V8 Jeep Wrangler production prototype spied testing

[Laminar]

The days of V8s being inefficient are long past.

Don't forget that every advancement to the V8 has been moved to smaller engines as well. Frankly, they started there. I'd LOVE to see an example of the same model vehicle getting worse mileage with a 6 than an 8.

The Silverado 4.3 V6 is almost the same as the 5.3 V8, but the 4.3 is especially bad compared to other V6 trucks.

I wish everyone could finally admit to themselves, "I like how the V8 sounds" and stop trying to justify them over a turbo 6 in this platform. There's literally no measurable advantage.

Sponsored

 

[NCOBX]

Don't forget that every advancement to the V8 has been moved to smaller engines as well. Frankly, they started there. I'd LOVE to see an example of the same model vehicle getting worse mileage with a 6 than an 8.

The Silverado 4.3 V6 is almost the same as the 5.3 V8, but the 4.3 is especially bad compared to other V6 trucks.

I wish everyone could finally admit to themselves, "I like how the V8 sounds" and stop trying to justify them over a turbo 6 in this platform. There's literally no measurable advantage.

Was it not car and driver or TFL that did tests to see the real world difference on the JGC of the V6 and V8 fuel economy and achieved better fuel economy on the 8?

It’s been well known for a long time that the EPA estimates can be gamed, the testing method involves very slow speed increases and never driving at speeds normal drivers Travel at(maintain 55 IIRC),on roads with no stop and go. IE perfect for a turbo engine because it never goes into boost.

In the real world those a conditions are not realistic.

Turbo 6s are a dead end I’ll believe otherwise when Ford replaces the Mustang/super duty V8 engines with EcoBoost engines.

 

[Fosters]

Don't forget that every advancement to the V8 has been moved to smaller engines as well. Frankly, they started there. I'd LOVE to see an example of the same model vehicle getting worse mileage with a 6 than an 8.

The Silverado 4.3 V6 is almost the same as the 5.3 V8, but the 4.3 is especially bad compared to other V6 trucks.

I wish everyone could finally admit to themselves, "I like how the V8 sounds" and stop trying to justify them over a turbo 6 in this platform. There's literally no measurable advantage.

Gotta love how you used the least powerful n/a v6 to compare to the 5.0... How about something closer in power, and since we're talking about offroaders, 4x4?

All of a sudden that difference isn't that big... Keep in mind the 3.5 is a 600 dollar more expensive option over the 5.0... by the time you recoup that at 1mpg difference... every 10k miles you're looking at 21 gallons of gas difference. That means at 2 bucks a gallon, you're looking at 42 dollars every 10k miles... so in about 150k miles you'll recoup your money with your more fuel efficient ecoboost...

And from personal experience, after 3 ecoboosts, it ain't even gonna happen then, as you're not gonna keep your foot out of it.

As for power potential... Look up the whipple F150s on youtube ;-)

 

[Squatch]

Gotta love how you used the least powerful n/a v6 to compare to the 5.0... How about something closer in power, and since we're talking about offroaders, 4x4?

All of a sudden that difference isn't that big... Keep in mind the 3.5 is a 600 dollar more expensive option over the 5.0... by the time you recoup that at 1mpg difference... every 10k miles you're looking at 21 gallons of gas difference. That means at 2 bucks a gallon, you're looking at 42 dollars every 10k miles... so in about 150k miles you'll recoup your money with your more fuel efficient ecoboost...

And from personal experience, after 3 ecoboosts, it ain't even gonna happen then, as you're not gonna keep your foot out of it.

As for power potential... Look up the whipple F150s on youtube ;-)

In the same breath you complain about a $600 upgrade and then promote a $6000+ upgrade.

If it really made more sense to put a V8 in it, then they would have. They're chock full of engineers and more degrees than all the circular logic you guys regurgitate on a daily basis, but sure...they're all automotive killjoys conspiring against V8s.

 

[NCOBX]

In the same breath you complain about a $600 upgrade and then promote a $6000+ upgrade.

If it really made more sense to put a V8 in it, then they would have. They're chock full of engineers and more degrees than all the circular logic you guys regurgitate on a daily basis, but sure...they're all automotive killjoys conspiring against V8s.

He didn’t complain about $600 anywhere in his post, he simply posted a fact. A V8 in a Bronco would be the quickest $6k I ever spent.

The point is they have left a huge market untouched by not appealing to the masses that don’t want small euro engines. Not everyone wants a tiny engine in a heavy SUV.
But then I’m not even quite sure what your arguing against, you sound like one of the guys on the Wrangler forums that believes Jeep can do no wrong.

 

[Imprezive]

Was it not car and driver or TFL that did tests to see the real world difference on the JGC of the V6 and V8 fuel economy and achieved better fuel economy on the 8?

It’s been well known for a long time that the EPA estimates can be gamed, the testing method involves very slow speed increases and never driving at speeds normal drivers Travel at(maintain 55 IIRC),on roads with no stop and go. IE perfect for a turbo engine because it never goes into boost.

In the real world those a conditions are not realistic.

Turbo 6s are a dead end I’ll believe otherwise when Ford replaces the Mustang/super duty V8 engines with EcoBoost engines.

