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

[Smash615]

The 5.7L Hemi and 3.6L get similiar MPG in the Ram.

With a 26gal tank though.....

Sponsored

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

I wish it was that simple. If it was, auto makers are wasting millions on testing performance, cooling, mpg and other factors - once they have tested it in a truck it will behave the same in something very different.

I guess I could write up a multiple page explanation........ but it's wasted once people have their mind made up about this sort of thing. I've tried before in other threads - it's ignored. Why keep trying?

(engine swapping is a great way to show how things don't always turn out as planned, or having worked on or with the same vehicles with only engine differences as examples)

How about a one paragraph cliff notes version?

Or if we could get reliable MPG figures from a few 5.7L Gladiator owners, that would be good to know.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

If I understand your question correctly, the obvious low-aero situation is where the engine idles much more than moves the vehicle, like sitting in traffic or on busy trails with a lot of stopping and waiting. Aerodynamics at slow speeds in these scenarios aren't enough to affect MPGs. I would also assume acceleration from a stop would also use more fuel in a V8 compared to a 6- or 4-cyl of average production.

A 5.7l can burn between .75-.85 gallons per hour at idle.

A 3.6l burns about .5 GPH.

A 2.0T burns about .25-.3 GPH.

This is dependent upon using A/C or not, alternator load (amount of electronics running), operating temps, etc.

So if you're on a trail with a lot of folks waiting to go over obstacles, sitting and idling will burn more fuel if you're in a V8.

I should’ve said in a low aerodynamic vehicle, not low aero dynamic situations.

I was broadly assuming the aerodynamic penalty the Gladiator imposes on different engines is a linear relationship. It probably isn’t, but for wild ass guesses, it’s the best I got.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

With a 26gal tank though.....

If you could get the same mpg with either, maybe possible if you drive conservative, it wouldn’t matter what size your tank is.

But I get your point, if you lose a couple MPGs and you already have a smaller sized tank, your range might be impaired to where it bothers you.

 

[Mr Miami]

If I understand your question correctly, the obvious low-aero situation is where the engine idles much more than moves the vehicle, like sitting in traffic or on busy trails with a lot of stopping and waiting. Aerodynamics at slow speeds in these scenarios aren't enough to affect MPGs. I would also assume acceleration from a stop would also use more fuel in a V8 compared to a 6- or 4-cyl of average production.

A 5.7l can burn between .75-.85 gallons per hour at idle.

A 3.6l burns about .5 GPH.

A 2.0T burns about .25-.3 GPH.

This is dependent upon using A/C or not, alternator load (amount of electronics running), operating temps, etc.

So if you're on a trail with a lot of folks waiting to go over obstacles, sitting and idling will burn more fuel if you're in a V8.

Another possible option is to find a better trail so you can keep driving and avoid waiting in line to go over the obstacles. Save time and gas.

 

[RougeShot12er]

Skip to the 3 minute mark. Says that the mpg is the same as the 3.6 after gearing it correctly.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Jeep needs more than just the TT 6 in your country (Australia). As I mentioned in another thread, I traveled to Australia several months ago, drove through a large part of the Outback for several days (Alice Springs to Dawson) and then flew to Cairns, Melbourne and Sydney.

I can say I could count the Jeeps I saw in the entire two week trip on my fingers. Yet I would pull up to your "petrol" stations, especially in the Outback, and 4 out of 5 vehicles fueling up were Toyota Hi-Lux 2.8 TD's. The cities had a mixture of other vehicles but few Jeeps.

Maybe it's different on the west side of the country where you are, but in the cities I visited, seeing any kind of Jeep was relatively rare.

Ahh I see yes I remember. Nice to cross paths again.

You’re correct, 100pc. Excellent observations. Yes, it’s exactly the same out west. Probably more so bc it’s where most of the mining takes place.

However, ppl here have a soft spot in their hearts for Jeeps. Jeep has occasionally knocked it out of the park here. 90’s XJ was a multi year best seller right to last model year. Ppl loved that HO 4.0L.

ZJ and WJ (and to a lesser extent) TJ did v well. And then another World Series level home run came with the WK GC, CRD versions of that model topped sales charts for a good many years.

The JK did quite well. And, ppl loved the 2.2LCRD JL on debut. Yet no sooner had it arrived the best selling CRD’s vanished. And prices started escalating unreasonably. Well beyond currency effects. The start of the Tavares/Meunièr era…

Honestly, those two guys alone torched Jeep here. They got rid of the CRD’s and jacked up prices routinely. The pricing strategy and all petrol line up was a double tap to back of head for Jeep sales.

Circling back to Hurricane TT, one would be surprised at how much a very good power train can do for Jeep here. Pricing has been improved. The models are good, particularly Galdiator, but the power train aspect is sorely missing.

ie the Mitsuibishi Pajero (Montero) lost its 3500DOHC 24 valve V6 here in mid 2000’s. By 2008/9 small V6 mills were gone here. Displaced by modern efficient CRD power.

