Does anyone else think the 3.6L is under powered for the JT?

Lou3.6

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lou
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
689
Location
Eastern Washington State
Vehicle(s)
Jeep 2016 WK2 75th Anniversary edition
Occupation
retired Navy -- 1984 > 2004
Yea the Ram is rated at 305 horse 269 tq whereas the JL is 285/260. Negligibly different and the JL truck is way lighter than the Ram, so back to my original hypothesis which is: The Jeep Truck will be fine. And some other facts to support my theory... The Taco is at 278/265 and Canyon/Coloraydos are at 305/269. So yea no worries, I am sure the diesel will really help too. I do think it will be just fine.
Or, on the other hand, the Rubicon versions -- JLU and the JT are 400+ pounds apart; yet use the same hp/torque #'s ! You would think, being a Truck, Jeep would of programmed/adjusted the JT to the RAM specs to offset that additional 400+ pounds !

Maybe they will wake up by launch (or lunch) and correct this oversight (IMO) ! Other than that, I really like what I've seen so far, and glad they didn't have the room (IMO) to add all the eTorque/BSG "crap" - adding even more weight & complexity ! Now if they could figure out a way to NOT have to water cool the 48v pack that would make me less apprehensive - which is what I am in regards to the 2.0L in the JLU, my 1st choice ! Not convinced yet on the safety or reliability of the 2.0L system, but hopeful that by the time I'm ready to order i am - late Spring or perhaps Fall next year !?
Advertisement

 

Lou3.6

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lou
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
689
Location
Eastern Washington State
Vehicle(s)
Jeep 2016 WK2 75th Anniversary edition
Occupation
retired Navy -- 1984 > 2004
I think we're spoiled when we call a nearly 300 HP engine "underpowered" in a 4,500 lb. vehicle.

Decades ago, guys were towing 7,000 lbs. with V6 engines that made half the power and we thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
285/260 JLU & WK2 vs. RAM DT 305/269 -- is it a lot to ask of 20 hp to lug around an additional 400+ pounds, between the Rubicon JLU and the Rubicon Gladiator ? I think so, but the proof is in the testing by all the TFLTrucks out their in the months ahead. I'm not an engineer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn (ever), but if only there were a way to somehow boost that torque even a bit ! Hmmm ! Remember this truck is a JEEP Truck, it's intended use is NOT that of, say, a RAM DT Tradesman ! It is intended or at the very least heavily Implied - to get out of the house and enjoy the back trails ! Can't hardly wait to see the pricing numbers and actually start "build/pricing" on the website ! Under 50K with some rebates or dealer incentives and suddenly 45K seems Very Appealing . . . . . !
 

#HuckleberryJeep

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
161
Reaction score
180
Location
Edmond, OK
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
2020 JT 5.7 Hemi, '21 JLUR 392, '84 CJ7, '69 CJ5
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Realtor
Like others, I'm holding out judgement until I drive one, but seeing as all JKs and JLs are considered by most to be underpowered, it's probably a safe assumption that the Gladiator, with its extra 700lbs, isn't going to feel like a locomotive going down the road. I hope I'm wrong, but plan on gearing down.
 

Raylan Givens

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
16
Reaction score
12
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
GMC
At first glance, and as a person who always wants more power I would say yes. Then if you compare it to what the competition has, it is inline with other midsize trucks. I think if towing is what you want you should hold out for the diesel. If you have no need for towing it is probably fine
 

ZEN357

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
191
Reaction score
111
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT
Occupation
Auto Mechanic
For towing I think the 3.6 is under powered. Too bad they don;t offer a Hemi option.
 

Oilburner

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
1,892
Location
Nowhere, AR
Vehicle(s)
1982 Scrambler, 1969 Wagoneer, 2020 JLUR Ecodiesel
This was the reason I sold my '13 JKU. With minimal lift +33's I always felt like I had to kick it in the ass to get it to move = no torque down low. Hard to picture a truck which weighs more getting the job done any better, much less towing. Maybe the new auto tranny will help.
That, and I really dislike the way a gas V6 sounds, no matter what murfler you put on there.
 

