If Wrangler and Gladiator are the same from the cab forward ......?

[Gvsukids]

Sorry if I started something so obvious to most of us but I just thought that if there are so many threads on apparently such an obvious issue, there must be much more to it than what appeared obvious to me.

I fold.

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/forum/threads/v8’s-on-the-horizon…….96316/

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/forum/threads/another-v8-thread.97944/

Sponsored

 

[MPMB]

Looking at sales numbers for the purposely overpriced and over loaded 392s is pointless. They didn't want to sell too many due to cafe regs at the time. The moab's pricing compared to the FE 392s proves that without question. They could put the 5.7L in at $5k easy and just like the rams it would be the number 1 selling option and likely push the gladiator past 100k units per year. Weird that you're worried about the weight of the 5.7L when those trucks weighed 190lbs less than the EcoD versions when both were available in the ram? The lighter powertrain can't be done because of weight? One could argue the sales are still down from 2022 because the v6 is the only option.

Yeah, how about no. There's no way the Gladiator will double in sales volume with a bigger motor option and a higher price tag. For one, the 5.7 isn't coming to the JT. Second, the increase in 2025 sales over 2024 came in Q3 and Q4, when Jeep pushed heavy discounts, up to $10-12k for the premium trims. There's absolutely no f-ing way a more expensive Jeep option is going to push double the units. Third, sales are down because of the economy. People will point to GDP growth as a sign the economy is doing great, which means s**t to Main Street. Ask the people looking for jobs right now. Ask car salespeople how they're doing. Oh, almost 3% GDP growth? That's great. Why did I only hit 1/4 of my sales target this month? It's the economy, stupid.

All the reasons I listed as why there isn't a Gladiator w/ a V8 were all made by Jeep when it was being run by the dirty Frenchy who wanted to go all-EV. I'm not justifying why there isn't one, these are the actual reasons why. I didn't make the decisions. I'm letting the OP know why Jeep made the dumb decision.

It seems you don't fully understand the lead time it takes in the automotive world. For instance, look at the Ford Bronco and the Land Rover Defender. Introduced around the same time, very similar look. Then go look at the model releases/refreshes of Range Rover Evoque, Sport, and Velar. Compare to the Ford refreshes of the Explorer, Escape, and Expedition. The model refreshes for the two makes happen in the same year, or close to it, and the vehicle designs share very similar cues. Ford sold off Jag/Land Rover/Range Rover in 2008, yet for years after, the two makes still look like they're owned by one company. Lead time. For almost two decades.

You expect Jeep just to drop in a new power plant in a vehicle that's just 6 years old, that had serious growing pains as a result from a global pandemic and a moronic corporate leader that almost killed the nameplate?

I'm not worried about the weight. I don't work for Jeep. I'm aware that the weight difference between the V6 and the 5.7L V8 is roughly 150#. Fully dressed, the common averages of engine weights work out to be the following: 3.6L = 430-450#, 3.0TT = 440#, 5.7L = 500-560#, 6.4L = 700-750#.

But let's back up a little bit first. The weight difference between the Wrangler Rubicon X and Wrangler Moab 392 is 674#. Keep that in mind.

Weight is important because of how the government classifies trucks. I've covered this before. It has nothing to do with what you think the Gladiator is capable of, or what you've personally pushed your Gladiator to do, or how you think the Gladiator is under-rated. It has f**k-all to do with you.

Trucks that have a GVWR of 6000# or less are classified as Class 1 trucks. Colloquially known as mid-size or compact pickups. The reason manufacturers keep the bulk of the mid-size truck production under that GVWR is because of government regulation and marketing. You may not care about the marketing reasons. Did you ever watch any of the comparison videos of the JT vs. Tacoma vs. Colorado vs. Ranger vs. Highline? Marketing.

When the truck is in Class 1, the manufacturer can put out claims such as "highest payload in its class" or "most towing capacity in its class." If the truck isn't in Class 1, it's bumped up to Class 2a, where it now has to compete against full size half-ton trucks. Again, you may not care, but it's not about you.

Example argument: "A Rubicon X only weighs 5031#, according to Jeep's website; that's well below 6000#, even with the additional weight of the bigger V8."

