Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 54

    Thread: First Look at the 3.6L Pentastar 2012 Jeep Wrangler

    1. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 7th, 2006
      Location
      Western Mass
      Posts
      1,565
      Vehicles
      Fiesta ST, Jeep 4.0, BMW e12
      06-29-2011 08:52 PM #26
      According to Allpar:

      90% of torque is available from 1,600 to 6,400 (1,800 to 6,360 on the Challenger), so it's not a “peaky” or “paper horsepower” engine.
      Seems pretty decent to me

      Source: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html

    2. 06-29-2011 09:02 PM #27
      We have this engine in the 2011 Routan and it is pretty much gutless until 4k rpms. Deff not a great fit for an offroader, but im sure all the people that think they might maybe one day want to off road will love it.
      I would think it would be tuned to suit the truck. Chrysler wouldn't errode the one thing these are good at; off road ability.

    3. Member MRVW00's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 30th, 2000
      Location
      Everywhere you want to be.
      Posts
      9,664
      Vehicles
      B5 2.8Q, Buell XB9S
      06-29-2011 11:27 PM #28
      No diesel
      No care.
      Tucker Max of the Gays and Demokratikally Elekted Minister of Slutty Gay Whoring and Muppet Sex of the People's Independent Republik of Offtopikstan
      RIP Cosmic TDI
      Quote Originally Posted by HideYoKids View Post
      Dann is More sassy than any man with facial hair should be. It's entertaining.

    4. Member kweetech's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 20th, 2001
      Location
      madison wisco
      Posts
      11,783
      06-30-2011 06:01 PM #29
      Quote Originally Posted by Turbiodiesel! View Post
      ****: officially teased.

      Seriously, if this cracks 20mpg highway.....
      ...you'll have something with less torque, lower mileage, less towing, less room and comparable off road ability of a new 4runner
      MADSPEED

    5. Geriatric Member Turbio!'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 21st, 2005
      Location
      San Antonio, TX
      Posts
      41,495
      Vehicles
      '13 Subaru Outback
      06-30-2011 06:11 PM #30
      Quote Originally Posted by kweetech View Post
      ...you'll have something with less torque, lower mileage, less towing, less room and comparable off road ability of a new 4runner
      Unfortunately, the 4Runner comes standard with only 256 Indys*, and the Wrangler has 591.



      *The internationally recognized metric unit of dashing, awesomeness, derring-do, and other qualities possessed in abundance by Indiana Jones.
      IPRO Meat-Director and High Minister of Terror-Grilling

      Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Man View Post
      The Terror Grill: Part restaurant, part amusement attraction, part gladiator arena, all profit.
      ARE YOU NOT SATIATED?!?!?!

    6. Member kweetech's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 20th, 2001
      Location
      madison wisco
      Posts
      11,783
      06-30-2011 07:05 PM #31
      Quote Originally Posted by Turbiodiesel! View Post
      Unfortunately, the 4Runner comes standard with only 256 Indys*, and the Wrangler has 591.



      *The internationally recognized metric unit of dashing, awesomeness, derring-do, and other qualities possessed in abundance by Indiana Jones.
      Indiana Jones would only drive a jeep with steel dashboard
      MADSPEED

    7. 06-30-2011 07:11 PM #32
      Its sad the Wrangler doesn't get over 20mpg. There rather nice in every aspect except that.

    8. Member HisMajesty's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 4th, 2000
      Location
      Reno, NV
      Posts
      1,198
      Vehicles
      '93 Corrado SLC / '03 Toyota Tacoma / '07 GSXR 600
      06-30-2011 07:37 PM #33
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      True, the gearing will be different. You will probably hit the revs much sooner than in a Routan but youll still have to rev it up to get into some kind of torque that is usable off road. Its still not as good as the motor that it is replacing (the 4.0, not the 3.8). The I6 is better at delivering the torque low down and this is obviously designed to do road duty instead of going off road. Gearing helps but it isnt all of the equation.


      Whats not to get? Each line along the x axis is 500 rpm starting at 2500 rpm and each line on the y axis is 50 hp or torque, starting at 100. Seems pretty simple to me really. The measurements start at 2500 rpm. Its about 190 ft lbs at ~2600 rpm. Compare to the 4.0 numbers. True, it doesnt go lower than 2500 on this chart but you could probably fill in the blanks. Its a good number overall but delivery point is what matters.

      I just dont get why everyone is so happy about this motor. Is it better than the 3.8? Yeah it is. Is it an off road motor? Not really. The reason people go with V8s is the available low down torque. The reason the I6 was so good was the low down torque. You dont rev to 2600 rpm when youre trail riding. Most of it is done at snails pace below 2000 rpm.