I have no experience with the eco boost other than rentals but I own a JGC and can’t see a world where the V6 and V8 return similar mileage. Do you happen to have a link to that?

 

[Imprezive]

He didn’t complain about $600 anywhere in his post, he simply posted a fact. A V8 in a Bronco would be the quickest $6k I ever spent.

The point is they have left a huge market untouched by not appealing to the masses that don’t want small euro engines. Not everyone wants a tiny engine in a heavy SUV.
But then I’m not even quite sure what your arguing against, you sound like one of the guys on the Wrangler forums that believes Jeep can do no wrong.

I doubt many people would be pushed over the edge to buy a Bronco by the V8. The take rate in the F150 is sub-25% and I can’t imagine the Bronco would be anywhere near that. FCAs Hemi everything program it makes sense but I think the more tech forward Bronco would not get as many sales. I bet the take rate would be 10-15% and most of those people will still buy a Bronco anyway.

 

[eBronco]

Any idiot could do that with half the engine. No doubt there will be a bunch of morons driving big tired Broncos who aren't used to the dynamics of that kind of vehicle who crash it. It won't be the vehicles fault in either case.

Maybe I will just buy a smashed bronco and rebuild it instead of buying new...

 

[Squatch]

He didn’t complain about $600 anywhere in his post, he simply posted a fact. A V8 in a Bronco would be the quickest $6k I ever spent.

The point is they have left a huge market untouched by not appealing to the masses that don’t want small euro engines. Not everyone wants a tiny engine in a heavy SUV.
But then I’m not even quite sure what your arguing against, you sound like one of the guys on the Wrangler forums that believes Jeep can do no wrong.

He tried to complain with math. The $6k was referring to the cost of a Whipple supercharger.

If the market is so huge, then the Bronco will fall flat on its ass, right? You have a degree in marketing right shipmate?

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the sound, but all the blustering is pointless and you all may as well line up at the urinal and break out the rulers.

 

[Indominus49er]

Not interested. Too expensive it will be

 

[NCOBX]

He tried to complain with math. The $6k was referring to the cost of a Whipple supercharger.

If the market is so huge, then the Bronco will fall flat on its ass, right? You have a degree in marketing right shipmate?

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy the sound, but all the blustering is pointless and you all may as well line up at the urinal and break out the rulers.

My degree is in engineering, which is why I prefer a V8 over a Rube Goldberg contraption. There’s no advantage to the turbo 6 over the 8. None.

I prefer the advanced technology ready for showtime over the 5th grade science project.

 

[NCOBX]

I have no experience with the eco boost other than rentals but I own a JGC and can’t see a world where the V6 and V8 return similar mileage. Do you happen to have a link to that?

Yea I’ve spent the better time since your request looking for it, so until I do I suppose I’m a liar. However I will continue my search as I remember it making quite the splash which is why I’m confused over its disappearance.

 

[Imprezive]

Yea I’ve spent the better time since your request looking for it, so until I do I suppose I’m a liar. However I will continue my search as I remember it making quite the splash which is why I’m confused over its disappearance.

Just to be clear I didn’t think you were lying or making it up I was genuinely curious and it sounds like something a magazine would gin up as a test.

 

[NCOBX]

Just to be clear I didn’t think you were lying or making it up I was genuinely curious and it sounds like something a magazine would gin up as a test.

Well I sure feel like a liar and am going to work to find the article. To be clear the difference was not astounding. It was within 1 MPG.

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

1 this has been a concept since the 2011 SEMA auto show! https://project-jk.com/jeep-jk-vide...rnsville-off-road-2012-jk-392-hemi-conversion
FCA gave them the new 392 to show off in the wrangler.

2 HIGHLY doubt this EVER makes it to production as a mass production factory vehicle. I could easily see a “3rd party swap with FCA warranty”

2 IF this ever makes it to production it would EASILY cost well over $70,000 STARTING. grand Cherokee Trailhawk 3.6 is SIMILAR To wrangler rubicon. Both are around $45,000. Grand Cherokee SRT392 is $71,000+ Wrangler is definitely going to be a bigger upcharge.

3 IT won’t be any faster top end. It will be limited to 120mph unless they throw on S/T tires that are rated to 155. Because all LT A/T and LY M/T ties for the most part Are only rated for 120mph.

4 gas milage will SUUUUCK.
Jeep Wrangler 3.6 auto 20mpg
Jeep GC 3.6 21 mpg
Jeep GC 6.4 15mpg
Jeep Wrangler 6.4 13mpg?

5 it will be too nose heavy to be useful for anything other than shopping

6 A Bronco 3.0 Ecoboost will be a whole lot better with 400hp 415lbft. Yes less than Jeep but it will be nearly just as fast for $15,000-$30,000 less! also the Ford Explorer 3.0 gets 20mpg combine. So even if the bronco 3.0 only gets 18. That’s still 5+ (40%) BETTER than the Jeep.

7 don’t expect this to force ford to come out with a v8 bronco either.
3.0 ecoboost with 400hp 415lbft ++ AND/OR 2.3 power boost 360hp 500lbft.

thats fords future. Really modern tech. Not slapping a 2L blower on a mid century pushrod smallblock

Sponsored