Why do you think Jeep has yet to offer a V8 option in the Wrangler?

[Chris]

agreed with most of your reply, but dont foget the basics of horsepower and hosepower potential in this case, there is no replacement for displacment. Never will be.

Yes, but in an equal horsepower V6 and V8 (assuming the vehicle weighs the same), the V8 with the higher displacement won’t start to really pull away until much higher speeds. I don’t know about you, but once you get a Wrangler past 80, it can get pretty scary

 

[Chris]

Happen to have a link to the article you mention? Would be nice to read it and have it in the thread for future searches/discussions.

Yes, here you go:

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/04/09/hellcat-motor-jeep-wrangler-and-gladiator/
While he is talking about the Hellcat, I suspect it's relatively the same size as a larger Hemi engine so I think the same reasoning applies.

It comes down to a safety issue from what I gather.

And besides, you and I both know that going past 80 (like mentioned in my previous post) is scary as hell in a Wrangler. Can you imagine having a Wrangler with 37s and 707hp? I'm sorry but that would just be way too much power for that sort of vehicle. You need to be low to the ground and aerodynamic for that sort of power

 

[ac_]

Yes, but in an equal horsepower V6 and V8 (assuming the vehicle weighs the same), the V8 with the higher displacement won’t start to really pull away until much higher speeds. I don’t know about you, but once you get a Wrangler past 80, it can get pretty scary

I think you can get a V-8 with a higher displacement to pull before 80 especially if you stroke it.

 

[Chris]

I think you can get a V-8 with a higher displacement to pull before 80 especially if you stroke it.

Who knows. I'm thinking of two equal horsepower engines, one being a V6 and one being a V8.The larger displacement V8 will win in the top end, I just don't know at what point it will start to really pull away.

I personally thing the Pentastar V6 has plenty of power. People who complain about it are probably the guys with 37" or larger tires, poor gearing, and tons of extra weight, at which point all bets are off.

But for a stock Wrangler, I can see why Jeep didn't feel the need to put a V8 in it.

Of course I do get the bragging aspect of a V8. It is cool just to tell people you have a V8

 

[Fouledplugs]

Yes, but in an equal horsepower V6 and V8 (assuming the vehicle weighs the same), the V8 with the higher displacement won’t start to really pull away until much higher speeds. I don’t know about you, but once you get a Wrangler past 80, it can get pretty scary

I dont care about speed, it was mentioned earlier in the thread, speed is not what Jeep guys swap V8's for. It's power and torque. A V8 has the potential to have a lot more torque down low than what is stock. Torque is what gives the Jeep drivabilty confidence.

A V8 enables you the abilty to merge on the interstate with confidence. Bigger horsepower and torque numbers enable you to take a headwind on the interstate without being pushed around. 8 healthy cylinders allow you to over take a big rig with more confidenceas well.

Your Hellcat refrence is a perfect example. The Dodge "Hellcat" V8 pushrod engine makes a really impressive 367 ft-lbs of torque at a measly 1,900 RPMs and it climbs from there.

Consider this:
RPMs - Ft.-Lbs. Tq
1900 - 367 Ft.-Lbs.
2000 - 411 Ft.-Lbs.
2100 - 440 Ft.-Lbs.
2200 - 455 Ft.-Lbs.
2300 - 471 Ft.-Lbs.
2400 - 478 Ft.-Lbs.
2500 - 486 Ft.-Lbs.
2600 - 497 Ft.-Lbs.
2700 - 499 Ft.-Lbs.
2800 - 505 Ft.-Lbs.
2900 - 518 Ft.-Lbs.
3000 - 523 Ft.-Lbs.

These numbers are at the wheels of the Hellcat Challenger.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/2015-dodge-challenger-hellcat-dyno-test/

 

[ac_]

Who knows. I'm thinking of two equal horsepower engines, one being a V6 and one being a V8.The larger displacement V8 will win in the top end, I just don't know at what point it will start to really pull away.

I personally thing the Pentastar V6 has plenty of power. People who complain about it are probably the guys with 37" or larger tires, poor gearing, and tons of extra weight, at which point all bets are off.

But for a stock Wrangler, I can see why Jeep didn't feel the need to put a V8 in it.

