Poorly thought out? I don't think so, not in the least. It has been one of the best most reliable engines to have ever come out of Detroit and has earned a sterling reputation. It's based on an old AMC design and it is extremely well-proven and long-favored engines. To say it has stood the test of time would be an understatement. And if it wasn't a truly great engine it wouldn't have been used in so many Jeep models over so many years. Bad engines don't get used long, look at the 3.8L V6 engine the early JKs came with... it was replaced with the 3.6L 4 years after its introduction.
I’m going to go right along with Jerry on this and make a few comments as somebody that has had this engine in several variations since the 80s-
- First it was something they had the tooling to make , more or less. Or at least know how - it was a known so to speak, and that leads me to the next statement- with a newly acquired vehicle line they didn’t really have a lot of time- When you pull a drowning person out of the water you’re not worried about new clothes, You’re trying to keep him alive. Jeep was not thriving in the mid 80’s.
- that engine was so well respected that it was very important in reviving the jeep to make sure that it had a power plant that was favored by the market- We live in a world today where you can have an all new everything...and technology is so good that it will be a hit. The C8 Corvette testifies to that. Testing an all new platform on wary owners was not a smart strategy in ‘97. And remember test mules are built years before production. It was borne in the 258 era. They had to be able to tell buyers “this is an improved version of the old reliable
straight six”.
The YJ was ok, but was not well accepted- had they simply put round headlights in it it probably would’ve sold 50% more units. The TJ had to look like a Jeep, run forever like a Jeep and drive like a car or modern small truck. The TJ did.
Jeep needed a win, and to get a win they knew an inline
6 close to 258 displacement was important. They were right. An inline 6 was not negotiable. Even today potential owners look for that engine. Remember- jeep was trying to get the easy customer back first- the jeep guy- and make it drive better to attract the customer that wanted more refinement. The success of that thought process has been massive and continues today.
Next, it works. When is the last time...or first time....someone on here has broke an axle due to too much “hit” , which is power all at once. It does not destroy the drive train- it’s tractable power has a lot to do with a TJ’s potency off road- and the mild power to weight ratio has been part of the formula since its’ conception.
Yes, by modern standards, the output is low for what engine designers can yield from that displacement - easily- but in 1997 that was not as common-and a bigger powerplant was not in the cards when past success indicated a fuel injected version of what they had was right.
At the end of the day, it was “if it ain’t broke, fuel inject it and go 10 more years”.
Would 75 more horses be nice- sure with the tires we all want to run- but the ship has sailed and I’m glad to be on it regardless.
Also, as an arguable note, a quicker jeep would instantly make the short wheel bases’ flaws stand out with the best steering sold.
Poorly thought out - I’m going to contend that it didn’t need to be thought about at all.