Why do they have such a hard time deciding to put the 5.0 in?

[stickshifter]

idk how many times i've said this. The 392 jeep wrangler has been a concept since SEMA 2011!! not gonna go into production!!

Agreed. Why don't they just put the 5.7 in the Wrangler and stop with all this 392 b.s. And if they ever do produce a Wrangler with the 392 it would have to come stock with Dana Spicer 60s, the heavy-duty version of the ZF transmission, beefed-up drive shafts, etc. Admittedly, that sounds amazing, but it would be damn expensive, and actually more power than I would want for rock-crawling. Stuff is just going to break. Jeep should just drop in the 5.7, upgrade the power steering pump, upgrade the tie rod and drag link, and upgrade the ball joints. This would address the major weaknesses in the Wrangler (power and steering), and wouldn't break the bank the way the 392 would.

I think Jeep has to respond to Ford. The Wrangler is key to the brand, and Ford is whooping Jeep with its engine options. But I think we'll see a turbo 6 in a Jeep before we see a V8.

Sponsored

 

[Fordboi]

Agreed. Why don't they just put the 5.7 in the Wrangler and stop with all this 392 b.s. And if they ever did produce a Wrangler with the Hellcat it would have to come stock with Dana Spicer 60s, the heavy-duty version of the ZF transmission, beefed-up drive shafts, etc. Admittedly, that sounds amazing, but it would be damn expensive, and actually more power than I would want for rock-crawling. Stuff is just going to break. Jeep should just drop in the 5.7, upgrade the power steering pump, upgrade the tie rod and drag link, and upgrade the ball joints. This would address the major weaknesses in the Wrangler (power and steering), and wouldn't break the bank the way a Hellcat would.

I think Jeep has to respond to Ford. The Wrangler is key to the brand, and Ford is whooping Jeep with its engine options. But I think we'll see a turbo 6 in a Jeep before we see a V8.

i think before jeep tries to destroy their wrangler with ~400 horse, they need to fix death wobble

 

[blkreaper]

Agreed. Why don't they just put the 5.7 in the Wrangler and stop with all this 392 b.s. And if they ever did produce a Wrangler with the Hellcat it would have to come stock with Dana Spicer 60s, the heavy-duty version of the ZF transmission, beefed-up drive shafts, etc. Admittedly, that sounds amazing, but it would be damn expensive, and actually more power than I would want for rock-crawling. Stuff is just going to break. Jeep should just drop in the 5.7, upgrade the power steering pump, upgrade the tie rod and drag link, and upgrade the ball joints. This would address the major weaknesses in the Wrangler (power and steering), and wouldn't break the bank the way a Hellcat would.

I think Jeep has to respond to Ford. The Wrangler is key to the brand, and Ford is whooping Jeep with its engine options. But I think we'll see a turbo 6 in a Jeep before we see a V8.

I disagree because i don't believe Chrysler makes any turbo 6's right now. Or maybe i'm just ignorant but i cant think of any. It would cost less to use a v8 even is its a tight squeeze than to create an engine you know nothing about. Perfect example is toyota and the supra. BMW has been the king of straight six for years. It would have cost tons of R&D for toyota to make one

 

[stickshifter]

i think before jeep tries to destroy their wrangler with ~400 horse, they need to fix death wobble

Yup. All the parts are available in the aftermarket, but there is no excuse for Jeep producing steering components that - in some cases - need replacing during the first year of ownership. Death wobble in a Wrangler will never happen with a PSC Motorsports power steering pump ($1,400), beefy drag links and tie rods from Synergy ($700) or some other manufacturer, and ball joints from Dynatrac ($629). Maybe Jeep doesn't have to produce parts at this quality level, but they have to do better than what they are doing now.

 

[stickshifter]

I disagree because i don't believe Chrysler makes any turbo 6's right now. Or maybe i'm just ignorant but i cant think of any. It would cost less to use a v8 even is its a tight squeeze than to create an engine you know nothing about. Perfect example is toyota and the supra. BMW has been the king of straight six for years. It would have cost tons of R&D for toyota to make one

I would agree with you, except I have a buddy who does publicity work for Jeep (yeah, yeah, I know, "I heard from a guy..." so take it with many grains of salt) and he said that Jeep was working on a forced induction 6-cylinder for the JL. He is not an engineer for Jeep, so this is not some super-secret insider scoop. He just knows people and hears things. He heard they are either working on a twin turbo I6, or turbo-charging the current 3.6 Pentastar V6. Like I said, many grains of salt...

UPDATE: About a year ago, Jeep filed a patent for some elements in an engine under development; this engine (code named "Tornado") is a turbo-charged Inline 6. According to Allpar, the engine is just under 3.0 liters, and FCA's goal is to produce horsepower on par with the 5.7 Hemi, but with torque that comes on at lower RPMs. Here is one source:
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/11/12/fiat-chrysler-patent-turbo-inline-six-engine/

 

[ragingclue]

I wouldn't say no to a Coyote in a Bronco, but I'd much rather have a lightened gojira.