      Here's a tip on how to read a dyno graph...


      Hint: Torque stays pretty flat at about 200 through out the range.

    9. 06-30-2011 11:15 PM #34
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      The I6 is better at delivering the torque low down

      [The Pentastar makes] about 190 ft lbs at ~2600 rpm. .... The reason the I6 was so good was the low down torque.
      Apparently you need to learn the difference between a dyno plot measured at the crankshaft and a dyno plot measured at the rear wheels. When you do that, you'll get an accurate comparison... and you'll see this:



      As you'll see, the Pentastar makes about 180 lb ft at 1000 RPM and hits an even 200 lb ft by 1200 RPM. You'll also notice that the Pentastar makes 240 lb ft at 2000 RPM, which is more than the 4.0L could put out at any RPM.

      So, yeah, it'll do just fine and it makes a fine Jeep engine.
      Dempsey Bowling
      Sales Consultant at Doug Smith Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep/Ram/Subaru/Kia/used
      My fleet: 91 Miata, 98 Wrangler Sport, 01 Suburban 2500 8.1L, 14 Impreza Limited, 03 Protege LX

    10. Member
      Join Date
      May 16th, 2010
      Posts
      783
      Vehicles
      13' 4-dr GTI
      06-30-2011 11:50 PM #35
      Nice, the new motor at least makes it competitive to what Toyota and Nissan have been using for the last 5+ years.

      The linked article says the engine is teamed with a 5 speed auto...i hope a manual is going to be available?!

    11. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 7th, 2006
      Location
      Western Mass
      Posts
      1,565
      Vehicles
      Fiesta ST, Jeep 4.0, BMW e12
      06-30-2011 11:58 PM #36
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      or, a Chyco one comparing the 4.0 to the 3.8
      Uhh, I think you are reading these graphs incorrectly. Those torque curves shown for the 3.8 and 4.0 are nearly exactly the same.

    12. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 31st, 2001
      Location
      Chambersburg, PA
      Posts
      1,257
      Vehicles
      09 CC (gf's)
      07-14-2011 12:05 PM #37
      I love how a certain someone when quiet after everyone pointed out how he/she was reading the dyno wrong and arguing his/her point.

      IMO this should be the best engine in a wrangler yet. The 4.0 I6 was great for it's time and was basically bulletproof. The 3.8 V6 was ok but geared totally wrong and had/have major problems with oil consumption in the early years, not to mention the auto tranny sucks (overheats easily). As long as there isn't a problem with reliability and it preforms as advertised, I'm sold.
      "Have you guys SEEN my old lady's pu$$?" --> friend
      "Six"---> Ben G's Build-Up Thread

      Previous VW's: 10 GTI, 81 Caddy 1.6D, 06 GLI (gf's), 98 Jetta TDI, 92 Jetta 1.6TD, 08 R32, 05 GLI, 68 Bug, 02 Jetta TDI, 86 Jetta 1.6TD, 01 GTI

    13. Member Knock Sensor's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 29th, 2009
      Location
      MA
      Posts
      6,686
      Vehicles
      2005 Accord LX, 1980 Yamaha XS850(sold), 2002 Honda VTR1000, 2011 Triumph Speed Triple
      07-14-2011 12:27 PM #38
      Quote Originally Posted by Lawrider View Post
      Nice, the new motor at least makes it competitive to what Toyota and Nissan have been using for the last 5+ years.

      The linked article says the engine is teamed with a 5 speed auto...i hope a manual is going to be available?!
      x2

      Hopefully the 6 speed stays.
      Quote Originally Posted by winstonsmith84 View Post
      It ain't easy being an overweight, uneducated, Sunfire driving whoop whooping clown.

    14. 07-14-2011 12:28 PM #39
      The wrangler is finally getting a competitive engine. Now lets pray they give us one of the diesels offered in the Grand Cherokee over seas. Personally I feel the base 3.0 turbo diesel V6 with 190 hp and 330 lb/ft of torque would be a home run, a match made in heaven for a vehicle like the wrangler.