Of course I do get the bragging aspect of a V8. It is cool just to tell people you have a V8

Actually the guys with 37's are probably geared so it is like closer to stock. Usually the ones I hear complaining mostly are the ones with stock jeeps. Mostly because when you gear low you get a jump off of the start, but it does taper from them. It would be nice to have that jump off of the start and keep that momentum.

I get the safey issue sort of, but I can't really see it being much safer with a v6 in that the v8 is two cylinders less. I think if you crash hard enough that v6 will be in your lap too. Maybe being 2 cylinders short gives you just that much more time to slow down? Like 2 cylinders less?

They used to cram v8's in old Cj's nobody complained about that. They were even smaller. Although I think the engine compartment might have been slightly bigger. I could do with a redesign. They can get rid of those giant hideous fender flares and expand the body and engine compartment a bit. Anyways it is a fun debate. I would buy a jeep with a v8 because my emission control would let me. If they offered one, I would buy it. I mean if I was in the market for a new Jeep, but since they don't I don't think I will ever be in the market especially since they seem to make the wranglers bigger and the engines smaller.

Someday I will live in a place that doesn't have emission controls and I will build a TJ or maybe even a JK with a 6.0Chevy. I would do it now if they would allow me to pass if I pass, but my old YJ had a 4.3 vortec in it with mp injection, and it passed flying colors, but they would fail me on the visual, Then I would keep going to different places till someone wouldn't look and would just pass me. It was a headache and sometimes cost 200 bucks in testing. For now I will conform.

 

[Chris]

I dont care about speed, it was mentioned earlier in the thread, speed is not what Jeep guys swap V8's for. It's power and torque. A V8 has the potential to have a lot more torque down low than what is stock. Torque is what gives the Jeep drivabilty confidence.

A V8 enables you the abilty to merge on the interstate with confidence. Bigger horsepower and torque numbers enable you to take a headwind on the interstate without being pushed around. 8 healthy cylinders allow you to over take a big rig with more confidenceas well.

Your Hellcat refrence is a perfect example. The Dodge "Hellcat" V8 pushrod engine makes a really impressive 367 ft-lbs of torque at a measly 1,900 RPMs and it climbs from there.

Consider this:
RPMs - Ft.-Lbs. Tq
1900 - 367 Ft.-Lbs.
2000 - 411 Ft.-Lbs.
2100 - 440 Ft.-Lbs.
2200 - 455 Ft.-Lbs.
2300 - 471 Ft.-Lbs.
2400 - 478 Ft.-Lbs.
2500 - 486 Ft.-Lbs.
2600 - 497 Ft.-Lbs.
2700 - 499 Ft.-Lbs.
2800 - 505 Ft.-Lbs.
2900 - 518 Ft.-Lbs.
3000 - 523 Ft.-Lbs.

These numbers are at the wheels of the Hellcat Challenger.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/2015-dodge-challenger-hellcat-dyno-test/

Of all of the JKs I've ridden in with large tires and a stock Pentastar V6, I can't recall ever feeling like we weren't merging with confidence. The only time I've ever felt that feeling is in the stock 4.0 in the TJ going up mountain passes.

I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Who is having a problem merging with confidence in their newer Wrangler? People with 40s, one-ton axles, and a ton of extra weight? Okay, I can see that. But you know as well as I do that is not Jeeps target audience. The majority of JLUs they are selling are only going to be driven on-road only.

So that brings us back to why not offer a V8? Because it's a safety issue apparently.

As for the guys with 40s who want a V8, well the good news is that they can pay 25k+ and swap one in without issue.

But circling back to the original topic, I can understand now why Jeep doesn't offer a V8 option. I can also understand after having driven and ridden in enough JKs why a V8 isn't even necessary. The V6 engine really is going to be enough for most people. And if you need anymore power, you just swap one of these on for way less than a V8:

http://www.magnusonsuperchargers.com/product-p/01-13-36-005-bl.htm

 

[Chris]

I get the safey issue sort of, but I can't really see it being much safer with a v6 in that the v8 is two cylinders less. I think if you crash hard enough that v6 will be in your lap too. Maybe being 2 cylinders short gives you just that much more time to slow down? Like 2 cylinders less?