Went from N54->Coyote->LS3 (all modded but not beyond FBO). The coyote felt pretty weak below 3k but then woke up quick. I don't know if they've done better to smooth that transition in Gen2 and Gen3 but under 3k it felt completely anemic compared to the engines it was sandwiched by. But for about a month I was banging off the rev limiter on the LS3 forgetting it comes on early and leaves the building early too.

And of course in a lot of vehicles these days, you'll have some sort of torque management (yeah even manuals). So there's some feeling of linearity/responsiveness lost there. With modern tiny or variable vane turbos plus engine management capability, I think a lot of people who haven't driven a turbo vehicle in a while would be surprised that what they think of as "turbo lag" just doesn't exist like it used to, not anywhere near the scale anyway. The N54 was especially good about this.

 

[OX1]

But I don't! I love V8s.



Saying wrong things over and over again don't make them true.

In each of these videos, please highlight the time at which the driver experienced non-linear power delivery.







Now let's compare that to a 5.0:



In all cases, what do we see? The torque converter flares to ~2000rpm and the vehicle accelerates in a steady, linear manner.

I've yet to see a stock 2.7 deliver any kind of non-linear power. You're welcome to go and look for it, and best of luck in that endeavor.

I drive a 2.7 Fusion everyday and have datalogged it and raced it on the track. How about you? You do understand there is more to offroading then just flooring it from a dead stop (maybe you don't).

Once again, I'll make the same offer. Please post up the offroad rig you built (or even bought) , well over 5K lbs (just like a 4 door is going to be, built up), over 40 inch tire, drivetrain specs, wheeled for years in sloppy, technical terrain. Some pics and videos to help prove the point that a V-8 is not required would help. Then maybe we can have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Xodric]

Don't think a V8 would fit without a lot of redesigning. Just my observation.

 

[OX1]

ACTUAL DYNOS HAVE TORQUE CONVERTERS
how many times have we been over this?
modern day torque converters don’t lock up until 2500 rpm or so. So the engine torque will be massively different than output torque.

these are based off of flywheel dynos. Not wheel dynos.

the 2.7 hits peak 400lbft around 2700 rpm. its not like 2600 is 0

Who cares what theoretical chart you come up with, what matters is what really happens.
Even tuned, there is still a full second delay to get to any of those dyno numbers. Then it ramps up quicker than I want. Then it falls on it's face in the upper RPM range. It does everything wrong for what I want it to do.

Do I love it on my street car, ABSOLUTELY!!!! The peaky feeling is cool on the street. Would be nice if it did not drop off in power so much in extreme heat, but that's what turbos do. Suspect it will be somewhat better in bronco with larger IC, that is until you clog it up on the 100's of deep muddy watery holes that you have to drive through, some days ALL day long, on even the main trails, were I go.

 

[OX1]

but high rpm torque is mostly only used for top end speed. 50-80mph pulls. How many people are going to be doing that in a BRONCO. Mustang sure but not a 73” tall box.

Very frustrating trying to discuss something with someone who is so adamant with an opinion about a topic, they have no experience with.

You want the long, none peaky RPM band/range so that you don't need super high gearing due to no off idle torque, won't get unexpected mid range peaks, and so if you need to, you can get some wheelspeed in the upper RPM range, without switching gears. When you are on the edge, you don't want to upset the power flow any more than needed (or the chassis, by shifting gears all over the place).

A little like road racing, where a large RPM band with minimal shifting is ideal (and you are at the limit of traction all the time). In this case, obviously a lot lower speed, but gravity and greasy terrain make what you want in a powerplant, very similar.

 

[OX1]

Don't think a V8 would fit without a lot of redesigning. Just my observation.

Thanks for the pics. Is that the IC up front?

 

[Laminar]

I drive a 2.7 Fusion everyday and have datalogged it and raced it on the track. How about you?

I mostly race my V8s at the track, though I do drive my wife's 2.7 EcoBoost regularly.

 

[Laminar]

I think we’ve gone over several times that the issue with the ecoboost is where it starts making power, not the end of the RPM range that you have been fighting about all day.

Hahahaha, this is great. I posted several videos asking anyone to point out where the Coyote is making this massive off-idle power but the EcoBoosts aren't (spoiler: there's no difference), so we pivoted to talking about the end of the RPM band, but now we're back to the off-idle torque thing? You guys are running in circles here. EcoBoosts make power where the torque converter flashes. There's no lag or non-linearity.

 

[NCOBX]

idk how many times i've said this. The 392 jeep wrangler has been a concept since SEMA 2011!! not gonna go into production!!

But I don't! I love V8s.



Saying wrong things over and over again don't make them true.

In each of these videos, please highlight the time at which the driver experienced non-linear power delivery.







Now let's compare that to a 5.0:



In all cases, what do we see? The torque converter flares to ~2000rpm and the vehicle accelerates in a steady, linear manner.

I've yet to see a stock 2.7 deliver any kind of non-linear power. You're welcome to go and look for it, and best of luck in that endeavor.

And I double quote “I've yet to see a stock 2.7 deliver any kind of non-linear power. You're welcome to go and look for it, and best of luck in that endeavor.”

 

[NCOBX]

And I double quote “I've yet to see a stock 2.7 deliver any kind of non-linear power. You're welcome to go and look for it, and best of luck in that endeavor.”

I mean dude it’s in your own words.

Sponsored