Optimistically, say a JTRX with a 5.7L tips the scales at 5100#. GVWR max is 6000# (based on current Rubicon GVWR- remember, this isn't about what you think, this is about government regulations). That's a payload capacity of only 900#. Subtract 150# for a driver (gov't standard in calculations, hilarious as it is), and it's now 750#, optimistically.

That is a horrific capacity stat that every competitor will pounce on, and it will turn off some buyers. It's like saying you have 12" of rear legroom. Jeep won't run a product with those dismal figures.

Jeep can ignore it (and actually does w/ the current JTR & JTM) and change the GVWR to be whatever it engineers it to be, like the current 6250# GVWR for a more marketable number of 1150#. But now the Gladiator will be bumped up to the Class 2a light duty pickup category. Marketing has another fun task to accomplish. They ignore any comparisons within the government class.

It gets even more complex with the 392 engine. If it's the same weight difference as the Wrangler, 675#, that puts the JT392 at a hefty 5705#, based off a JTRX model. A decent payload of 1100# puts the GVWR at 6805#. Based on a quick search, Dana 44 axles on current Rubicons and Mojaves have GAWR of 3100# (front) and 3750# (rear). To maintain the same load ratio, the GAWR will have to be 3300# (front) and 4000# (rear). Current Dana 44s may be able to handle it, or Jeep upgrades to the Dana 44 HDs, AdvanTEKs, or something altogether different.

In addition to the added weight and weight carrying capacity, structural reinforcement around suspension components would have to happen as well; and also common stress areas. Which also adds weight. This will happen - Jeep already added reinforcements with the 3.6L.

So now we're looking at probably 50-75#, minimum, of structural and component improvements. 5750-5775#. Maybe a target GVWR of 7000#?

And we haven't even got to towing capacity yet. Frankly, I predict a giant s**tstorm, as Jeep's done a bang-up job so far with the towing ability/reliability across the board. <rolling eyes>

The awesome package would be the Sport S Max Tow with the 5.7L or 3.0TT. Curb weight with the 3.6L is 4700#, so even if the 5.7L w/ Max Tow added 200#, at 4900# a Sport S w/ Max Tow could potentially have a towing capacity of around 8000# (GCWR of 12850#). Whether or not that's a good idea to do IRL is totally different.

But that part is all moot, since the only thing that's confirmed is the 392 Hemi coming to the Gladiator at some point in the near future.

Now, back to the weight of the Wrangler 392 and the W392 in general. You cannot compare why it's this way or that way or whatever and apply it straight to the Gladiator. The overall weight difference I used is fine, because it's clearly the difference between the 3.6L and the 6.4L engines, it's not like I'm comparing a 2WD 2-dr Sport Wrangler to the W392.

But the point is the Wrangler 392 is considered an SUV, and is regulated by a whole different set of rules/guidelines/etc. than the Gladiator, which is a truck. It has a different form factor that is structurally different than the Gladiator. Weight distribution is different. CoG is different. Wheelbase. Yada yada yada.

 

[daveb]

Don't feel bad, when I mentioned the Hurricane 6 I was almost keel hauled. BTW I still think it's a better option.

 

[Zachanadandy]

Don't feel bad, when I mentioned the Hurricane 6 I was almost keel hauled. BTW I still think it's a better option.

The straight 6 is long making it more difficult. Jeep themselves and a half dozen aftermarket companies have proven that v8s fit just fine. The I6 also has major reliability issues.

 

[4-Low]

Then the logical question, at least in my mind, is why not the 5.7 or 6.4 V8 in the Gladiator that everyone here keeps talking about? There has to be some other reason. By definition, the weight and towing capacities are greater on the Gladiator so have I missed something on an earlier thread or something? To me, if choosing one vehicle, and all things are equal, the Gladiator should get the V8 instead of the Wrangler.

Personally, I have no horse in the race and the 3.6 does what I want it to do and am overall happy with it. But I know for many here, the V8 is on their wish list and it seems like at least a 5.7 Gladiator would not be that big of a deal for Stellantis to produce.

Am I missing something?

We've hashed this out a million times. They are two different vehicles with different purposes. SAE J2807 towing testing prevents Gladiator from getting engines that are prone to generating too much heat inside the tiny engine bay. That's why we never saw the 2.0T engine in JT. And it's why I don't think a V8 will ever happen.