I wish I could answer that, but I'm not a safety engineer. I know there is a lot of numbers and data that goes into those crash tests, and I suspect those extra 2 cylinders and larger engine size have a lot more to so with safety than you and I understand.

They used to cram v8's in old Cj's nobody complained about that. They were even smaller. Although I think the engine compartment might have been slightly bigger. I could do with a redesign. They can get rid of those giant hideous fender flares and expand the body and engine compartment a bit. Anyways it is a fun debate. I would buy a jeep with a v8 because my emission control would let me. If they offered one, I would buy it. I mean if I was in the market for a new Jeep, but since they don't I don't think I will ever be in the market especially since they seem to make the wranglers bigger and the engines smaller.

Very true. But how safe were those old CJs compared to a new JL by comparison? I suspect you might lose your life in a CJ way before you lose it in a JL (all else being equal).

I'm not against a V8 option by any means, I'm just saying that I can see why they don't offer one now... I actually understand it. And having ridden in a number of JKs (and driven them as well), I'm thoroughly convinced that the Pentastar is a good engine with more power than most would expect. It's a huge improvement over the 3.8, that's for sure.

Someday I will live in a place that doesn't have emission controls and I will build a TJ or maybe even a JK with a 6.0Chevy. I would do it now if they would allow me to pass if I pass, but my old YJ had a 4.3 vortec in it with mp injection, and it passed flying colors, but they would fail me on the visual, Then I would keep going to different places till someone wouldn't look and would just pass me. It was a headache and sometimes cost 200 bucks in testing. For now I will conform.

Ha, that's one nice thing about where we live is there is no emissions whatsoever.

I wouldn't bother with swaps or anything like that if I lived in a place with emissions. At that point I'd probably slap a turbo or supercharger on it (or something I could get away with) and just live with it. The visual inspections are even worse. Even in the cities in Oregon that have emissions, they still don't have visual inspections. Nowhere in Oregon has that.

That's just nuts if you ask me!

 

[ac_]

I wish I could answer that, but I'm not a safety engineer. I know there is a lot of numbers and data that goes into those crash tests, and I suspect those extra 2 cylinders and larger engine size have a lot more to so with safety than you and I understand.



Very true. But how safe were those old CJs compared to a new JL by comparison? I suspect you might lose your life in a CJ way before you lose it in a JL (all else being equal).

I'm not against a V8 option by any means, I'm just saying that I can see why they don't offer one now... I actually understand it. And having ridden in a number of JKs (and driven them as well), I'm thoroughly convinced that the Pentastar is a good engine with more power than most would expect. It's a huge improvement over the 3.8, that's for sure.



Ha, that's one nice thing about where we live is there is no emissions whatsoever.

I wouldn't bother with swaps or anything like that if I lived in a place with emissions. At that point I'd probably slap a turbo or supercharger on it (or something I could get away with) and just live with it. The visual inspections are even worse. Even in the cities in Oregon that have emissions, they still don't have visual inspections. Nowhere in Oregon has that.

That's just nuts if you ask me!

Yeah I just read an article that Washington is getting rid of them altogether. It is costing them too much money and the number of new cars out weigh the old ones, which means that most people are just throwing their money away for nothing. I hope Arizona follows suit, but our emissions goes all of the way back to 1967 so 1967 and new need emissions, and it doesn't change like most places that only do it for that last 25 years. So that said I think I am doomed as long as I live here.

 

[Fouledplugs]

The Gen 1 Chevy/GMC Canyon/Colorado originally came with a 2.8-liter four-cylinder making 175 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque or a 3.5-liter inline-five developing 220 hp and 225 lb-ft. Consumers thought this was adequate enough too; consumers bought them...

Engineers thought differently. In 2007 a face-lift kicked in, a 2.9-liter four-cylinder with 185 hp and 190 lb-ft and a 3.7-liter inline-five with 242 hp and 242 lb-ft. Which makes me start to wonder why do engineers keep pushing power and torue up and up, 175 HP ad 185 lb-ft TQ was adequate, why more?

