A Hurricane in the future

[ShadowsPapa]

That torque is what is needed for an off-road vehicle.

Bingo.

Sponsored

 

[JET_83]

Why not? Engine design, physics, efficiency - friction losses, heat losses.......... science.
New bearing materials (these aren't your 1990 bearings) and narrower bearings mean less friction loss, less loss to oil shear. Right there you gain HP and MPG.
I could give other examples.........
We lose a lot of the energy of gasoline just overcoming forces like inertia, shear forces of oil, and through heat. Only part of the BTU extracted from gasoline is actually going to propel that mass down the road.
When that fuel is wasted it's not being converted to HP and being used to propel the truck. If you make the engine more efficient - actually USE the BTUs stored in gasoline and turn it into usable energy and not lose it through heat and friction - are you using more gas to get the same or more HP?
Like I said before - the same engine was tweaked in 2015 - the exact same displacement - 3.6 - and the mpg jumped by a good 5 yet there was a little more HP to the wheels in the Grand Cherokee version.

There are still things that can be done.

lol, it won’t, watch

 

[ShadowsPapa]

lol, it won’t, watch

Oh, ye of little faith. Mazda is working on a 56% thermal efficiency engine that will all but double the efficiency of current ICE. If they can achieve it, it will actually be CLEANER, GREENER than EV!
That's of course using "well to wheel" logic - what it takes to make the power STORED in batteries vs. making the fuel and turning it into power to the wheels.
over 50% is a wild number, if Mazda can do it, then others can as well. BMW and others are working that way. It would mean not only crazy gains in HP, but MPG as well since 2/3 of what is burned is wasted, they'd cut that to half or less. That does mean more power and more MPG because you'd be using much more of the gas to make that power.
Right now for every gallon you burn to make your truck move, 2/3-3/4 of that goes out the tail pipe or radiator (or other losses) - you might as well dump 2/3 of that gallon out on the ground.
What car companies are coming up with will give the same power or more, more mpg, and only dump half of that gallon out in the process.
Mazda, BMW, Porsche, all working hard on ICE that will reduce emissions, gain HP and MPG at the same time by using more of that fuel to power the vehicle, less out the tail pipe.
science, engineering, efficiency.
It's all because we only use a fraction of a gallon of fuel to actually propel the car.

 

[JET_83]

W

Oh, ye of little faith. Mazda is working on a 56% thermal efficiency engine that will all but double the efficiency of current ICE. If they can achieve it, it will actually be CLEANER, GREENER than EV!
That's of course using "well to wheel" logic - what it takes to make the power STORED in batteries vs. making the fuel and turning it into power to the wheels.
over 50% is a wild number, if Mazda can do it, then others can as well. BMW and others are working that way. It would mean not only crazy gains in HP, but MPG as well since 2/3 of what is burned is wasted, they'd cut that to half or less. That does mean more power and more MPG because you'd be using much more of the gas to make that power.
Right now for every gallon you burn to make your truck move, 2/3-3/4 of that goes out the tail pipe or radiator (or other losses) - you might as well dump 2/3 of that gallon out on the ground.
What car companies are coming up with will give the same power or more, more mpg, and only dump half of that gallon out in the process.
Mazda, BMW, Porsche, all working hard on ICE that will reduce emissions, gain HP and MPG at the same time by using more of that fuel to power the vehicle, less out the tail pipe.
science, engineering, efficiency.
It's all because we only use a fraction of a gallon of fuel to actually propel the car.

Well the Pentastar which is far less powerful and doesn’t get the best fuel economy, so logic tells something that much more powerful won’t either

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Based on what? Certainly not logic as Mazda and others totally disagree with you. They are spending millions.
So you can't improve engine efficiency, get more HP and more MPG?
Those companies may as well close the doors now and save all of that R&D money for their investors.

 

[KohalaHutch]

I normally keep my cars 10+ years. I have a feeling I’ll be looking at an electric plugin by then.

 

[WhyNotJeep]

A EV would work for around town but I will always want gas for the long road trip. When all vehicles are plug in, it will be easy to control when, where, and how far you go.