I also think this may be why they have hinted at making Gladiator a separate vehicle in the next generation. This would allow them to create a larger engine bay and a better platform for truck powertrains.

 

[Morris]

1. The platform isn't engineered for a V8 w/o heavy re-engineering; the 392 Wrangler isn't a plug-n-play V6 to V8 swap either.
2. CAFE, crash testing, and other regulations to be satisfied at a heavy cost
3. Stellantis' idiotic EV-First direction from previous management that killed/delayed anything fun
4. The mandate from Jeep brand managers to engineers and designers about the look of the Gladiator and Wrangler must remain very, very similar hampered V8 integration.
5. Market size doesn't produce a viable break-even point

But if you have an extra $35k lying around and live in emission-free area, you can get it done in a couple months.

To add to this, i think it would be competition for Ram trucks. Why would i buy a Ram with a 5.7L when i can remove my roof and doors and buy a Gladiator with a 5.7L?

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

To add to this, i think it would be competition for Ram trucks. Why would i buy a Ram with a 5.7L when i can remove my roof and doors and buy a Gladiator with a 5.7L?

Someone else will buy a Ram for the extra room and/or higher towing capacity.

 

[MPMB]

To add to this, i think it would be competition for Ram trucks. Why would i buy a Ram with a 5.7L when i can remove my roof and doors and buy a Gladiator with a 5.7L?

I don't think that's much of an issue, since Stellantis still gets the money. I'm sure they would prefer customers buy the product with the greater profit margin, which I wouldn't doubt would be the Ram.

In-family sales cannibalism isn't a bad deal. They may make it that way on purpose, as you're still buying from the "same guy." The pricing strategy of VAG kinda pissed me of a few years ago because they started approaching Audi levels of MSRP. Spend $45k for a VW or add another $5k for a luxury Audi? But VAG doesn't care because it's the same family.

The better argument for Jeep is "Why get a puny 4-cyl Chevy or Ford and be cooped up in a small cab when you can get a fire-breathing, rip-roaring V8, take the roof and doors off to really hear the V8 rumble, and enjoy the beautiful scenery of the great outdoors?"

 

[Morris]

I don't think that's much of an issue, since Stellantis still gets the money. I'm sure they would prefer customers buy the product with the greater profit margin, which I wouldn't doubt would be the Ram.

In-family sales cannibalism isn't a bad deal. They may make it that way on purpose, as you're still buying from the "same guy." The pricing strategy of VAG kinda pissed me of a few years ago because they started approaching Audi levels of MSRP. Spend $45k for a VW or add another $5k for a luxury Audi? But VAG doesn't care because it's the same family.

The better argument for Jeep is "Why get a puny 4-cyl Chevy or Ford and be cooped up in a small cab when you can get a fire-breathing, rip-roaring V8, take the roof and doors off to really hear the V8 rumble, and enjoy the beautiful scenery of the great outdoors?"

I agree with all that. Youre not wrong. However just because Stellantis is still getting money when you choose to go fullsize doesnt mean its not competition. They want to sell the more expensive option. In this case its a Ram.

I just came from a fullsize, i could have bought a ranger or a canyon. They appealed to me. I wanted that open vehicle feel so i went with a gladiator. If it was an option i probably would have got a 5.7L with less options or a lower trim.
When its paid off and the warranty is done i might consider a phone call to AMW.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Don't feel bad, when I mentioned the Hurricane 6 I was almost keel hauled. BTW I still think it's a better option.

Jeep will do the hurricane TT. Don’t listen to the neigh sayers. The smart money should be on the GMTE6 for that narrow little JT engine bay. That motor alone would transform JT sales.

the fact that the JT has done as well as it has with a small displacement nat. asp. bent 6 pays testament to just how much talent is in that platform.

With a fiery and efficient modern engine, gladiators actual potential would be unleashed.

 

[Jteakus]

I would like to see dimensional comparisons between the 3.6, the v8 platform (5.7, 6.4) and the 'Cane.

 

[Jteakus]

Answered my own question with some help from our friends from Skynet:

what is the difference in physical size between the hurricane six and the 3,6?

The 3.0L Hurricane inline-six engine is physically longer but has comparable width and height dimensions to the 3.6L Pentastar V6, and it weighs less overall.