To futher confuse me and leaving me out in left field is the fact that in 2009 the Chevy engineers introduced the option of a 5.3-liter V-8 endowed with 300 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque.

To explore a little further...
Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon vehicle weight: 4,051 lbs
Jeep Wragler JL Unlimted: 4,200 lbs
Jeep Gladiator vehicle weight: 4,812 lbs

Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon horsepower and torque: 300 horsepower, 320 ft-lbs torque
Jeep Wrangler JL Unlimited Horsepower and torque: 285 horsepower, 260 ft-lbs torque
Jeep Gladiator horsepower and torque: 285 horsepower, 260 ft-lbs torque

Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon EPA Rating: 15/21 mpg (to be fair it used the old 4 speed) numbers would be easily better with the new 6 speed autos)
Jeep Wrangler JL Unlimited: 17/23 mpg
Jeep Gladiator EPA Rating:17/22 mpg

And to be fair I will include all the other Chevy/GMC Colorado/Canyon engines and fuel milage numebrs for comparison.
2.9L 4 cylinder 4WD: 17/23
3.7L inline 5 cylinder 4WD: 17/23 mpg
5.3L V8 4WD: 15/21 mpg (this was using a 4 speed auto. Today's numbers would be much higher with the GM 6 speed auto)

It would be very interesting to see what the V8 gas milage and hp/tq numbers would be with the new 6 speeds autos and the new engine tech such as AFM and start/stop tech. Would it be on par with the four cylinders..? Could the 6 speed gain 2 more mpg's, could start stop gain 2 more MPG's, could AFM help get you 2 more MPG's? I would bet the combination of the three wouldnt be to far of a stretch. The 4 cylinder in the ChevyColorado only makes 2 more mpgs better than the V8. But the difference being 175 hp/185ft lbs versus 300hp/320ft lbs...

Sources:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15151628/2009-chevrolet-colorado-v8-instrumented-test/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26990240/2020-jeep-gladiator-by-the-numbers/
https://www.caranddriver.com/jeep/w...angler_jeep-wrangler-jl-unlimited-4-door_2018

 

[mrblaine]

agreed with most of your reply, but dont foget the basics of horsepower and hosepower potential in this case, there is no replacement for displacment. Never will be.

Don't tell the boys that build and race Formula 1 that. Might confuse the heck out of them. 90 degree V-6 cranking out nearly a 1000 horsepower from 1.6 liters of displacement. And if you contemplate that high numbers like that are possible if you don't care about reliability or longevity, consider that the rules try to force them to use 3-4 power units per season or suffer some pretty good penalties.

 

[AndyG]

It woud be interesting to see what the Gladiator hype would have been if the Hemi was an option in it...

Man people would beat the dealership doors down . There's enough guys out there , like some of us , that want that .

 

[Fouledplugs]

Don't tell the boys that build and race Formula 1 that. Might confuse the heck out of them. 90 degree V-6 cranking out nearly a 1000 horsepower from 1.6 liters of displacement. And if you contemplate that high numbers like that are possible if you don't care about reliability or longevity, consider that the rules try to force them to use 3-4 power units per season or suffer some pretty good penalties.

They ran V10s. Then to lower power, the rules mandated V8’s and to bring it down again, the rules mandated V6’s

They also “makeup” for this lack of displacement by using a turbo charger that’s been banned for 20 something years and extremely high RPM’s. Something like 17,000 RPM’s.

I could be wrong.

 

[Plowboy111]

Wonder what the measurements are on the Chevy Colorado engine bay and frame buckle joints, from the factory it came with a LS 5.3 in it. (Gen 1 Colorado)

The Gen 1 Chevy/GMC Canyon/Colorado originally came with a 2.8-liter four-cylinder making 175 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque or a 3.5-liter inline-five developing 220 hp and 225 lb-ft. People thought this was adequate. Engineers thought differently. In 2007 a face-lift kicked in, a 2.9-liter four-cylinder with 185 hp and 190 lb-ft and a 3.7-liter inline-five with 242 hp and 242 lb-ft. Which makes me start to wonder why do engineers keep pushing power and torque up and up, 175 HP ad 185 lb-ft TQ was adequate, why more?

