Pentastar power increase

[Lunentucker]

As opposed to...............??

I

what I

Sponsored

 

[jebiruph]

I bought my first clone back in the early days. I had to have the ROM chips to make full use of all PC-DOS had to offer. It was five additional chips added to the system board.

I had a ROM burner for my Commodore 64 and you could fit a 256K ROM in memory so you could duplicate PC ROM chips. I had an UV light EPROM eraser to erase the old ones. I actually still have it all in a box in the attic.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I had a ROM burner for my Commodore 64 and you could fit a 256K ROM in memory so you could duplicate PC ROM chips. I had an UV light EPROM eraser to erase the old ones. I actually still have it all in a box in the attic.

Sounds like the equipment we had as CCC - except the C64 of course.
A lot of ROM making for their control systems and even some duplicated for computers they put together. They used a lot of Motorola processors, and what I was interested in but never got the chance to learn more about was OS-9

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I

what I

Boooooooooooo

 

[Escape.idiocracy]

I think it is very unlikely that you could get Houdini to marry up a simplified LS ECU with the sophisticated mess we all have. Nope, sounds good but I'll bet is next to impossible.

Darren Parsons figured it out…
??‍ in a home shop in the desert…. Just saying things can be done, even when the internet says no….

 

[legacy_etu]

There is a lot of pressure on the manufacturers to make it more difficult for the consumer to change the computer controls on the engine. Emissions is a big issue for the Overlords of the air. Just look at how aggressively they have been going after the diesel tuners. It won't be long before they come after the gasoline burners.

Why the switch to the newer, more secure computers?
Does Stellantis just want to keep the controls locked to manage warranty claims?
Was it really parts shortages and Covid?
Is it a result of pressure from the various government agencies?

Personally, I don't think you'll see a crack on the newer computers. I believe that you will see enhanced security with the coming model years. The next arena that will be attempted will likely be computer cloning and loading of the factory software so that it can be modified. I remember the days of cloning the IBM ROM chips and putting them in the generic computers so they would run the IBM (created by Microsoft) operating system.

It's already being done, the cloning that is. In the Supra world the ECU has been upgraded since 2021 with enhanced encryption and no-one has broken it yet and that IS a robust marketplace so you KNOW it's not for lack of trying. What folks do now is buy up a previous gen. ECU out of a wrecked BMW and clone the original ECU out of their car, Then the tuners work and install that ECU in the car. Not cheap. ECU's are also getting hard to come by and I've seen them go for up to $2K. Then you have to pay the tuner on top of that.

I have NO idea if this could be done in the Jeep like Flyin6 has already asked. Works in the BMW's sooooooooooo, maybe??

 

[ChrisNLA]

It's already being done, the cloning that is. In the Supra world the ECU has been upgraded since 2021 with enhanced encryption and no-one has broken it yet and that IS a robust marketplace so you KNOW it's not for lack of trying. What folks do now is buy up a previous gen. ECU out of a wrecked BMW and clone the original ECU out of their car, Then the tuners work and install that ECU in the car. Not cheap. ECU's are also getting hard to come by and I've seen them go for up to $2K. Then you have to pay the tuner on top of that.

I have NO idea if this could be done in the Jeep like Flyin6 has already asked. Works in the BMW's sooooooooooo, maybe??

The older GPEC2 (that is supported) has the connectors in a different position and I believe a different pinout on the ECM(ECU, whatever acronym you like). At very least you'd need an adapter harness, or even worst, re-pinning the ECM connectors. Assuming the software is otherwise the same.

I just leave my Gladiator alone. It's stock, on 33s, it does what it needs to do (and its a newer GPEC5, unsupported anyway).

If I want to play, I have a LS 5.3L swap in a '93 Chevy. We are acquiring all the parts for a turbo build. I also have a '15 SS Camaro, and those are well supported for tuning.

I have HP Tuners on hand as well, so learning all of that currently...

 

[TheRealStreetcommander]

Yeah, so, you know, like, uh, and...

I cant wait for the Hurricane to become available in the JT. Everyone can pull out their jester hats and high-step to the nearest "tuners" garage to get "tuned".

Then, after half the active forum member have popped their hurricanes from uploading the town fools point-and-click " 50psi street/tow/mpg tune", we can listen to everyone sulk and weep and rend their garments for a return of the good ole days. When they manufactured 20 million of the 3.6's over 15 years and they all just worked. "Stellantis really F---ed on this turbo-trash engine".

I've been told history rhymes --I don't believe it though.

If we are already breaking the law, we might as well just re-normalize stand-alone engine management. This tuning of factory PCM's seems really futile.

 

[jav_eee]

I drive a mostly stock Overland.

aaaaand that's why the power is sufficient for you.

 

[BearFootSam]

Yeah, while I also feel the 3.6 is underpowered (IF you have mods, like many of us do), you really can't squeeze more unless you add a turbo. As someone who has had and been forced to replace turbos in pretty much every car I've had, this was the first vehicle I've owned since the 90's without one. And one of the 3 major appeals to me about this engine.