Physical Dimensions and Configuration
The primary difference in physical size stems from their cylinder configuration: the Pentastar's V-shape is more compact in length, while the Hurricane's inline configuration makes it longer.

• Engine Configuration: The Hurricane engine has all six cylinders in a single, straight line (inline-six), making the engine assembly inherently longer than the V-shaped configuration of the Pentastar V6.
• Dimensions: The Hurricane engine measures approximately 33.4 inches x 28.7 inches x 32.7 inches (length x width x height) in its standard output version. The specific dimensions for the Pentastar V6 aren't as widely published, but it is engineered to be shorter in length to fit in transverse engine bays (front-wheel drive applications), which is not the case for the longitudinal, rear-wheel drive platforms the Hurricane is designed for.
• Weight: Despite the larger displacement of the Pentastar, the Hurricane inline-six is noted to weigh less overall, largely due to modern construction techniques like a deep-skirted cast-aluminum block and plasma transfer wire arc coated cylinders which eliminate heavier iron liners.
• Packaging: The Hurricane engine was designed to fit anywhere the Pentastar V6 or the older Hemi V8 engines would fit in Stellantis' longitudinal, rear-wheel-drive-based platforms (e.g., Ram 1500, Jeep Wagoneer).

All this said if they can cool the HO Hurricane it would be a mean powerplant for the JT.

 

[firemedic2714]

Can we go ahead and take this one off topic or do we need to carry on for about 50 or 60 pages first?

Well, it's Sunday morning at 7 am and we're on page 3.

 

[firemedic2714]

If you want a serious answer, yes we should, imo most likely it's a tow rating issue being deemed unacceptably low due to heat and they don't want to sink money in to fixing that.

Question answered, please commence the off topic

I came to say this, too. Cooling system capacity when towing at max weight at the highest rated ambient temperature probably combined with the CAFE standard.

 

[MPMB]

Answered my own question with some help from our friends from Skynet:

what is the difference in physical size between the hurricane six and the 3,6?

The 3.0L Hurricane inline-six engine is physically longer but has comparable width and height dimensions to the 3.6L Pentastar V6, and it weighs less overall.

Physical Dimensions and Configuration
The primary difference in physical size stems from their cylinder configuration: the Pentastar's V-shape is more compact in length, while the Hurricane's inline configuration makes it longer.

• Engine Configuration: The Hurricane engine has all six cylinders in a single, straight line (inline-six), making the engine assembly inherently longer than the V-shaped configuration of the Pentastar V6.
• Dimensions: The Hurricane engine measures approximately 33.4 inches x 28.7 inches x 32.7 inches (length x width x height) in its standard output version. The specific dimensions for the Pentastar V6 aren't as widely published, but it is engineered to be shorter in length to fit in transverse engine bays (front-wheel drive applications), which is not the case for the longitudinal, rear-wheel drive platforms the Hurricane is designed for.
• Weight: Despite the larger displacement of the Pentastar, the Hurricane inline-six is noted to weigh less overall, largely due to modern construction techniques like a deep-skirted cast-aluminum block and plasma transfer wire arc coated cylinders which eliminate heavier iron liners.
• Packaging: The Hurricane engine was designed to fit anywhere the Pentastar V6 or the older Hemi V8 engines would fit in Stellantis' longitudinal, rear-wheel-drive-based platforms (e.g., Ram 1500, Jeep Wagoneer).

All this said if they can cool the HO Hurricane it would be a mean powerplant for the JT.

That is the most pressing issue with the 3.0TT in a JT/JL - making it fit.

At 33", it's 5" longer than a 6.4L 392 before all the turbo plumbing and accessories.

"But there's tons of room with the 3.6L in there. The engine bay actually measures 38" front - back!" Some will say.

As someone who's built racecars and swapped more motors than most people will swap cars in their life, measurements don't mean much.

1. Airflow around engine for heat dissipation and minimizing heat transfer
2. Crash crumple zones & restoration engineering
3. Maintenance
4. Replacement costs; warranty/out of warranty (see: mid 2000's Audi S4 4.2L V8 timing chain replacement cost)
5. Efficient production

That's why I've said for a few years, Stellantis owns Alfa... There's a 505hp/440tq 2.9L TT sitting around being unused. Would love to see if that'd work. Someone said it wouldn't for some reason I forget.

Sponsored