    15. Member Sledge's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2005
      Location
      South Beloit, IL
      Posts
      14,281
      Vehicles
      XW30, NA, V227
      07-14-2011 12:48 PM #40
      Quote Originally Posted by Turbiodiesel! View Post
      Seriously, if this cracks 20mpg highway.....
      ...you won't buy one like every other Wrangler you wanted?
      "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
      - Doctor Who (Fourth Doctor) "Face of Evil"

    16. Member MCTB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 29th, 2005
      Location
      The Northern of Virginia
      Posts
      10,360
      Vehicles
      '12 Focus SE, '15 Outback Limited
      07-14-2011 01:04 PM #41
      Quote Originally Posted by Bengti View Post
      I love how a certain someone when quiet after everyone pointed out how he/she was reading the dyno wrong and arguing his/her point.
      Sorry, I forgot about it. So, if the dyno plots show that the 3.8 is actually better than the 4.0, why was it universally trashed? Why is this being seen as a savior then?
      Looking for a car event on the East Coast? Check here

      I have an idea, we will try it my way first...and then we will finish.

      MCFC

    17. Senior Member Air and water do mix's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 5th, 2004
      Location
      Southern Indiana
      Posts
      25,298
      Vehicles
      '66 Beetle (X2) '08 Fit
      07-14-2011 01:08 PM #42
      Quote Originally Posted by Sledge View Post
      ...you won't buy one like every other Wrangler you wanted?
      Hey, he bought one. He must've had it for weeks, maybe months!
      Quote Originally Posted by Boyz in da Park
      Proletariat, Bourgeoise - Everybody smellin' my potpourri...

    18. Geriatric Member ByronLLN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 29th, 2004
      Location
      Annapolis, MD
      Posts
      38,302
      Vehicles
      '15 5.0, '13 Focus, '97 Wrangler, '90 Miata
      07-14-2011 01:32 PM #43
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      Sorry, I forgot about it. So, if the dyno plots show that the 3.8 is actually better than the 4.0, why was it universally trashed? Why is this being seen as a savior then?
      The 3.8 was trashed because it wasn't a 4.0. The 3.6 is being praised because it's not the engine that replaced the 4.0.

      Also, because it's more powerful, more refined, more efficient, and more competitive. All of those were also true of the 3.8, but it was still "just a minivan engine."
      Last edited by ByronLLN; 07-14-2011 at 01:35 PM.
      www.leftlanenews.com
      @SSLByron, @leftlanenews
      Domestic Muscle Owners Not-So-Anonymous
      Quote Originally Posted by atomicalex View Post
      Can we just have more boob pics, please?

    19. 07-14-2011 01:33 PM #44
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      So, if the dyno plots show that the 3.8 is actually better than the 4.0, why was it universally trashed?
      I think one key reason is vehicle weight. Most people drive a 3.8L Wrangler 4dr and complain how it isn't as peppy as a 4.0L TJ. Well no sh!t, Sherlock--the 4dr weighs almost one thousand pounds more than a SWB TJ! Try strapping a 1000-lb chunk of lead to your back and see if you don't move a bit slower.

      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      Why is [the PentaStar] being seen as a savior then?
      Because you are apparently the only person on the planet who hasn't recognized that, when compared to the 3.8L V6 and/or the 4.0L I6, the PentaStar offers equal torque from idle to 1600 RPM, better torque from there all the way to redline, gobs more horsepower and better fuel economy to boot. It's a win-win-win. Seriously, what's not to love?
      Dempsey Bowling
      Sales Consultant at Doug Smith Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep/Ram/Subaru/Kia/used
      My fleet: 91 Miata, 98 Wrangler Sport, 01 Suburban 2500 8.1L, 14 Impreza Limited, 03 Protege LX

    20. 07-14-2011 01:35 PM #45
      Quote Originally Posted by PassSedanGLX View Post
      Also, because it's more powerful, more refined, more efficient, and more competitive. All of those were also true of the 3.8, but it was still "just a minivan engine."
      That's another thing--the fact that a 3.8L 4dr gets equal fuel economy as a SWB 4.0L TJ despite the four-door's added bulk speaks well of the efficiency of the 3.8L engine.
      Dempsey Bowling
      Sales Consultant at Doug Smith Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep/Ram/Subaru/Kia/used
      My fleet: 91 Miata, 98 Wrangler Sport, 01 Suburban 2500 8.1L, 14 Impreza Limited, 03 Protege LX

    21. Geriatric Member ByronLLN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 29th, 2004
      Location
      Annapolis, MD
      Posts
      38,302
      Vehicles
      '15 5.0, '13 Focus, '97 Wrangler, '90 Miata
      07-14-2011 01:36 PM #46
      Quote Originally Posted by TurboMinivan View Post
      That's another thing--the fact that a 3.8L 4dr gets equal fuel economy as a SWB 4.0L TJ despite the four-door's added bulk speaks well of the efficiency of the 3.8L engine.
      My dad DDed his 3.8 up 'til he retired and actually managed a lot of tanks north of 20 mpg with a good chunk of highway driving. Far cry from the 16-17 combined I normally get our of our old 2.5.
      www.leftlanenews.com
      @SSLByron, @leftlanenews
      Domestic Muscle Owners Not-So-Anonymous
      Quote Originally Posted by atomicalex View Post
      Can we just have more boob pics, please?