So the idea of selling a 3.6L V6 Gladiator, Wrangler or GC here is so bent I can’t put it into words. There would be no more than a handful of V6 cars sold here annually. All brands included.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Pretty sure Jeeps cost a premium compared to the Hi-Lux and stuff - so Aussies aren't really incentivized to pay too much for a Gladiator when they can have a diesel Toyota.

No not really. Jeeps got a little pricey from 21-24. But they’ve adjusted pricing quite a bit in 025.
And tbh all the comparable w/ similar features top brand double cab utility vehicles are about the same price.

I definitely do not agree with this. I can tell you that if Jeep sold a highly dependable Cummins equipped Gladiator here at current pricing, they would have an easy top ten of category selling vehicle.

Like all day long. Probably higher.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Yes, both product and more importantly in the Outback, parts. According to several guys I talked to when filling up the fuel tank, they can readily get parts since most little towns have airports and they get their stuff by air or from the large, 3 trailer rigs (Road Trains as they call them) that move across the country. Parts are an issue when the nearest dealer may be the hundreds or miles away. Think of being in Dallas and the nearest dealer is in Chicago. But everyone I talked to seemed OK with the situation.

After hearing about their parts availability in such remote places, I didn't really have the nerve to tell them I have Jeeps, live within a 45 minute drive of at least a dozen dealerships and have to wait weeks or months for some stuff. That would not work over there at all.

it’s very true. That info is bang on. The dealer network and parts support for Toyota is their Crown Jewels here.

The thing with Jeep is it has a different opportunity to be successful here. Interesting products with a pulse, some excitement, plenty of character, flair for off-road hardware and the DNA of the brand being …freedom.

one will not find those things mentioned in the same sentence as Toyota, or the other same same Brands ie isuzu / Mitsubishi and some on.

so I just hope Jeep can pull things together in a wholistic way for once. Probably not likely. They’re closer to success than they realise. That probably drives the local dealers mad. Bc they’d know all this stuff I’ve mentioned.

Hurricane TT would go along way to putting some lead back in Jeeps Pencil.

 

[MPMB]

Another possible option is to find a better trail so you can keep driving and avoid waiting in line to go over the obstacles. Save time and gas.

That can be an option, but sometimes you're part of a group or the trail is long and you don't know who's all on it until it's too late.

 

[MPMB]

I should’ve said in a low aerodynamic vehicle, not low aero dynamic situations.

I was broadly assuming the aerodynamic penalty the Gladiator imposes on different engines is a linear relationship. It probably isn’t, but for wild ass guesses, it’s the best I got.

Trusting AI, it's a quadratic relationship; faster you go, the penalty increases, but slightly. A smaller engine will work harder (actual output vs. total output) at higher speeds to overcome the aero penalty. The 3.6L "makes" 285hp, and mild Gladiator builds such as mine seem to use every bit of it at speed.

First - Coefficient of Drag (Cd) change

At 30mph, a change in Cd of .04 would be equivalent to adding 150# to the vehicle, but at 65mph it would be 800#. At 80mph it'd be almost 1750#. And this is all things equal, only the coefficient of drag changing from .32 to .36 for an average vehicle.

Gladiator vs. Ram
If the Ram 1500 Cd=.36, the estimates of the JT fall around .52-.58, depending upon the accoutrements we add. If I'm directing AI correctly (75% confidence I am), the jump between a Cd=.36 and Cd=.58 adds a lot more resistance.

Adding in the JT's frontal area (approx 3.4m^2) and going from Cd=3.6 to Cd=.58, the graph looks the same, but the values are *just* a little different. I know it's 2 variables changing, but if we're comparing a 1500 to a JT, might as well.

So, roughly speaking and if I'm doing this right (letting AI do the maths I can't, I'll end up pulling a Michael Bolton), compared to a Ram 1500, the JT would have approx. 10,000# worth of weight to equal the aero penalty at 80mph; only ~7000# at 65mph. It would feel like you're towing a heavy-ass trailer or have your emotional baggage in the bed.

Air Resistance
Overall, the actual force from air resistance (sea level average assumptions) at 80mph is ~340#. Dropping just the Cd to .36 drops air resistance to ~211#. The frontal areas are similar between the JT and Ram 1500 (~3.4m^2 to ~3.44m^2), but the Cd really shines for the Ram here.

The JT is pushing an extra 130# at 80mph, or an extra 70# at 60mph than the 1500.

Worst Current Aero Vehicles in the USA
The 5-6 worst aero vehicles (based on Cd) in the USA are:
JT & JL (pretty similar, but the JT bed adds about .02-.03 'worseness')
M-B G-Wagen (.54; AMG is .56-.57)
Ford Bronco (estimated, no published #s)
Land Rover Defender (estimated at .38-.42)
Toyota Land Cruiser (estimated at .34-.36)

Even M-B's AMG V8TT has a lackluster 14-16mpg estimate. It only puts out 577hp/627tq, so no one here would be interested in something like that, right? Regardless of the $200k price tag.

