Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 Launch Edition starts at $74,995

[Potatomafia]

Actual conversation I had at work:

Coworker: "wHy WoUlD I bUy A bRONcO wHeN yOu CaN gEt A V8 iN a WrAnGlEr?

Me: "Ok, go buy one today. They aren't even in production yet. And besides, the 392 Wrangler will be at least $70k."

Coworker: "iT wOn'T bE $70k!!!1!11!"

This is the same person that thinks the Mach-E is actually a Mustang

Sponsored

 

[EvlNvrDys]

Well they haven't published the Bronco MPG estimates yet, but they have for the F-150.

Seeing as the only difference between these is the engine, you could expect to see a similar difference for the Bronco.

If the F-150 can get 19/24/21 with the 2.7L, even a Squatched Bronco should do better, because it has less frontal area and is lighter...
The Ranger gets 20 city/24 hwy/22 combined with the 2.3L, which should be pretty close for the Bronco...

All of that to say is that your "lucky to get 18" theory is most likely a little low.

I got no problems with you posting "other" vehicles with the same engine. But get back to me when we actually see what people are posting. Hell my '12 Mustang V6 was rated at something like 31mpg (highway) back in the day. Well, I bought it with 36k miles on it already. With Michelin tires, she averaged out @ 27 mpg. When I went BFG's, down to 24 mpg... here I am at 210k miles on her, with (shit what did I put on her last) Toyo somethings maybe, and I'm getting 24 mpg. So manufacturers can post all they want, but real world, yes, until "proven" otherwise I'm expecting 18 mpg... but I hope to god it's low to mid 20's.

 

[mjcutri]

M you know this is a special edition right and not the run of the mill Wrangler, you do know the difference right?

Right, but this was what Jeep decided to announce in order to try to steal some thunder right before Ford's Bronco announcement...
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...-liter-v-8-wrangler-rubicon-392-concept.1761/

Basically, the only quick response Jeep could pull together to try to grab some attention from the Bronco was to drop a V8 in it (which is the Mopar MO) and they're charging $75k for it, so obviously it doesn't directly compete with any current bronco.
With their notoriously long refresh cycles, Jeep won't have an actual updated Wrangler to respond to the 2021 Bronco for at least a few years.

 

[rtsherry73]

You gonna beat up a $75k car off road? Doubt it. Guy that drives it has a rich Daddy.

 

[DaBronc]

Not enough is known. What does the launch edition have? if it's fully loaded from the beginning, doesn't seem too bad (i'm about to pay 65k for loaded bronco). +10k for a v8 is high, but not out of this world imo.

 

[mjcutri]

I got no problems with you posting "other" vehicles with the same engine. But get back to me when we actually see what people are posting. Hell my '12 Mustang V6 was rated at something like 31mpg (highway) back in the day. Well, I bought it with 36k miles on it already. With Michelin tires, she averaged out @ 27 mpg. When I went BFG's, down to 24 mpg... here I am at 210k miles on her, with (shit what did I put on her last) Toyo somethings maybe, and I'm getting 24 mpg. So manufacturers can post all they want, but real world, yes, until "proven" otherwise I'm expecting 18 mpg... but I hope to god it's low to mid 20's.

The point was that you were saying that a V8 would get basically the same MPG as the 2.3L or 2.7L EBs and all things being equal, the data shows that it wouldn't.

It isn't about comparing what people will get in the real world, there are way too many complicating factors to make it a viable comparison using real world MPG.

 

[Bronco Pilot]

I really liked the 392 Concept. In fact, it’s the first jeep I have seen that made me want to buy it even with the high price point of 75k. It is safe to say that if FORD didn’t come out with the Bronco I would be buying this jeep. My FE is somewhere around 65k. I will admit that if FORD offered a V8 version with a manual and those custom stitched leather seats in the premiere Broncos, I would be willing to shell out 75+ no problem.

No one probably needs that much hp offroad, but that’s why we buy these vehicles, to be a little bit ridiculous.

FORD-V8 Bronco/Manual/Nav Delete/Fancy Interior.....lets do this !!!!!

 

[Pancho Kornwallace]

I would rather have a Bronco AND a Mustang. Plus I would have seating for 8-9 instead of 4.

I can beat the Jeep on the trails with the Bronco, and I can beat the Jeep on the track with the Mustang.

If you try to make an "everything vehicle" you compromise something.

 

[Phil_Is_My_Middle_Name]

The V8 from the Mustang IS the weakest V8 Ford makes - in the F150 it makes 400hp/410tq. Ford decided a decade ago that for anything less than about 400hp, a turbo 4 or turbo 6 will do the job. They did not invest in poverty-spec V8 like GM's 4.8 LS.