To futher confuse me and leaving me out in left field is teh fact that in 2009 the Chevy engineers introduced the option of a 5.3-liter V-8 endowed with 300 hp and 320 lb-ft of torque.

Having this type of power chasing is what's needed over at the Wrangler and Gladitor engineering table.

I have a 2010 Silverado 5.3 that is a powerhouse of a small engine. Chevy also put those engines in at an angle so they go under the occupants in a very bad head on crash. I had a cj5 y banger I would not want my 5.3 in that cj. It is way to short. Get a little sideways in the snow and you better have fast hands. I put my cj in the ditch within the first 1/4 mile I drove it on snow. Now the longer wheelbase keeps heck ya. I bet the had a lot of data from the V8 back in the day that said they are to dangerous for that short of a vehicle. Also they figure we are kinda on the wild side of we are jeepers anyway.

 

[Fouledplugs]

I have a 2010 Silverado 5.3 that is a powerhouse of a small engine. Chevy also put those engines in at an angle so they go under the occupants in a very bad head on crash. I had a cj5 y banger I would not want my 5.3 in that cj. It is way to short. Get a little sideways in the snow and you better have fast hands. I put my cj in the ditch within the first 1/4 mile I drove it on snow. Now the longer wheelbase keeps heck ya. I bet the had a lot of data from the V8 back in the day that said they are to dangerous for that short of a vehicle. Also they figure we are kinda on the wild side of we are jeepers anyway.

We are far from the CJ5 days. I would highly doubt Jeep engineers are looking at CJ5 data to make decisions on a V8 option for the JL/JLU or Gladiator.

Dangerous? Is the 700 hp Hellcat or 800 hp Demon not dangerous? Those horsepower numbers are unheard of.

The marketing folks over at Fiat were bragging and advertising a letter they got from the NHRA saying the Hellcat and Demon were too fast for competition in the NHRA stock classes and would be banned from competition...They were putting the letter in magazine advertisements.

I know the challenger and Wrangler is apple and oranges. But Fiat is doing big things over there at Dodge/Jeep.

 

[Fouledplugs]

Chevy also put those engines in at an angle so they go under the occupants in a very bad head on crash.

Got anything in black and white (in writing) to back this idea of yours up?

 

[AndyG]

I have a 2010 Silverado 5.3 that is a powerhouse of a small engine. Chevy also put those engines in at an angle so they go under the occupants in a very bad head on crash. I had a cj5 y banger I would not want my 5.3 in that cj. It is way to short. Get a little sideways in the snow and you better have fast hands. I put my cj in the ditch within the first 1/4 mile I drove it on snow. Now the longer wheelbase keeps heck ya. I bet the had a lot of data from the V8 back in the day that said they are to dangerous for that short of a vehicle. Also they figure we are kinda on the wild side of we are jeepers anyway.

I noticed in the Silverado that I have there is an awful lot of room between the front of the engine and the grill... It almost looks like a 4.3 is sitting in there.

I have thought about how much horsepower is safe in such a light vehicle that the manufacturer knows is likely to be lifted.

at the same time I agree with the earlier statement ....these vehicles are light years ahead of the CJs

I can't say this is always the case but I wonder how much European thinking is behind that horsepower to weight mindset... I have quite a bit of German tools in they don't I have the horsepower that the DeWalt tools have... But they have enough.

I also think that Fiat inherited the 4.0 and it was alrighty a successful platform and they were tooled up for it and ran with it for the TJ series all the time knowing that that was the last platform it would be in.

I was recently under a JK and I was really impressed... They are substantial and it seems like a 5.3 or something along that line would be fantastic.

 

[BugoutJeep]

I think the idea that engineers get a say is almost funny. From any stuff I've worked on sales and accounting battle for top dog and manufacturing engineers (I guess that's what they're called) to help figure out costs are who are listened to. Art and design department would have much more say as well. Typically as an engineer you just verify and tweak. I think marketing would be more critical for top execs that get the final sign off.

I'm not sure the CA emissions cares much about V8s, but from what I can tell about their testing I thought most of it was at idle which efficiency and displacement make that a bit tougher to deal with. Diesel has a big efficiency problem but get around efficiency by just making it less efficient, which negates their use in the US, though considered very clean around the world including the higher tier standards by Europe. Some V8s just drop cylinders or go through some other process or hassle.