Turbos will fail. Tomorrow, next week ...2 years from now when you're 1000 miles from home--the only thing you know is that there is a hidden countdown on when.

It's a trade off. Naturally-aspirated, theoretically more reliable, underpowered and inefficient or, turbo-powered ring every ounce out of the current engine and wait for it to 'splode. *shrugs*

Turbos can be very reliable but, particularly in conjunction with DI, the associated hardware and electronics add a great deal of complexity. You have to be mindful of oil and keep after carbon build up on the intake side.

I have to laugh about power sometimes, though. You think of these vehicles that Americans lust after like a stripped down diesel hilux, I've driven them, they are gutless and slower than feels safe. Likewise, a 1990 F150 weighed 4,200lbs (900 less than a JTR) with an output of 145hp and 265lb/ft from a 4.9L I6. Vehicles from sedans to trucks have climbed in power at a faster rate than weight has increased.

Can you make it up the hill in 4lo? yep
Does the truck drive the speed limit loaded up? yep
Can you accelerate and merge onto a highway pulling a trailer? it can

I have yet to feel like I had to wring the truck out for lack of power, it's not quick but it's also tall, heavy and cube shaped. You still have to slow way down to take a 90* turn, at a point the handling is far more limiting than the engine.

So long as it's reliable, not trouble to keep up and economical to repair and maintain then you've met the requirements for a truck motor.

 

[@californiajeeping]

Tune is the place to start for obvious reasons. But for every change you make, you have to look at where the next weakest link is. Changes to the tune can only go so far and then bump into other areas preventing further gains.

Here's an example of how simple shape changes to exhaust ports increased flow roughly 20-25% depending on the valve lift used - the dogleg head design -
Look carefully at what was changed and what wasn't. The floor of the port was changed, the top in another area, but the to the right of the words "VIEW A" was not changed, a clear reduction was not removed.
So opening things up wide in all areas isn't always the answer. Shape matters.
It's called "dog leg" because the port on the head was changed from a rectangle to one with a bump out on the bottom.

3.6l has integral exhaust in the heads. There’s likely no gains from porting as you have a cast style log between the cylinders

 

[ajkaz]

Just swap your JT with a diesel version. The power & economy is astronomically different. You could also move over nearly all your modifications without issue.

I have had 3 vehicles with aftermarket forced induction, I've had 3 more with factory FI. As much as I love doing my own work, pushing the boundaries, learning and tinkering; the factory installed platforms ALWAYS perform better, have better drivability, reliability and are better supported.

Swap your stuff to a diesel and dont look back. It'll likely get you bigger power gains than you'll achieve with this route and cost less.

 

[SRO]

We already know what a safe tune can look like with an improved intake. That's 305/273. That would take some intake engineering to maintain for ding depth. But that is a regular gas safe for thousands of miles tune. Can someone get a 50lb/ft torque tune? Maybe but I would not trust it on this application. That's a lot for just a tune and one bad tank of gas may ruin your day.

It will still downshift with 50lb more torque. I know this because my hemi powered truck still downshifts when towing on a grade. It's OK to downshift.

 

[Alpine Warthog]

Ya know, its crazy to me just how many people are pounding the OP about wanting to up his ponies. The engine is fine, leave it alone. The Rubicon and Mojave models exists because stock is NOT and will never be, "fine".

Maybe it's a generational thing? I'm not bagging on anybody in particular, I grew up with a dad who stuffed a bored out 307 with Fuelie heads into a Chevy LUV and had side pipes on it. Later, I had a mid 80's caddy with a 70 Caddy 500 under the hood. He also did some nutso things to a 55 chevy. That bored out 307 later got put into my '85 El Camino SS. You've got lots of guys who throw chevy V8s into CJs or anything else you can squeeze a small block into. Lawn tractor anyone? ( I get it, those were simpler times) but I've never known JEEP people to shoot down the hopes of squeezing more power out of...well....anything. I'll take 5 or 10 horses anywhere I can get em. Yes, there's a point of diminishing returns but that's up to the individual builder to decide where that is. I saw a couple people mention RV cams and valve timing, that's viable, even if it only nets you 5 whp.

Why bash the desire to improve? Because Jeep didn't build it that way, it shouldn't be done? Why the hell are any of us lifting these things? Why'd we put bigger tires on them? Why regear? The stock height and tires were fine!

OP is only asking for other people to speak up if they'd be willing to pony up some cash to get some more power. I'm down for more power, I can't do $8k but I'll upgrade my exhaust and intake when it comes time to replace the stock. Easier breathing is easier breathing. I'll upgrade and get a better gear oil for the diffs and transmission because it'll net me an extra horse and some more longevity. My pocketbook dictates the speed and extremes of my upgrades to a strong degree. I've seen people take new rigs home and chop beds down by a foot! YOU CAN"T DO THAT! just buy a Wrangler! C'mon people. ?

It's not like the guy is trying to tell you to add some extra chrome, sheesh!

 

[DAVECS2]

Just for refrence, the security is not the issue. Peolple have cracked the security, the problem is it can only be flashed a hand full of times and it goes corrupt.

Sponsored