact that my 1978 CJ-7 had much better power to weight than the current Pentastar Gladiator, and that power came on so much earlier in the power band - where it is usable. The 3.5 NA V6 in the 3rd Gen Tacoma gets the same critique as the Pentastar, as do most other engines in the mid-size truck segment

2021 Gladiator with 3.6 NA V6 Pentastar: 285 hp at 6400 rpms, 260 lb/ft at 4400 rpms (Source: Jeep).
Curb weight for Rubicon: 5,050 pounds (Source: Jeep).

1978 CJ-7 with 4.2 NA I6: 200 hp at 4400 rpms, 280 lb/ft at 2200 rpms (Source: Wikipedia).
Curb weight: 2,770 pounds (Source: Automobile Catalogue).

Yeah, all the current mid-size truck engines have more hp than Jeep's 1978 I6, but that CJ-7 was a much lighter vehicle, so the power to weight was actually much better in the CJ:

2021 Gladiator Rubicon: 17.7 pounds of vehicle weight per horse power.
1978 CJ-7: 13.9 pounds of vehicle weight per horse power.

2021 Gladiator Rubicon: 19.4 pounds of vehicle weight per unit of torque.
1978 CJ-7: 9.9 pounds of vehicle weight per unit of torque.

In order to get the same power to weight ratio we had in 1978 in the CJ-7, Jeep needs to put an engine in the Gladiator Rubicon that makes 363 hp, and 510 lb/ft of torque!

Conclusion: We need a better power plant in the Gladiator, but one that is relatively affordable (let's say $3,000 over the price of the Pentastar).

I like your thread but, the 4.2 never made close to 200. The 4.0 HO up to 2006 was only rated at 195 and that was a redone injected 4.2 update…..

 

[Boogerman]

Yeah, I get that the Pentastar works well for a lot of people. But load up your truck, and then come to Colorado and drive up any dirt road that goes to a trailhead at elevation (between 8,000 - 10,000 feet). All those roads are steep, and you won't be able to shift out of first gear in a manual. Not enough torque at low rpms. I've only driven the auto on a test drive down at 5,500 feet, so I don't know how it performs driving uphill at 10,000 feet. Glad you are happy with your truck!

P.S. I live at 8,500 feet

Uhhhh I live in Colorado also, not even with 4.10 gears but my 3.73 gears do just fine loaded up with 35's on the mountains. Just drove from Denver, to BV and up into the forest to get away for the weekend. Averaged 20MPG and I have a LEAD foot. Easily hit 90 going up hills on 285, etc.

Its not nearly as bad as you make it out to be lol

 

[TheSolarWizard]

that’s because of the throttle tuning from factory. with a banks pedal monster it becomes an asphalt chewer immediately

Having gone for a test drive in the diesel I was not exactly impressed. Having owned other high output small displacement diesels, I was expecting more grunt off the line. Perhaps it's gearing but I wasn't feeling the rotation of the earth slow in response.

My CJ7 with the 258 was a snarling rabid animal by comparison. And yes it weighed a far bit less being stripped to the bone and having no top or doors but it also had a malaise era engine with low compression and not the best head flow. But it was still a break'em loose at the light terror. I have to whip my JK like a rented mule to have any hooligan fun and that's not exactly fun.

I suppose we could make more power via twin cams, higher compression and tweaked A/F tuning and it would perform on par with the wifemobile and wifemobile 2 (3.5L Mercedes Benz V6) but would it endure trail abuse? And to be fair, most the of the problems I have on the trail are solved with more gear not more throttle except for a very small and very specific situation and it's not more throttle I need but more ground speed entering the moment.

 

[dcmdon]

If what you say is true, then right.

But I have a VERY hard time believing that the I6 in the CJ made 200 hp.

As a point of reference the 1978 Corvette made 220 hp. These were the darkest days of the car business. 200 hp was a big number. Enormous from an I6.

 

[dcmdon]

Yup. You are wrong.

Everything I've found shows the 78 CJ came with a

304 CI V8 with 135 hp
or
4.2L inline 4 with 98 hp.

1) Wikipedia is crowd sourced, which means you need to backchecdk everything.
2) Every other source I could find listed the 2 above engines with the power listed. Though a couple of places showed the V8 with 125 hp, not 135.