2015er

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
238
Reaction score
107
Location
Glenville, NY
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4
This was the reason I sold my '13 JKU. With minimal lift +33's I always felt like I had to kick it in the ass to get it to move = no torque down low. Hard to picture a truck which weighs more getting the job done any better, much less towing. Maybe the new auto tranny will help.
That, and I really dislike the way a gas V6 sounds, no matter what murfler you put on there.
I have to disagree as I own a 2015 Ram 1500 pentastar Laramie ordered specifically in this configuration from the factory. Before I accepted delivery from the dealer I had the dealer install dual exhaust using from Flowmaster - she's sounds great - better than the factory Hemi - no lie. Nice low rumble and when I put the foot down - the sound gets even sweeter.
 

Roddy13

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
34
Reaction score
17
Location
Canada
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Nope its plenty powerful. I have this in a WK2 Grand Cherokee with an Overkill Tune and K&N drop in and I can run door to door almost with my brothers Durango R/T Hemi from a dig to 70mph.

Go drive a wrangler, you will be impressed with the power of the 3.6L
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
3,944
Location
Bluegrass region of Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2021 Jeep Gladiator Overland EcoDiesel
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
The PUG version of the 3.6L that we're getting has 13% more of it's torque down at lower RPMs compared to the outgoing engine in the JK. The JL/JT also both have deeper standard axle gearing. And lastly, the ratios in the 850RFE are deeper down low and fantastic on the road. When you put all three of these things together, it really does make for a totally different driving experience. You can't really compare JK to JL/JT.

I have only towed about 2,500 lbs. with my JL so far, which isn't a lot of weight. But the P-star doesn't even know it's there. I do recommend trailer brakes though because non-Rubicon brakes are still a little weak with large tires and a load on the back.
 

homerun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
938
Reaction score
1,140
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1996 XJ, 2004 Ford Ranger, 2013 Subaru Impreza, 1996 HD Springer Softtail, past jeep 1995 YJ
The PUG version of the 3.6L that we're getting has 13% more of it's torque down at lower RPMs compared to the outgoing engine in the JK. The JL/JT also both have deeper standard axle gearing. And lastly, the ratios in the 850RFE are deeper down low and fantastic on the road. When you put all three of these things together, it really does make for a totally different driving experience. You can't really compare JK to JL/JT.

I have only towed about 2,500 lbs. with my JL so far, which isn't a lot of weight. But the P-star doesn't even know it's there. I do recommend trailer brakes though because non-Rubicon brakes are still a little weak with large tires and a load on the back.
This is great to hear, especially from WXman, because I know he telling things the way he sees them and isn't afraid to be critical on Jeep. I really want a gasser as I often have short commutes and don't want to deal with all the maintenance that comes with a oil-burner, plus m/t is a must for me. I was a bit worried that the 3.6 would struggle with the extra weight on the JT vs the JL but this comment is reassuring. Still nervous to see the MPG rating, not that it will change my purchase but a high number would be nice.
 

MuhThugga

Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
6
Location
Wilmington, De
Vehicle(s)
2004 Pontiac GTO, 2008 Silverado, 1981 El Camino
Yea the Ram is rated at 305 horse 269 tq whereas the JL is 285/260. Negligibly different and the JL truck is way lighter than the Ram, so back to my original hypothesis which is: The Jeep Truck will be fine. And some other facts to support my theory... The Taco is at 278/265 and Canyon/Coloraydos are at 305/269. So yea no worries, I am sure the diesel will really help too. I do think it will be just fine.
It depends on where the power is made. Plenty of people have complained about the new Taco V6 being sluggish because it has no low-end grunt.
 

Wraith

Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Wraith
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
411
Reaction score
635
Location
Tampa, FL
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLU my 19th Jeep
I have spoke with a few JL Rubicon owners with the 3.6/8-speed combo and they have all claimed it has plenty of power to get up and go and even push 37's without much fuss. My JK with the 3.6/WA580 was an absolute dog that I had to regularly beat on to get it to move even with the AEV ProCal and other mods. We will all know soon enough how the 3.6/8-speed combo in the Gladiator moves. Looking forward to hearing the good and the bad about it.
 

