V8 Jeep Wrangler production prototype spied testing

[OX1]

260lbs on the nose of an even lighter truck with a solid front axle will be super noticeable for handling.

MAYBE???????, but not one person who gets a 392 Wrangler will care...........

Sponsored

 

[NCOBX]

260lbs on the nose of an even lighter truck with a solid front axle will be super noticeable for handling.

I’m not seeing where it’s anywhere near 260 lbs heavier, from what I’m seeing it’s 80lbs heavier plus accessories. + added weight of stronger trans.
Regardless there’s a lot of people running bumpers over 150 lbs well forward of the front axle, which as we know from static’s is much worse than over the axle.

I should add I’m comparing it to the 2.7 eco and not the Wranglers 3.6 which may be where the discrepancy is.

 

[OX1]

I’m not seeing where it’s anywhere near 260 lbs heavier, from what I’m seeing it’s 80lbs heavier plus accessories. + added weight of stronger trans.
Regardless there’s a lot of people running bumpers over 150 lbs well forward of the front axle, which as we know from static’s is much worse than over the axle.

392 crate engine was listed right at 700, 2.7 ECO is supposedly 440.
392 crate might include every accessory and maybe even packaging.
So you might be right, but it's not 80 lbs.

You are 1000% correct about someone complaining about handling
of a jacked up SUV, when many will be adding tons of weight way farther forward
(and usually higher than engine center of mass) than an engine.

 

[NCOBX]

You realize you can have Rubitrux up in Boone do the Hemi conversion on a JK or JL now. If you start with a built JK, you can probably save a good chunk over a new Bronco.

Robbie at MOTECH has a kit for an LS swap into a NSG 370 6MT JK as well. It is tempting to keep what I have built, do a swap, and get out of the Bronco line ...

If I’m going to do a swap it would probably be to put a proper engine into the Bronco. Either a Coyote, Godzilla, or if I want to start a fight an LQ4/LQ9 to LS2. Getting the vehicle I want from factory would be ideal.

 

[OX1]

If I’m going to do a swap it would probably be to put a proper engine into the Bronco. Either a Coyote, Godzilla, or if I want to start a fight an LQ4/LQ9 to LS2. Getting the vehicle I want from factory would be ideal.

Hopefully at least they do it for Australia. They love their V-8's even more than us.
I just want the factory swap parts to be Ford OEM.

 

[NCOBX]

392 crate engine was listed right at 700, 2.7 ECO is supposedly 440.
392 crate might include every accessory and maybe even packaging.
So you might be right, but it's not 80 lbs.

You are 1000% correct about someone complaining about handling
of a jacked up SUV, when many will be adding tons of weight way farther forward
(and usually higher than engine center of mass) than an engine.

I found 500lbs

https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=183

700 lbs sounds like an old school Big Block. Hell even then that sounds a little heavy for a big block.

 

[NCOBX]

Hopefully at least they do it for Australia. They love their V-8's even more than us.
I just want the factory swap parts to be Ford OEM.

Australia has been rolling over even more than the US over the last several years. It’s too bad what happened to their auto industry.

 

[Imprezive]

392 crate engine was listed right at 700, 2.7 ECO is supposedly 440.
392 crate might include every accessory and maybe even packaging.
So you might be right, but it's not 80 lbs.

You are 1000% correct about someone complaining about handling
of a jacked up SUV, when many will be adding tons of weight way farther forward
(and usually higher than engine center of mass) than an engine.

I’m not seeing where it’s anywhere near 260 lbs heavier, from what I’m seeing it’s 80lbs heavier plus accessories. + added weight of stronger trans.
Regardless there’s a lot of people running bumpers over 150 lbs well forward of the front axle, which as we know from static’s is much worse than over the axle.

I should add I’m comparing it to the 2.7 eco and not the Wranglers 3.6 which may be where the discrepancy is.