A large part of achieving fuel efficiency is minimizing frictional and parasitic losses in the engine. These take the form of pumping oil, spinning camshafts against valve springs, spinning the mass of the rotating assembly, the motion of each piston ring against the cylinder wall, and more. Given identical cylinder sizes, a V8 will always have more frictional losses than a V6, because it has more surface area contact between piston rings and cylinder walls, it has more valve springs to compress, it has more rotational mass to spin, and it has a fixed amount of displacement to compress, which causes more pumping losses.

So in general, at steady state and out of boost, an engine with fewer cylinders will use less fuel to produce the necessary ~25 horsepower for cruising. Now turbos don't magically create power out of nowhere, they just supply the engine with enough air that it can use more fuel. For a given maximum power output, a turbo engine will use as much or slightly more fuel than an NA engine. That's why EcoBoost towing gas mileage is bad - once loaded up it spends way more time dipping into boost, so it loses the advantage of being a smaller engine.

But in the F150, the 2.7 gets a real world 2mpg combined better than the 5.0. In the Mustang, the 2.3 gets a real world 4-5mpg better than the 5.0.

That's enough of a difference that you can't just hand-wave it away and say "it'll probably be the same."

I own a 19MY F150 with the 27L and I average 21.5mpg. I have 33K on it and drive a mix. So the Bronco with be every bit 20mpg mix with the Sas. I believe the weight loss with the larger tires to offset it with accomplish this. Not saying it cant be 21 or 22mpg I just don't want to get hopes up too much....LOL

 

[EvlNvrDys]

The point was that you were saying that a V8 would get basically the same MPG as the 2.3L or 2.7L EBs and all things being equal, the data shows that it wouldn't.

It isn't about comparing what people will get in the real world, there are way too many complicating factors to make it a viable comparison using real world MPG.

Today just may be the day I throw everyone to my ignore list.

What I was trying to say without saying it, was your little 4 cyl is going to work harder to turn 35" tires then a n/a V8. Gas mileage WILL suffer. If you think those numbers will hold up then God bless you. I don't see it happening.
Therefor if mileage suffers on the 4 banger, that will "probably" bring the numbers down closer to what the V8 will be doing with the same set of tires.

But once again, this is all based on my "obviously" diluted thinking, you can think what you want and argue as much as you please.

With all that said, I will ask that ALL IDIOTS just stop responding to me tonight.... Thanks!

 

[Pancho Kornwallace]

Actual conversation I had at work:

Coworker: "wHy WoUlD I bUy A bRONcO wHeN yOu CaN gEt A V8 iN a WrAnGlEr?

Me: "Ok, go buy one today. They aren't even in production yet. And besides, the 392 Wrangler will be at least $70k."

Coworker: "iT wOn'T bE $70k!!!1!11!"

This is the same person that thinks the Mach-E is actually a Mustang

Your co-worker is correct. It is not $70K, it is $75K!
Also the Mustang Mach-E will beat my 2016 Mustang Manual transmission in the quarter mile and on the track, so, yes, it is a Mustang.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

Today just may be the day I throw everyone to my ignore list.

What I was trying to say without saying it, was your little 4 cyl is going to work harder to turn 35" tires then a n/a V8. Gas mileage WILL suffer. If you think those numbers will hold up then God bless you. I don't see it happening.
Therefor if mileage suffers on the 4 banger, that will "probably" bring the numbers down closer to what the V8 will be doing with the same set of tires.

But once again, this is all based on my "obviously" diluted thinking, you can think what you want and argue as much as you please.

With all that said, I will ask that ALL IDIOTS just stop responding to me tonight.... Thanks!

Im an idiot but I wanna talk to you

 

[Hoofnmouth]

Nothing else need be said.....

They have been at it for 80 years they will be fine

 

[BAUS67]

Did not read all 6 pages, maybe someone else has pointed this out but I read in the article AWD !!!

That will damper some die hards !!

 

[Austin26]

There’s a custom Jeep dealer near me and they currently have a demon swapped Gladiator on their lot for 179k, couldn’t even imagine that much for a gladiator as insane as it is. Link below for those interested in looking at the insanity.

https://www.dtocustoms.com/details-2020-jeep-gladiator-rubicon_4x4-used-1c6jjtbg9ll155878.html

Oh shit it says military discount of $500... Might get it. Now it's only 179499 thousand million monies.

Sponsored