    22. Senior Member FlashRedGLS1.8T's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 17th, 2001
      Location
      Ohio
      Posts
      21,955
      07-14-2011 01:50 PM #47
      About time.

    23. Member alfafan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 24th, 2000
      Location
      Menifee Ca
      Posts
      6,799
      Vehicles
      2012 Fiat 500 Sport, 2005 Saab 9-5 Aero,
      07-14-2011 01:51 PM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by TurboMinivan View Post
      Apparently you need to learn the difference between a dyno plot measured at the crankshaft and a dyno plot measured at the rear wheels. When you do that, you'll get an accurate comparison... and you'll see this:



      As you'll see, the Pentastar makes about 180 lb ft at 1000 RPM and hits an even 200 lb ft by 1200 RPM. You'll also notice that the Pentastar makes 240 lb ft at 2000 RPM, which is more than the 4.0L could put out at any RPM.

      So, yeah, it'll do just fine and it makes a fine Jeep engine.
      Ot, what caught my eye is that one of the final assembly locations is Saltillo Mexico where my mom's family came from about 130 years ago.

      Bot, low gas mileage will always keep me away from a new Jeep,. If I'm gonna shell out good money for a new one I'm gonna put a fair amount of mileage on it. If I'm gonna do the weekend warrior thing then I would just get a used one and not worry about it. Again, wake me when the diesel gets here.

    24. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 31st, 2001
      Location
      Chambersburg, PA
      Posts
      1,257
      Vehicles
      09 CC (gf's)
      07-14-2011 01:55 PM #49
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      Sorry, I forgot about it. So, if the dyno plots show that the 3.8 is actually better than the 4.0, why was it universally trashed? Why is this being seen as a savior then?
      One reason, I would say, is some of it has to do to the reliability issues with the 3.8 vs the 4.0. Granted the 4.0 was in production for a long time and had all the wrinkles ironed out.

      The other reason, I believe, is gearing and weight. The JK (3.8 V6) is heavier, especially the Unlimited, than the TJ was. The JK came in about the same gears as TJs (depending on models) but JK typically has 32" tires vs TJs 31" or smaller, which affect gear ratio to the bad for the JK.

      Another reason for the hype about the new engine is actually not the engine but the transmission. It's a new 5-speed auto out of the Grand Cherokee vs the old 4-speed auto. The 4spd was absolutely terrible in anything lower than 4.10 gears (downshift galore) and overheated easily. I expect the new tranny to be much better overall in driving feel.

      I guess the short answer is the 4.0 worked well with what the TJ had. The JK grew up but the 3.8 didn't grow up fast enough. The 3.6 pentastar appears to be an engine for the next gen Wrangler but they're putting it in the JK. To me it's the best of both worlds.
      "Have you guys SEEN my old lady's pu$$?" --> friend
      "Six"---> Ben G's Build-Up Thread

      Previous VW's: 10 GTI, 81 Caddy 1.6D, 06 GLI (gf's), 98 Jetta TDI, 92 Jetta 1.6TD, 08 R32, 05 GLI, 68 Bug, 02 Jetta TDI, 86 Jetta 1.6TD, 01 GTI

    25. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 31st, 2001
      Location
      Chambersburg, PA
      Posts
      1,257
      Vehicles
      09 CC (gf's)
      07-14-2011 02:02 PM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by PassSedanGLX View Post
      My dad DDed his 3.8 up 'til he retired and actually managed a lot of tanks north of 20 mpg with a good chunk of highway driving. Far cry from the 16-17 combined I normally get our of our old 2.5.
      There's your difference in bold. With the right gearing, tires, and driving you could get 20 mpg with any 2.5, 4.0, 3.8, or I'm sure 3.6.
      "Have you guys SEEN my old lady's pu$$?" --> friend
      "Six"---> Ben G's Build-Up Thread

      Previous VW's: 10 GTI, 81 Caddy 1.6D, 06 GLI (gf's), 98 Jetta TDI, 92 Jetta 1.6TD, 08 R32, 05 GLI, 68 Bug, 02 Jetta TDI, 86 Jetta 1.6TD, 01 GTI

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •