4xe Gladiator Hybrid (PHEV) Confirmed by Jeep CEO for 2025! ⚡️

[Alc]

I wonder if those making arguments about downstream effects from renewable mineral extraction would make the same argument about other rocks and mineral extraction, like say coal, gold (heavy metal ponds), silver, etc. Even if the regulations are there for containment, regulations that may change each time there is an Executive Branch change (i.e EPA administration) at least recently, then it should be contained.

I'm an archaeologist and have worked on a number of environmental mine clearances (coal and gold), and the mines are charged with lining ponds, and containing downstream effluent. If not, then they are liable. Whether that's enforced or not is another issue.

Every source of energy collection and distribution has its advantages & disadvantages…it’s important to ensure we are having a full discussion when debating it. I think that is what most people on these threads are talking about. When people talk about “renewable” energy they often skip on the bad and assume they are better.
My biggest issue with this conversion goes back to simple physics principle of mass, velocity, and energy. All vehicles are already heavy for a multitude of reasons (safety, people demand certain tech, etc). EVs, PHEVs, and HEVs all are heavier than their closest counterparts. It takes MORE energy to move MORE mass. Basically we are increasing our energy needs no matter how we get said energy. You might as well draw a straight line from energy required to pollution no matter what source you’re getting that energy from.

Sponsored

 

[legacy_etu]

One Horsepower is 0.7457 kilowatts. My dash shows under moderate load that I'm drawing 40-80kw on my 4xe. So the power input on that would be 29.9-59.7 horsepower, not including losses from the conversion process. Not a huge amount of power, but that's only doing 60mph on a mostly level road.

Interesting. I didn't realize the 4xe gave you consumption numbers n kilowatts. So it is possible to use a much smaller engine to juice the battery.

 

[Alc]

So it is possible to use a much smaller engine to juice the battery.

….or a very small constant rate turbine engine

just imagine saying “yeah, my jeep has a jet engine, no big deal”

 

[ShadowsPapa]

As opposed to whom?

I don't trust any, but I trust some less than others.
Even back in Lincoln's day, the media published with agendas, nothing new.

Our RAV4 Prime is over a year old and I haven't seen any depletion.

What battery type?
Lithium ion batteries lose a bit of capacity, then they plateau and don't drop as much.
I see it on batteries at home. They start out lasting xxx weeks, then after a year or so that drops off, then it levels out again until later when they start dropping again.
Calendar aging - even if not cycled or in use.

Maybe their software clips the top and bottom off (never fully charges, never fully depletes) so you don't see the loss because it's in the top 10% that's not used............ it will be seen when the drop leaves that 10% and into the used portion of the range.

 

[chorky]

Basically we are increasing our energy needs no matter how we get said energy. You might as well draw a straight line from energy required to pollution no matter what source you’re getting that energy from.

This right here is basically what I have been saying since day one of these kinds of discussions with others even before this forum. The only true way to reduce impact is to consume less. Unless some day technology allows for more output with less input, it will always result in consumption, of something, on some level. The rate of consumption has always been more more more more more. More people, more food, bigger factories, bigger farms, faster growth, faster harvest, more remote camping, more lights more suspension bigger tires, more camping comfort, heavier items, more gas, more more more. "Green" energy only hides this by putting it out of sight into other countries with less environmental protections than here. That's not to say these energy options are bad, but at the end of the day, it still comes at a cost

 

[Kirk*Mojave]

I see more blue tow hooks on the road in my area than red ones..

 

[ShadowsPapa]

This right here is basically what I have been saying since day one of these kinds of discussions with others even before this forum. The only true way to reduce impact is to consume less. Unless some day technology allows for more output with less input, it will always result in consumption, of something, on some level. The rate of consumption has always been more more more more more. More people, more food, bigger factories, bigger farms, faster growth, faster harvest, more remote camping, more lights more suspension bigger tires, more camping comfort, heavier items, more gas, more more more. "Green" energy only hides this by putting it out of sight into other countries with less environmental protections than here. That's not to say these energy options are bad, but at the end of the day, it still comes at a cost

The solution is actually produce fewer humans. you can't increase the population and reduce consumption.
There's no way to reduce your consumption enough to compensate for the added humans.
Can't be done.
You talk about bigger farms, faster growth, faster harvest - it's because there's more PEOPLE to feed and clothe.
It's not only that you and I are consuming more - it's that there's more people to consume things. Sure, everyone has cell phones, multiple vehicles, bigger houses, kids have cell phones, a TV in every room - so we do consume to excesses, but - population growth....

That extra food - it's got to be done on less land because of the urban sprawl. Great farm ground, high yielding farm ground, is being sold at killer prices and developers are turning that rich farm ground into extreme profits in housing developments.
More people, more houses needed, more food needed, but less ground to grow it on.
More people on the highways mean we need more highways, bigger highways.
Maybe part of it is what each individual consumes, but it's also that there's more individuals.
CA is a good example - if you want to see what happens when millions of people are packed into small spaces - and they keep producing MORE people.
They must grow more to feed the growing population - and so they have to divert water to grow the crops..........

I agree this country is "consume hungry" but there's only so much that can be done simply by consuming less - it isn't going to offset the growing population.

We're consuming less here at home - I've converted almost all lighting to LED (but then the early LED lights don't last worth a s@#+ so I still have to replace bulbs now and then). I will be converting about 8 fluorescent lights in my wife's work area and my computer area to LED as those lights fail - that's expensive as heck to do, and a lot of work - but hopefully we'll live long enough to see a savings. We put in the most efficient heat pump we could afford last year (and our consumption has gone down a bit since then) and we live where our electricity is almost 100% renewable - in 2022 it hit 100% due to a bit more wind that year.
But all the recycling and efficient things that we do won't offset the population growth demanding more power and more land and more resources.

So the solution - stop having babies.

 

[bleda2002]

….or a very small constant rate turbine engine

just imagine saying “yeah, my jeep has a jet engine, no big deal”

The current 4xe actually does this a bit. Mine will stay around 1400 rpm constant when the battery is down to its last 3 kwh and cruising where the engine doesn't actually need to provide power, just keep the battery static charged.

 

[chorky]

The solution is actually produce fewer humans. you can't increase the population and reduce consumption.
There's no way to reduce your consumption enough to compensate for the added humans.
Can't be done.
You talk about bigger farms, faster growth, faster harvest - it's because there's more PEOPLE to feed and clothe.
It's not that you and I are consuming more - it's that there's more people to consume things.
And - it's got to be done on less land because of the urban sprawl. Great farm ground, high yielding farm ground, is being sold at killer prices and developers are turning that rich farm ground into extreme profits in housing developments.
More people, more houses needed, more food needed, but less ground to grow it on.
More people on the highways mean we need more highways, bigger highways.
Maybe part of it is what each individual consumes, but it's also that there's more individuals.
CA is a good example - if you want to see what happens when millions of people are packed into small spaces - and they keep producing MORE people.
They must grow more to feed the growing population - and so they have to divert water to grow the crops..........

I agree this country is "consume hungry" but there's only so much that can be done simply by consuming less - it isn't going to offset the growing population.

We're consuming less here at home - I've converted almost all lighting to LED (but then the early LED lights don't last worth a s@#+ so I still have to replace bulbs now and then). I will be converting about 8 fluorescent lights in my wife's work area and my computer area to LED as those lights fail - that's expensive as heck to do, and a lot of work - but hopefully we'll live long enough to see a savings. We put in the most efficient heat pump we could afford last year (and our consumption has gone down a bit since then) and we live where our electricity is almost 100% renewable - in 2022 it hit 100% due to a bit more wind that year.
But all the recycling and efficient things that we do won't offset the population growth demanding more power and more land and more resources.

So the solution - stop having babies.