 

[joeym7]

No reason I can think of...You don't need excessive HP to do well in the dirt, there is a lot more to it than HP...I've only had my Mojave for 2.5 months and every time I hit the peddle hard I wonder WTH people are talking about when they say it is "underpowered" . I guess maybe for drag racing 8 cylinders on the pavement - lol.... I wouldn't mind better gas mileage, but I can buy a lot of gas for the price of another new vehicle which is sure to be even more pricy than my MO .

 

[sharpsicle]

W

Well the Pentastar which is far less powerful and doesn’t get the best fuel economy, so logic tells something that much more powerful won’t either

Power and fuel economy are not directly linked as you suggest. You can get improvements in both, especially in power-on-demand type engines that are built to be efficient below 1/2 throttle and deliver power over when floored. VVT (really VTEC) was an early example of how you could get more efficiency and more power from an engine at the same time. Innovations in engine design over the last half-century have proven they are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[bl1ndman]

No reason I can think of...You don't need excessive HP to do well in the dirt, there is a lot more to it than HP...I've only had my Mojave for 2.5 months and every time I hit the peddle hard I wonder WTH people are talking about when they say it is "underpowered" . I guess maybe for drag racing 8 cylinders on the pavement - lol.... I wouldn't mind better gas mileage, but I can buy a lot of gas for the price of another new vehicle which is sure to be even more pricy than my MO .

For me it is the torque curve that makes the 3.6 feel gutless. All the power it in the top end. Great for a car or lighter suv, but it is not the right engine for a 5000lbs truck. 260 lb-ft would be adequate if it came in a 2000rpm not 4800rpm. It not so much the peak numbers, but with way it delivers it.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Works for me, even tows well.

 

[JET_83]

Power and fuel economy are not directly linked as you suggest. You can get improvements in both, especially in power-on-demand type engines that are built to be efficient below 1/2 throttle and deliver power over when floored. VVT (really VTEC) was an early example of how you could get more efficiency and more power from an engine at the same time. Innovations in engine design over the last half-century have proven they are not mutually exclusive ideas.

I’m willing to bet $500 the fuel economy will be worse

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The new Hurricane lineup delivers more horsepower, more torque, and fewer emissions than the HEMI engines already in the lineup. When compared to the HEMI offerings already in the Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer, the Hurricane engines can be up to 15% more efficient than larger engines.

Top row compared to bottom row (the middle is a 4x2)

More HP, more torque, a bit better mpg.

 

[joeym7]

For me it is the torque curve that makes the 3.6 feel gutless. All the power it in the top end. Great for a car or lighter suv, but it is not the right engine for a 5000lbs truck. 260 lb-ft would be adequate if it came in a 2000rpm not 4800rpm. It not so much the peak numbers, but with way it delivers it.

There is no argument ALL Other things equal, more torque/HP over a wider flatter power band is generally a good thing.

BUT, everything in life generally comes with trade-offs (all things almost always aren't equal). We can only compare the Gladiator to trucks of the same class. In its class, the Ranger has more torque (it might be class leading) and the Frontier has more HP (class leading). But not materially more in either case...Lets consider all the fully so called PRO-X models - they all have one, for Jeep we would compare to Mojave or Ruby...Two similar experienced drivers, neither of the two other trucks in question will outperform the Gladiator-Mojave/Ruby in the Dirt in a variety of situations - regardless of their minor torque and HP advantages (we all know this).

And the Gladiator is just a much more refined truck both inside and outside. When i went shopping last year for my first truck and also first 4x4, I knew little about the genre, but the Frontier PRO-4x was my first choice by far. Glad I took the time to learn from this forum, big different with the win going to the Mojave (I really "love" the darn thing ).

As far as making the most of the Gladiators powerband, downshifting is your friend.

 

[Fcmalie]

My next purchase will probably be EV or hybrid depending on the offerings.

I'm hoping for a setup similar to what Ford had teased for the F150 lightning. Ford patented a removable range extender for the bed. It would be great since I wouldn't need it for 95% of my driving, but those times I want to tow and not lose range it's there and ready to go. And if you absolutely can't get to a charging station, you can top off the tank and go still.

Sponsored