Lou3.6

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lou
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
689
Location
Eastern Washington State
Vehicle(s)
Jeep 2016 WK2 75th Anniversary edition
Occupation
retired Navy -- 1984 > 2004
At first glance, and as a person who always wants more power I would say yes. Then if you compare it to what the competition has, it is inline with other midsize trucks. I think if towing is what you want you should hold out for the diesel. If you have no need for towing it is probably fine
I hear your point of view, if your into comparing with Competitors ! Not Me, I have never had interest in any other American Brands in my life (long time, ha). Practically born in a 2 door Plymouth (with "wings," remember those?) and all the Plymouths & Dodges that followed ! I did "waver" a bit when 1st in the Navy, buying a little Nissan ('87). Dodge B200's and Dodge/Ram 1500s followed. Now have the WK2 (2016) WITH this 3.6 / ESS (285/260). If ya wanna compare, sort of, this 3.6 in my WK2, it's slow & weak compared to that 2003 Hemi (13 years & no issues) . . . but, that's not fare ! Still the WK2 ( don't recall it's Curb weight) is NOT peppy, not nearly as "fun" as any Hemi (obviously), but. we all seem to agree . . . it "gets the job done" in most applications FCA has given it; so far ! Still, a bump to say 295 or 305 (RAM) for the heavier JT is a no-brainer to me - From the Factory (under full warrantee) ! I hate "messing with things" !
 

Lou3.6

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lou
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
689
Location
Eastern Washington State
Vehicle(s)
Jeep 2016 WK2 75th Anniversary edition
Occupation
retired Navy -- 1984 > 2004
The PUG version of the 3.6L that we're getting has 13% more of it's torque down at lower RPMs compared to the outgoing engine in the JK. The JL/JT also both have deeper standard axle gearing. And lastly, the ratios in the 850RFE are deeper down low and fantastic on the road. When you put all three of these things together, it really does make for a totally different driving experience. You can't really compare JK to JL/JT.

I have only towed about 2,500 lbs. with my JL so far, which isn't a lot of weight. But the P-star doesn't even know it's there. I do recommend trailer brakes though because non-Rubicon brakes are still a little weak with large tires and a load on the back.
You make a Very Good Point, one which I neglected to think about (amateur!) - gearing and how it affects low end usable torque ! I believe my PUG/WK2 75th Laredo (2016) has the 3.21 for better gas milage ! I do tow a drift boat - trailer & boat totals are under 1000, so not really an issue ! Or at least non that I experience or that bothers me ! It's acceptable, is what I'm trying to say - although HERE I am, looking to trade to either a JKU 3.6 or a small-maybe, JT ? It will have to "grow on me" for the next 6 months, as I am still (even) pondering the 2.0L ! Talk about "Issues"! ! ! Another time & place perhaps . . .
 

mortuar

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zack
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
95
Reaction score
67
Location
South TX
Vehicle(s)
2021 3.0L EcoDiesel Jeep Gladiator Rubicon
I've owned a 3.8L JKUR, a 3.6 JKUR, and now a 3.6 JLUR - and I gotta say, I don't find it slow at all when you compare it to other small trucks or other SUVs that aren't tuned for speed. I am running the 4.10 gears in mine, so it has lots of pep - so much that I've caused the rear tires to chirp on take off many times.

I towed a fully loaded 5x8 Uhaul (only about 5ft tall interior) from Seattle, WA to San Antonio, TX over 3 days and my 2014 JKUR with the 3.6 and 4.10 gearing towed fantastically - not a single issue that entire trip, including through mountain passes.

I now regularly tow a 6x10 trailer with about 3,000lbs of gear in it for my band without trailer brakes or weight distribution hitch using my 2018 JLUR. At first, I was totally upset with how it towed - completely different experience from my 2014 JKUR. I thought I had the gear loaded properly in the trailer at first until I bought a trailer tongue scale and found that I was grossly overweight on the tongue. After moving my gear around, I was able to get the tongue weight down to about 350lbs and it tows fantastic - up hills and all. This band trailer is single axle, no brakes, and 6.6ft interior - it's a very tall trailer.

I have zero qualms about towing with my JL, and I know the Gladiator will be just fine as well. If you're unsure about your tongue weight, spend the ~$125 and get a nice tongue scale off Amazon. I'm so glad I did, no regrets on that purchase at all!

JLUR towing.jpg
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top