Wrangler EcoDiesel debuts Sept 26!

[WXman]

I don't understand why Dodge/Jeep, since they already use Cummins, didnt snatch up the Small cummins that is going in the Titan XDs.

Exactly, except they should have done one better and modernized the 4BT. They modernized the 6BT for use in the Ram trucks and it's still the best diesel engine offered in any vehicle in the U.S. Can you imagine how fantastic it would have been if they modernized the 4BT version and stuffed that into the Gladiator? It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. It would have made the same power numbers, with better efficiency, and it would last a half-million miles.

Sponsored

 

[Billy]

Exactly, except they should have done one better and modernized the 4BT. They modernized the 6BT for use in the Ram trucks and it's still the best diesel engine offered in any vehicle in the U.S. Can you imagine how fantastic it would have been if they modernized the 4BT version and stuffed that into the Gladiator? It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. It would have made the same power numbers, with better efficiency, and it would last a half-million miles.

Emissions regs would have knackered that one up too. The bigger trucks aren't quite as EPA hamstrung as low GVW rigs. Having said that, I would have really loved a mini Cummins in a Jeep. Imagine if Cummins took a shot at a redesign like Chevy did with the 3.0 CRD. That little motor is sweet. (Their new lil Duramax started out as a VMI Italiano job)

 

[WXman]

Shocking that they are using the 3.73 gear ratio. This powertrain would have been better matched to the 3.45 gear they are using in current JL Wranglers.

It used to always be that on pickups, the diesels had numerically lower axle gearing to maximize the benefits of the engine. If you gear a diesel too low, you actually run the risk of pushing it above it's peak powerband.

Very odd choice. I suppose they did it for slow speed rock crawlers, but Gladiator buyers who want MPG and range would rather have the 3.45s.

Also, look at that giant conglomeration of exhaust under the rear end. Holy cow. That's crazy.

 

[Billy]

Shocking that they are using the 3.73 gear ratio. This powertrain would have been better matched to the 3.45 gear they are using in current JL Wranglers.

It used to always be that on pickups, the diesels had numerically lower axle gearing to maximize the benefits of the engine. If you gear a diesel too low, you actually run the risk of pushing it above it's peak powerband.

Very odd choice. I suppose they did it for slow speed rock crawlers, but Gladiator buyers who want MPG and range would rather have the 3.45s.

Also, look at that giant conglomeration of exhaust under the rear end. Holy cow. That's crazy.

The 3.73s are probably off the shelf 44s. I think the 3.45s are spec'd only on the lesser axles (Dana 35s?).

Yeah, my now dead WK CRD had ridiculously low gearing. She spun well over 3000 RPM on the freeway. Ugh, the torque band is at less than 2000. I was lucky to get 22 mpg. Crazy indeed.

 

[Oilburner]

Did I hear them say 18 gal tank? I thought Wranglers got 21 gal w/ the 3.6?

 

[Oilburner]

Yeah, my now dead WK CRD had ridiculously low gearing. She spun well over 3000 RPM on the freeway. Ugh, the torque band is at less than 2000. I was lucky to get 22 mpg. Crazy indeed.

Wierd- mine runs about 77mph at 2K rpm all day. Rarely less thank 30 mpg.

 

[Billy]

Wierd- mine runs about 77mph at 2K rpm all day. Rarely less thank 30 mpg.

Yours is a WK2 with the 8 speed. Mine was a 2008 WK with a Mercedes OM642 and 5 speed.

 

[Billy]

Did I hear them say 18 gal tank? I thought Wranglers got 21 gal w/ the 3.6?

Yup. Didn't want to believe him at first. Then the quick look underneath shows a ginormous muffler under there taking up valuable space. Even if so, the Diesel will go more than 100 miles further on a tank (on the highway)(Your results might vary).

Edit: Hopefully not the case on the JT... I'll take a 30 gallon tank!

 

[TheSolarWizard]

Yup. Didn't want to believe him at first. Then the quick look underneath shows a ginormous muffler under there taking up valuable space. Even if so, the Diesel will go more than 100 miles further on a tank (on the highway)(Your results might vary).

Edit: Hopefully not the case on the JT... I'll take a 30 gallon tank!

Quick maths 21.5 gallon tank x 22 mpg highway = 473 + 100 miles = 573/18 gallons =31.83 mpg?!

 

[Billy]

Quick maths 21.5 gallon tank x 22 mpg highway = 473 + 100 miles = 573/18 gallons =31.83 mpg?!

Ain't no Wrangler getting no 22 mpg. IMHO

 

[TheSolarWizard]

Ain't no Wrangler getting no 22 mpg. IMHO

That’s the epa rating

 

[EU_Gladiator]

The current 2.2D engine in the EU spec Wrangler is having some trouble with the DPF/AdBlue crap, so I really hope that the new 3.0 EcoDiesel will be offered over here as well and replace the 2.2D.

Thanks for sharing the video... I can't wait to see the 3.0 D in a Gladiator!

 

[cgflyer]

Reliability and longevity are the issues I'm worried about. The current Ecodiesel in stock form is a soot coking machine. Between the MAP sensors getting clogged, EGR failures, and DEF issues, there are problematic issues with the emissions. Don't get me wrong, I love my 2015 Ram Ecodiesel, but there are a few issues that Ram needs to workout. Like I said, the Cummins is pretty reliable, therefore I think the Ecodiesel can be just as reliable. My hope is that they worked out all the bugs from the lessons learned in the 2014 - 2018 Ecodiesel. Since the Ecodiesel is going in the Wrangler, Gladiator, and Ram 1500, I'm guessing that Ram is pretty confidence that this next generation will be a great engine.

I put 147,000 on my 2015 Ram 1500 Ecodiesel and never had any issues beyond a ECU code that finally was fixed with new injectors that Chrysler replaced at 97,000 miles under the power train warranty. Unconnected to the reliability of the engine itself however, the truck cost me $7,500 at around 130,000 miles (new alternator, new A/C compressor, new serpentine belt, new brakes including caliper, new CV joint and new fuel pumps, both boost and high pressure)...All wear and tear items, but all went at the same exact time. I never got close to 28 mpgs though as an average. I'd say my average on the highway was closer to 24 mpg. But I loved the ride and never wanted for power...

I wanted the diesel Gladiator, but just didn't want to wait and I wanted my manual. I'm happy with my decision, but the 3.6L will never match the torque I had with the 3.0L ecodiesel...But the ecodiesel rumors for the Gladiator will not be a towing powerhouse. 7,700 lbs towing capacity in my Ram is supposed to equate to only 5,000 lbs in the Gladiator because of the smaller engine bay and cooling issues.

 

[cgflyer]

Ain't no Wrangler getting no 22 mpg. IMHO

I'm getting 21.5+ in my Gladiator Rubicon on 35's with the Pulsar by Edge.

 

[biodiesel]

I put 147,000 on my 2015 Ram 1500 Ecodiesel and never had any issues beyond a ECU code that finally was fixed with new injectors that Chrysler replaced at 97,000 miles under the power train warranty. Unconnected to the reliability of the engine itself however, the truck cost me $7,500 at around 130,000 miles (new alternator, new A/C compressor, new serpentine belt, new brakes including caliper, new CV joint and new fuel pumps, both boost and high pressure)...All wear and tear items, but all went at the same exact time. I never got close to 28 mpgs though as an average. I'd say my average on the highway was closer to 24 mpg. But I loved the ride and never wanted for power...

No EGR cooler replacement?

Sponsored