What engine would you prefer? (Revised)

[The Bean]

Just as long as we remember that the 36-56 range you're talking about is eMPG, which is not comparable to true MPG.

When your friend is in ICE mode he's getting upper teens for mileage because it's the same 2.0T that was already in the Wrangler, but now it's saddled with 700 lbs. more weight.

And when he's on EV mode, he's still paying ~$0.15 per mile to drive it, because electricity isn't free and the 4xe can only go 1 mile per kWh of electricity.

So at the end of the day, there is ZERO money savings. In fact, he's actually spending a lot more money annually overall unless he successfully gets the $7,500 tax credit to offset some of it.



True, the 4.0 was legendary because everything else was worse. But by today's standards, the 4.0 is garbage. Heavy, weak, thirsty, and they leaked oil like sieves.

The inline-6 that's rumored to be coming is a totally different animal though. A modern design with forced induction included. It won't have any of the old 4.0's shortcomings.

That is not MPGe, but actual real world MPG. He drives less than 20 miles a day and really only uses gas for spirited acceleration or on longer drives. He’s currently tracked about 1,800 miles of use, and has used just over 36 gallons of gas, for an effective MPG of ~50. As far as charging goes, his local utility company provides a $2,500 rebate for installing a level 2 charger at his home (which he used). As far as the $7,500 tax credit, FCA includes that as an incentive on the lease of the vehicle representing a substantial savings. He also got the 4Xe for ~8% below invoice (before the $7,500 tax credit is factored in). It’s a very compelling powertrain that I hope Jeep eventually offers in the JT.

Sponsored

 

[Gvsukids]

Are we concerned about weight or air flow? Jeep already had enough trouble with the current engine choices.

 

[Trickster]

Are we concerned about weight or air flow? Jeep already had enough trouble with the current engine choices.

This is in “dream” mode not real world.
I should have added the Hellephant too I suppose.

 

[Trickster]

I voted 392, but specifically I would want the truck version, not the fancy-pants SRT version. Dependability and simplicity is the goal here.

The other options are too complicated and unreliable/unproven.

Had them both, and the SRT is a premium fuel guzzler, but that was because of the unavoidable fun factor when you stand on it. It was in a Durango which is quite portly.
My 2500 with the 6.4 was no fuel sipper, but it was a hauler for the TT, at least it burned the cheap gas.
If I wanted I could get pretty reasonable fuel economy with either, just had to shut em down on the downhills.

 

[eyekode]

So it looks like I am in the minority but I would love a full EV powertain. I don't do a ton of highway driving and I love the relative simplicity of all electric vs ice. Especially vs hybrid where you have two complicated systems with complicated interactions.

 

[RobbertCole]

It doesn’t say 4.0.
You assume it was referring to the old 4.0
A modern inline 6 is nothing like those.

thats stupid.

Okay, I vote for a mythical 12cyl 4.0

 

[Trickster]

thats stupid.

Okay, I vote for a mythical 12cyl 4.0

Lol

 

[Zswickliffe]

So it looks like I am in the minority but I would love a full EV powertain. I don't do a ton of highway driving and I love the relative simplicity of all electric vs ice. Especially vs hybrid where you have two complicated systems with complicated interactions.

I voted EV, but I'm mixed.

It would have to be a killer powertrain for it to make sense. 400+ mile range unladen in my opinion, which would translate to half that when towing or offroad.

They'd also have to offer battery packs you can bring and strap on for an extra... 50mile range or whatever.

If they didn't accomplish that, then it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Frank...]

Anything that would give my 6 speed some get up & go.

 

[Trickster]

I voted EV, but I'm mixed.

It would have to be a killer powertrain for it to make sense. 400+ mile range unladen in my opinion, which would translate to half that when towing or offroad.

They'd also have to offer battery packs you can bring and strap on for an extra... 50mile range or whatever.

If they didn't accomplish that, then it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Zswickliffe]

Hah yeah I saw those. Unfortunately they'd need to be every 5 miles to stay all electric based on what I've seen with the 4xe

 

[raypla]

My 3.0 rips, yes turbo lag is there but tolerable. Did a highway excursion last weekend, saw 27.5, dash, upon my return. Got 18.5 mpg on a 6 hour jaunt through the ADKs towing a 16.5 ft deep V Tracker w/50 hp Merc, kept trans in manual mode through the mountains. Couldn’t be happier, not one hiccup in 5,000 mi.

If you go test drive one, be prepared to bring it home

 

[redriderjf87]

To the people voting for the inline 4.0

WHY? I had one in my TJ and it was a DOG. You do realize that if you put that engine in a gladiator youd get even worse mileage, worse towing, worse performance right?

that engine makes 190 HP and 260 lb ft.

the 3.6 is 285 hp 260 lbft

so youve gained nothing down low and have essentially zero top end.

If you think the gladiator lacks power with the 3.6 and want to drop in the 4.0 (and presumably the 5sp or 6spd manual or 42RLE I have got some bad news for you.

Id love to see the 4.0 spin around 37"s or even 35"s in a 3.73 sport auto

Nobody voted for the old 4.0. And in fairness, you didn't include the rpm that the 260 lb-ft comes in at.

 

[redriderjf87]

thats stupid.

Okay, I vote for a mythical 12cyl 4.0

thats stupid.

Okay, I vote for a mythical 12cyl 4.0

What's stupid about a modern 4.0 straight six being improved over the old 4.0 straight six in terms of power/torque/mpg? And what does that have to do with a straight 12 that no automaker makes?

Not being sarcastic, just curious.

 

[Donkey Fluffer]

392. Anyone who says 5.7 has never driven the 392. I’d settle for the 5.7 but I’d prefer the 392.

I have owned both. The 392 guzzles premium fuel. The 5.7 runs fine on regular. Not knocking the 392, but for the "working man" that I mentioned in my post, the 5.7 works better. Not everybody needs an SRT, and the thousands of $ saved in initial cost and fuel will make it a success for Jeep and us.

Sponsored