So the entire premise of your post is wrong.

p.s. If you look on the Wikipedia entry for the CJ rather than for the I6 engine in question, it shows I6 with 98 hp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_CJ

 

[Deleted member 30519]

I'm so tired of these threads. I wish they would just discontinue the JT and let us original owners enjoy our trucks.

 

[redrider]

Has any one tested their JT fully loaded as in max payload and tow under real driving conditions of heat, altitude and the like? I would bet on the diesel 1st and auto gasser 2nd as for competence until the overheating diesel drops out. The 3.6 might eclipse it then.

 

[dfwxjer]

Uhhhh I live in Colorado also, not even with 4.10 gears but my 3.73 gears do just fine loaded up with 35's on the mountains. Just drove from Denver, to BV and up into the forest to get away for the weekend. Averaged 20MPG and I have a LEAD foot. Easily hit 90 going up hills on 285, etc.

Its not nearly as bad as you make it out to be lol

How in the world do you get 20mpg going up any type of grade? With 4.10s I could barely hold 8th gear here in Texas and above 75mph the fuel economy just dropped to 15. That was driving back from Roswell on relatively flat highway.

With 35s I've dropped down even further and I definitely do not have a lead foot. Typically I've always gotten better than advertised mpg but the Jeep is not having it. I get better fuel efficiency in my full size Navigator loaded up.

 

[gouacats]

Further, the ‘80s model CJ7s did 0-60 mph in 13.7 seconds. Let that sink in for a bit. Nearly 14 seconds to reach 60 mph…

For what it’s worth (which is nothing), my 71 CJ5 would never get to 60 mph. Top speed of about 55 with the 3 speed. ?

 

[DesertWanderer]

What about that new Tornado 3.0L gas turbo inline six? Sounds like a great option for the Gladiator, its supposed to go in the jeep grand cherokee 2022. The new inline six is supposed to be the replacement for the 5.7L V8. Must have some great specs to accomplish that.

 

[dcmdon]

Again. The original premise is wrong. From a site that aggregates acceleration times from various sources. Its not even close.

That is not to say that Jeep doesn't need a new engine for the Gladiator. The turbo 2.7 in the bronco makes 330 hp and 400 ft-lbs of torque.

The only way to get something torquey and powerful like this from Jeep is with the 4xE or the 392. There is no middle ground.

But even still, there is no comparison between the old stuff and the new stuff.

We are truly living in the GOLDEN age of automobiles.

 

[dcmdon]

What about that new Tornado 3.0L gas turbo inline six? Sounds like a great option for the Gladiator, its supposed to go in the jeep grand cherokee 2022. The new inline six is supposed to be the replacement for the 5.7L V8. Must have some great specs to accomplish that.

I'd be curious to know how much longer than the current engines this motor is. If its too long, it may have to wait until the next model Wrangler is released.

 

[OldButStillJeeping]

Again. The original premise is wrong. From a site that aggregates acceleration times from various sources. Its not even close.

That is not to say that Jeep doesn't need a new engine for the Gladiator. The turbo 2.7 in the bronco makes 330 hp and 400 ft-lbs of torque.

The only way to get something torquey and powerful like this from Jeep is with the 4xE or the 392. There is no middle ground.

But even still, there is no comparison between the old stuff and the new stuff.

We are truly living in the GOLDEN age of automobiles.

I agree with some of your post. The 2020 - 1978 spread is excellent. Thank you for that!

But respectfully, I think Ford's small displacement turbos fall into the 'throw away' vehicle class.
These aluminum block and aluminum head engines with incredible boost through a turbo have a shorter lifespan. Check the EcoBoost websites.

If you lease a EcoBoom; Who cares how long it lasts. Auto manufacturers love you.

If you buy and plan to keep it 15 or 20 years, a small displacement aluminum based turbo is not what you want.

As it was said in a older movie: "A light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long".

Go N/A.

 

[Caraholic]

If what you say is true, then right.

But I have a VERY hard time believing that the I6 in the CJ made 200 hp.

As a point of reference the 1978 Corvette made 220 hp. These were the darkest days of the car business. 200 hp was a big number. Enormous from an I6.

It didn’t

Sponsored