Well I'm never going to be in favor of enacting laws like China did that restrict the number of kids a couple can have. As for all the farm examples. Yes growing population, but humans are lazy. Everything we do is to make things 'easier' for us, even at the detriment to the environment and ourselves (just look at all the processed toxic food). So a large part of the problem is this so called 'progress'. If families stuck together like days of old, and had mini-farms in their back yards, or if communities actually pooled resources together, big commercial farms would not be needed, or at least not on the scale they are today. So a growing population is not the sole reason for big ag.

I would also argue that 'renewable' energy is only truly beneficial when the entirety of the carbon footprint that exists for the creation and installation of said 'renewable' energy has a lifespan and net product that is in the green rather than in the red - otherwise it may be 'renewable' but the net result is still a gross negative toward environmental damage. Which is what we saw with the early versions of commercial wind generators - where the energy and resources consumed for their design, production, and implementation was significantly more than the power they produced and thus their offset, was not actually in the green. Now tech has changed and it is better, but I think many of them are still in the red as far as that is concerned. Now it might benefit you personally, and that's cool. But as for the overall argument that it is 'better' - thats still up for debate and heavily subjective depending on the angle it is being viewed.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The current 4xe actually does this a bit. Mine will stay around 1400 rpm constant when the battery is down to its last 3 kwh and cruising where the engine doesn't actually need to provide power, just keep the battery static charged.

Hmmm, you just explained something i saw months back.

 

[PuddleJumper]

Yea, i'm guessing no 4xe for the Mojave as well. Desert rated is supposed to have some element of heat tolerance which is my speculation as to why the trim never got the diesel, and reinforcing the frame for the extra battery weight to allow a Mojave to do Mojave things sounds expensive.

We all know less than a bip of owners are actually jumping these things, but you can't advertise it if the truck can't actually do it, regardless if the average owner intends to try it or not.

A hurricane would be nice tho. I'm on the fence about doing a hemi swap cus i feel as soon as do somebody will roll out 3.0 hurricane swaps and they'll be hella cheaper cus there won't be a SRT badge tied to it.

 

[Rahkmalla]

A hurricane would be nice tho. I'm on the fence about doing a hemi swap cus i feel as soon as do somebody will roll out 3.0 hurricane swaps and they'll be hella cheaper cus there won't be a SRT badge tied to it.

The bulk of the engine swap cost is the fabrication/installation. You can grab a 6.4 crate for like 7k. I don't see how a hurricane swap would be an amount cheaper to be noteworthy unless it's a straight drop in with zero fab required (which i doubt having seen videos of wagoneers with the body pulled off to work on the engine)

 

[PuddleJumper]

The bulk of the engine swap cost is the fabrication/installation. You can grab a 6.4 crate for like 7k. I don't see how a hurricane swap would be an amount cheaper to be noteworthy unless it's a straight drop in with zero fab required (which i doubt having seen videos of wagoneers with the body pulled off to work on the engine)

yep but 392 swap on gladiators requires some custom hardware. if a 3.0 became standard on a glady it would require no custom hardware and therefore might save some cash. plus all oem fitment and i'd be willing to do it myself.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

yep but 392 swap on gladiators requires some custom hardware. if a 3.0 became standard on a glady it would require no custom hardware and therefore might save some cash. plus all oem fitment and i'd be willing to do it myself.

You can pretty much count on some structural changes -radiator support area, perhaps a cross member, maybe firewall.
The firewall configuration for a JLU 4xe is different than a JLU with 3.6.
I can't say what's different - just that a dead pedal for a JLU gasser won't fit a 4xe without some use of the brain and spacers.

 

[PuddleJumper]

You can pretty much count on some structural changes -radiator support area, perhaps a cross member, maybe firewall.
The firewall configuration for a JLU 4xe is different than a JLU with 3.6.
I can't say what's different - just that a dead pedal for a JLU gasser won't fit a 4xe without some use of the brain and spacers.

i would hope gasser motors would stay relatively the same vs hybrid. if the 392 doesn't require any drastic change to the cooling system of the truck i imagine the 3.0 wouldn't have to either. to me the lighter and boosted engine would be better long term than a 392 but since it might never be offered. Its not exactly in the running then.

Sponsored