Just for Funsies
And because I was curious, and have no idea if it's correct, with the published 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times, I ran some numbers for my JT. It takes an additional ~250hp (at the crank) to move a modded JT (lift & tires) from 60-80mph in under 8 seconds. The JT is using roughly 40hp to maintain speed at 60mph, so those calculations don't seem out of line with the 3.6L hp rating compared to real-world experience. Getting up to 80mph is not very effortless (compared to our older BMW w/ 325hp), usually dropping to 5th/6th gear and a good amount of dino juice application. The numbers would indicate I'm using 90%+ capacity of the powertrain at higher speeds with my setup. Again... if this guy - who hated maths in school but tries to find solutions using maths and logic all the frickin' time - is mostly on the right track with estimates and loose assumptions.

 

[ChrisNLA]

Trusting AI, it's a quadratic relationship; faster you go, the penalty increases, but slightly. A smaller engine will work harder (actual output vs. total output) at higher speeds to overcome the aero penalty. The 3.6L "makes" 285hp, and mild Gladiator builds such as mine seem to use every bit of it at speed.

First - Coefficient of Drag (Cd) change

At 30mph, a change in Cd of .04 would be equivalent to adding 150# to the vehicle, but at 65mph it would be 800#. At 80mph it'd be almost 1750#. And this is all things equal, only the coefficient of drag changing from .32 to .36 for an average vehicle.

Gladiator vs. Ram
If the Ram 1500 Cd=.36, the estimates of the JT fall around .52-.58, depending upon the accoutrements we add. If I'm directing AI correctly (75% confidence I am), the jump between a Cd=.36 and Cd=.58 adds a lot more resistance.

Adding in the JT's frontal area (approx 3.4m^2) and going from Cd=3.6 to Cd=.58, the graph looks the same, but the values are *just* a little different. I know it's 2 variables changing, but if we're comparing a 1500 to a JT, might as well.

So, roughly speaking and if I'm doing this right (letting AI do the maths I can't, I'll end up pulling a Michael Bolton), compared to a Ram 1500, the JT would have approx. 10,000# worth of weight to equal the aero penalty at 80mph; only ~7000# at 65mph. It would feel like you're towing a heavy-ass trailer or have your emotional baggage in the bed.

Air Resistance
Overall, the actual force from air resistance (sea level average assumptions) at 80mph is ~340#. Dropping just the Cd to .36 drops air resistance to ~211#. The frontal areas are similar between the JT and Ram 1500 (~3.4m^2 to ~3.44m^2), but the Cd really shines for the Ram here.

The JT is pushing an extra 130# at 80mph, or an extra 70# at 60mph than the 1500.

Worst Current Aero Vehicles in the USA
The 5-6 worst aero vehicles (based on Cd) in the USA are:
JT & JL (pretty similar, but the JT bed adds about .02-.03 'worseness')
M-B G-Wagen (.54; AMG is .56-.57)
Ford Bronco (estimated, no published #s)
Land Rover Defender (estimated at .38-.42)
Toyota Land Cruiser (estimated at .34-.36)

Even M-B's AMG V8TT has a lackluster 14-16mpg estimate. It only puts out 577hp/627tq, so no one here would be interested in something like that, right? Regardless of the $200k price tag.

Just for Funsies
And because I was curious, and have no idea if it's correct, with the published 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times, I ran some numbers for my JT. It takes an additional ~250hp (at the crank) to move a modded JT (lift & tires) from 60-80mph in under 8 seconds. The JT is using roughly 40hp to maintain speed at 60mph, so those calculations don't seem out of line with the 3.6L hp rating compared to real-world experience. Getting up to 80mph is not very effortless (compared to our older BMW w/ 325hp), usually dropping to 5th/6th gear and a good amount of dino juice application. The numbers would indicate I'm using 90%+ capacity of the powertrain at higher speeds with my setup. Again... if this guy - who hated maths in school but tries to find solutions using maths and logic all the frickin' time - is mostly on the right track with estimates and loose assumptions.

See.

This is the kind of effort I like to see.

 

[MPMB]

I tried to whole-ass it.

 

[Blade1668]

I guess I get a bit confused thinking if this is such an issue, others, far smarter than me, would have put this to bed by now.

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/392-v8-engine-swap-is-in-and-running/

Here's a starter fix for you
If someone else's hasn't dropped it.

 

[Oilburner]

Skip to the 3 minute mark. Says that the mpg is the same as the 3.6 after gearing it correctly.

Actually, he says w/ 5.13 gears on their trip to FL they got the same fuel mileage as the 3.6L and after they changed to 4.56s they improved "2 to 3mpg". In the comments of that video, he says he gets 14mpg (not towing).

Sponsored