From a similar but opposite point of view, I tried to argue to a buddy, a consumer would want reliability, utility, versatility and fuel economy to maximize their investment. I noted that when I went to work everyday, I saw older cars and never saw even a JK or a Liberty/JL. When I went home I noted the same. I took a day off and was in town and it was all the shiny cars I see on TV and the junk yard. I was arguing with a buddy that's one of the Tier X supplier (I forget the tier supplier order, but it's high enough that they pay attention to what's selling) and he tried to explain to me where they're making money and it's not from us (people on a forum trying to do more with their vehicle) and has nothing to do with us. Most buy a vehicle for a few years, throw it away and move on to something else shiny. They really don't care what they have, just what it looks like and what features they can list that sound good coupled with their iPhone bezel. OEMs cater and are funded by those people. Jeep is basically just a convertible for them and they'll keep a towel and some posts on Instagram about their experience.

The Pentastar is a very good throw away engine as well. The 3.8 was junk but people were buying the Jeep. The Pentastar was used in almost everything Dodge/Chrysler and it's fine for a Jeep. On paper a V8 may not be as safe, but likely its just not worth integrating properly for Jeep. V8s for years have been designed to drop the motors on impact and on high CG vehicles, especially if they beefed up the rear axle and added a couple inches to the tires, I'm not sure how they couldn't make this safe. A V8 is just about as long as a 4 cylinder, which is now offered, but maybe it's not mounted longitudinally.

I know they keep toying about the diesel, maybe this is the year maybe it's not just like the last several years, but for $6k upgrade I'd guess (basing this off the Grand Cherokees) and then $2k or more to fix it from aftermarket suppliers to unleash the efficiency, I'm surprised they sell many. I might add they offer the diesel, because the Jeep is designed for a diesel (I think the only offering in V8 is aftermarket). Many places in the world get taxed on displacement so I'm guessing the V8 option is a no go and the added cost of gas overseas and no offense, but if you had a diesel, only racers would opt for the V8. The V6 is a cheap throw away engine and if you were to get the diesel version, there's better stuff out there. From what I can tell overseas, the Wrangler isn't highly regarded due to other options and design is based on the US road system, which is more robust than most places in the world and I've heard it implied that they don't hold up relatively to offerings we don't have access to.

I have a ZJ V8 (I know it's not the same, but it's a relatively light, relatively short wheelbase vehicle) and a TJ 4 cylinder diesel and I had the 4.0. If the 4.0 could put out a bit more torque at lower RPMs it would be hard to beat it from a function and longevity stand point. The Pentastar isn't an inline 6 which stinks for those of us that stick with a vehicle for way too long, but it's a pretty good compromise. I don't think they're as versatile as turbo diesels or V8s, but they're good enough.

Another question I have, is what's the Wrangler's competition? I know I looked at the Colorado and just sucking it up and towing my TJ around with my 3/4 ton, which was getting better MPG towing the Jeep (I do drive slowly and I watch RPMs like a hawk) than the Jeep could get when loaded out. If I was to buy new I'd probably pass on the JL personally, but I was also really put off by the JK, especially because of the 3.8L and I didn't give the 3.6L a chance and for some reason that bias lingers. Aesthetically I still don't quite like the newer models, mainly the 4-doors which for practical purposes would be so hard to pass up due to function.

 

[AndyG]

You know when I think of the wranglers that I've owned and driven... And I think about more power... I don't necessarily always think they need tremendous amounts more power... Just some.

whether it is mountain passes or merging or just to raise Cain...just a little more to play with sometimes would be nice.

 

[BugoutJeep]

You know when I think of the wranglers that I've owned and driven... And I think about more power... I don't necessarily always think they need tremendous amounts more power... Just some.

whether it is mountain passes or merging or just to raise Cain...just a little more to play with sometimes would be nice.

Well what most people are sold is more power when they mean more torque. And even more often it's low end torque. A Jeep that's close to 260 ft lbs around 2k RPMs makes a world of difference from my experience. And honestly having the torque without having to worry about boost pressure is really nice.