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

[MPMB]

And, again "it will fit" has NOTHING to do with anything, nada, zip, zero. This is hilarious after all of the many other threads, hundreds of posts over years - and it's still a "it will fit, why not do it" simplistic mindset thing.

I guess the internet is proof that no one thinks beyond the physical "it will fit", financial, marketing, crash testing, COOLING to get tow ratings Jeep is proud of and so on.

If you want one in the JT - then just go do it.

Well, other people are doing it, so it should be really easy for Jeep to do it at scale.

Right? Right?

It's not like Jeep has to produce 105+ JT392 per day (that's 1 every 10 minutes, btw), just 12. They can totally fit an assembly line off-shoot in their plant. It's so easy.

/s

I brought up the tow ratings earlier. It's best if Jeep doesn't increase the tow numbers, otherwise we're going to get a lot of idiots on the road that'll end up in the ditch or in the other lane when they start towing their 34' travel trailer on vacation. "It only weighs 6200#, the Jeep tows 8500#." <facepalm>

Sponsored

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

And, again "it will fit" has NOTHING to do with anything, nada, zip, zero. This is hilarious after all of the many other threads, hundreds of posts over years - and it's still a "it will fit, why not do it" simplistic mindset thing.

I guess the internet is proof that no one thinks beyond the physical "it will fit", financial, marketing, crash testing, COOLING to get tow ratings Jeep is proud of and so on.

If you want one in the JT - then just go do it.

He already did.

You missed the thread?

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/...-in-and-running-2023-gladiator-mojave.104581/

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Car & Driver article edits the final quote, but other articles run what's in the KBB quote. I would have to track down the media call (ha, good luck with that one) and listen to it.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...expiration-date-gladiator-rubicon-392-coming/


https://www.kbb.com/car-news/jeep-will-build-v8-powered-gladiator-keep-wrangler-392/

So in other words, no. Just hedging, fudging, corporate CEO talk to keep people excited and hopig without saying anything at all. But some will read into it things that were never said. As already posted - check out the long long thread debunking is corp-speak (really like a politician, making promises without actually promising anything at all.

He already did.

You missed the thread?

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/...-in-and-running-2023-gladiator-mojave.104581/

I was meaning for other folks, guess I wasn't clear - the CEO made no promises - if anyone else wants one, then go do it. But it sure ain't happening soon from Jeep.
So if people want the V8 that badly - do what he did. Put his money, time and effort where his mouth was. Doer, got something done.

 

[Cburd61]

I used to think the same thing, but it would probably cost upwards of $85K. At that point, I'm thinking it would be better to keep my 22 JT MT and buy a used V8 truck to have both. The JT is on such a small frame compared to a full-size truck and I'd rather have a roomier interior with that engine. I could pull the JT on a trailer wherever I wanted to go with it, still party off-road and have a flux of $ left over!

Yeah, right with you there. I just bought a low mileage 2018 Ram Bighorn 4x4. Just for the rare times I need a bigger truck with more power.

 

[Smash615]

Imagine how often you'd have to fill up driving a box down the road with a Hemi V8 and a 17gal tank... I get 16mpg city as it is.... I'd be lucky to get 9mpg. The more I think of the fantasy, the more depressing it gets. Hard pass.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Imagine how often you'd have to fill up driving a box down the road with a Hemi V8 and a 17gal tank... I get 16mpg city as it is.... I'd be lucky to get 9mpg. The more I think of the fantasy, the more depressing it gets. Hard pass.

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

 

[MPMB]

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

Yup. Even across usage in other models. Roughly 3-4mpg difference for the combined EPA numbers.

Since Dodge didn't offer any different tunes for the 5.7l in recent years, it's interesting to note that the '21 RWD Charger was 16c/25h/19co while the '22 RWD 1500 was 18/23/20. Curb weight difference between the two models is 500-1100#, depending on the Ram configuration.

Here we are, being taught/told that every 100# of weight reduces MPG by 1-3%.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

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

Can't compare. Totally different shapes, drag and so on. the Ram is made for less drag - check out how they go through wind tunnel to get that sort of mpg. Do you really think a tall JT with high siiting fender flares that act like huge scoops would come out the same?
Huge differences inhow they try to shape the Ram for mpg vs a Gladiator where the goal is very different.. And look at the window stickers - you are looking at 5 mpg or so difference just with the Wrangler. Drag on the long flat sides of the JT will be much worse.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Can't compare. Totally different shapes, drag and so on. the Ram is made for less drag - check out how they go through wind tunnel to get that sort of mpg. Do you really think a tall JT with high siiting fender flares that act like huge scoops would come out the same?
Huge differences inhow they try to shape the Ram for mpg vs a Gladiator where the goal is very different.. And look at the window stickers - you are looking at 5 mpg or so difference just with the Wrangler. Drag on the long flat sides of the JT will be much worse.

I'm comparing a Ram to a Ram.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Yup. Even across usage in other models. Roughly 3-4mpg difference for the combined EPA numbers.

Since Dodge didn't offer any different tunes for the 5.7l in recent years, it's interesting to note that the '21 RWD Charger was 16c/25h/19co while the '22 RWD 1500 was 18/23/20. Curb weight difference between the two models is 500-1100#, depending on the Ram configuration.

Here we are, being taught/told that every 100# of weight reduce MPG by 1-3%.

Wow, again leaving out so much science. The weight change applies to the SAME BODY, same shape, not very different shapes with different drag numbers. This is just amazing how people choose what to consider and what to ignore.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I'm comparing a Ram to a Ram.

Yes, but you again are ignoring the effect in the JT - I know what you are comparing, and you can't. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

Yes, but you again are ignoring the effect in the JT - I know what you are comparing, and you can't. It doesn't work that way.

Why would or how could the 3.6L be better at MPG in low aerodynamic situations vs the 5.7L?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Why would or how could the 3.6L be better at MPG in low aerodynamic situations vs the 5.7L?

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)

 

[MPMB]

Wow, again leaving out so much science. The weight change applies to the SAME BODY, same shape, not very different shapes with different drag numbers. This is just amazing how people choose what to consider and what to ignore.

I'm not ignoring it, I just didn't want to delve into a bunch of extra work; and I'm also not an aerodynamicist. And don't be a dick. Be better with your tone. We've discussed things enough on here you can be polite.

Obviously they're not going to be the same numbers because it's apples to pears. I find it interesting that regardless of what platform the 5.7L hemi is put in, it still gets roughly the same MPG numbers.

I said it's interesting to note. As it's usually a safe assumption that lighter and more aero vehicles get better MPGs, but not in this case. Why is that? What other things are at play that make for this discrepancy? Rhetorical.

All that to say that even if the 5.7L would be dropped into the JT, despite my optimism of MPG improvement I stated months ago, it's unlikely that there would be any significant change from the 16/25/20 MPG numbers. On a packed trail it'd probably be worse, as a V8 burns a lot more gas at idle than most smaller engines.



BTW, the Charger's coefficient of drag numbers are .32 and the 1500 is around .36. Fun fact: if a car's Cd changes from .32 to .36, that would be like adding 800# to the vehicle at 65mph.

 

[MPMB]

Why would or how could the 3.6L be better at MPG in low aerodynamic situations vs the 5.7L?

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.

Sponsored