I should point out I’m not saying no one will buy them. From a product standpoint it’s a smart move. I just personally don’t see the appeal. It’s not like you are adding a V8 instead of all that shit. A lot of people will have all of the above. I just don’t understand the appeal of the V8. You’re just making a slow poor handling vehicle a little less slow and even worse handling. Plus you are killing the fuel range so limiting your adventures or forcing you to carry gas cans. I say this all as the owner of a V8 Jeep btw. I would have bought a V6 in hindsight.

 

[Gr8Hortoni]

It doesn't matter what it costs to make, it will be priced at whatever Jeep can sell it for. The other 392-equipped SUVs start at $63k (Durango) and $70k (Grand Cherokee). I'll eat my hat if the 392 Wrangler starts under $50k.

Though it'd be hilarious if they offered a V8/stick option. Really shove it in Ford's face.

Have you seen the issues they’ve had with the JL/JT sticks? Last I knew they had a known problem without a recall solution, and this was back in February. Fca actually halted all manual sales until they could fix it. (On the JT’s anyway).

 

[NCOBX]

I should point out I’m not saying no one will buy them. From a product standpoint it’s a smart move. I just personally don’t see the appeal. It’s not like you are adding a V8 instead of all that shit. A lot of people will have all of the above. I just don’t understand the appeal of the V8. You’re just making a slow poor handling vehicle a little less slow and even worse handling. Plus you are killing the fuel range so limiting your adventures or forcing you to carry gas cans. I say this all the owner of a V8 Jeep btw. I would have bought a V6 in hindsight.

A Jeep/Bronco with a small block and 6+ speed transmission should be able to get very similar fuel economy to a 6, particularly when mods are done. The days of V8s being inefficient are long past.
V8 is the most obvious engine choice for the Bronco, had it been offered at launch everyone here would be lauding it as the next coming.

 

[Gr8Hortoni]

I would expect it above $50k myself but I think some people are getting really wild by guesstimating $80k+

I’m guessing it’ll be a rubicon, some of them I was looking at before were 50+ without a v8. The JT I almost bought was 55 on the sticker. I’ll bet it’s a $5k minimum uocharge between the engine and transmission.

 

[Imprezive]

A Jeep/Bronco with a small block and 6+ speed transmission should be able to get very similar fuel economy to a 6, particularly when mods are done. The days of V8s being inefficient are long past.
V8 is the most obvious engine choice for the Bronco, had it been offered at launch everyone here would be lauding it as the next coming.

If that were the case Ford would have put a V8 in it. None of the data suggests that a V8 is more fuel efficient for reasonable speed highway travel in a brick like vehicle. Yeah if you are driving hard all the time like a Mustang or something. There I’d want a V8 sure. A poor handling top heavy off road vehicle? I’m good with a turbo 4 or 6.

 

[NCOBX]

. A poor handling top heavy off road vehicle? I’m good with a turbo 4 or 6.

What? Is this Opposite day? That sounds like the perfect case for a slow turning V8. Not a tiny 6.
A Mustang weighs less and gets multiple V8s, how does it make any sense to put tiny engines in the heavier vehicle where consumers are more likely to want an 8?

 

[Imprezive]

What? Is this Opposite day? That sounds like the perfect case for a slow turning V8. Not a tiny 6.
A Mustang weighs less and gets multiple V8s, how does it make any sense to put tiny engines in the heavier vehicle where consumers are more likely to want an 8?

Because they have turbos? I have zero doubt a turbo 6 gets better mileage than a V8 lopping along on the highway and when you get on it you have power and plenty of torque. Thats been the case in the F150 for a while now.

 

[NCOBX]

Because they have turbos? I have zero doubt a turbo 6 gets better mileage than a V8 lopping along on the highway and when you get on it you have power and plenty of torque. Thats been the case in the F150 for a while now.

Not in my experience, the 2.7L F150 work truck I had returned 21-22MPG, it was replaced by a 5.3L that returned 24-26 on the same routes. Eco boosts are either eco or boost, they are not both, and my experience with the 2.7 it had to be in boost constantly.
A V8 in the Bronco would be much more consistent and offer linear power the EcoBoost does not have.

Sponsored