And fewer yet probably know much about diesels, though Jeep is bringing out a diesel JL.
When I stop and think about the prices people are willing to pay for what already exists, I think that question has already been answered. I'm sorry, but people are paying for their cars what I paid for my house. The Jeep Trackhawk? $90,000. A fully loaded JL Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon pushes up to $57,000. If you took the base Rubicon Unlimited (roughly $40,000) and made the V-8 option an $8-$10,000 package, I say yes, it would sell. What I won't say is "I guarantee" it would sell. I struggle with people making that "I guarantee" statement on anything. What is your guarantee? If you're wrong, there will be monetary compensation in the form of a partial refund? Now that's a guarantee! Otherwise, they're just words emphasizing your opinion.While it can be done. Is there enough of a demand for the price point it would have?
My friend and I were working on a 1974 Cj-5 with a v8 and on the first drive we accidentally popped a wheelie and broke the front diff and axles so maybe that’s a reason.
I think the new Jeeps would be hard pressed to pop wheelies like your 74 did. I had a friend with a mid 70's that popped wheelies too. It was really cool, but I think if I could pop a wheelie in my new JL it would definitely be cool. My 06 Yamaha R1 pops wheelies just fine, why can't my Jeep too? haha
Exactly ...I had one . It was a beast . It was too much engine for a vehicle that that safety issues already.My friend and I were working on a 1974 Cj-5 with a v8 and on the first drive we accidentally popped a wheelie and broke the front diff and axles so maybe that’s a reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still used in the land rover discovery....In the early 60's .... General Motors (Buick) brought out an aluminum block/head V8. Weighing in at a mere 320lbs. .... this is 220lbs. lighter than a SBC.
I don't know where the lines are drawn , but I think a more powerful engine option in the JLU and JT Gladiator would be well received , the 4.3 was loved in Chevrolet's S-10 series and blazers , and powerful engines thrive in today's market .. horsepower had made a come back.I was taking to a guy at Jeep he said the government said doesn't allow Jeep to put a v8 in a wrangler
I think that nails why so much of us whine about power ..we slap on huge tires and rims and add all kinds of weight , and the power train design is built around trailer tires basically.The Jeep president himself addressed why the V8 never made it to the Wrangler in a very recent news article.
He mentioned that while it fits, it's not safe from a crash / safety perspective. It fits in the engine bay tight enough that when you get in a high speed accident, there isn't enough room for the body to crumple the way it should and still keep the occupants safe.
I'm not a safety engineer, so I have no idea what all of it means, but it sounds like Jeep themselves have confirmed it. The V8 never made it to the Wrangler due to safety reasons.
And let's not kid ourselves anyways. In many cases a good V6 can produce as much (if not the same) power as an entry level V8. More cylinders doesn't always mean more power. The Pentastar for instance is a 3.6, but it never once leaves you feeling like you really are lacking for power. Okay, maybe if you add 40s and a ton of extra weight, but at that point even an entry level V8 wouldn't be enough either.
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.More cylinders doesn't always mean more power.
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 Jeep president himself addressed why the V8 never made it to the Wrangler in a very recent news article.
He mentioned that while it fits, it's not safe from a crash / safety perspective. It fits in the engine bay tight enough that when you get in a high speed accident, there isn't enough room for the body to crumple the way it should and still keep the occupants safe.
I'm not a safety engineer, so I have no idea what all of it means, but it sounds like Jeep themselves have confirmed it. The V8 never made it to the Wrangler due to safety reasons.
And let's not kid ourselves anyways. In many cases a good V6 can produce as much (if not the same) power as an entry level V8. More cylinders doesn't always mean more power. The Pentastar for instance is a 3.6, but it never once leaves you feeling like you really are lacking for power. Okay, maybe if you add 40s and a ton of extra weight, but at that point even an entry level V8 wouldn't be enough either.
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.The Jeep president himself addressed why the V8 never made it to the Wrangler in a very recent news article.
I really , really agree with that , and would likely in a Jk already if they had similar engines, because they look great with big tires and the extra room works for families and excursions well.Wonder what the measurments 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 Chhevy/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 tourwue 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.
It could likely be explained to me and make sense, but as of right now, it doesnt make sense to me that the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon had a 5.3 V8 with 300 HP and the Jeep JLU and Gladiator share the same V6 engine as the JL...I really , really agree with that , and would likely in a Jk already if they had similar engines, because they look great with big tires and the extra room works for families and excursions well.
That's been one of my sore spots with the Gladiator ,it's advertised tow capacity is pushing the engine to it's mechanical limits .It could likely be explained to me and make sense, but as of right now, it doesnt make sense to me that the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon had a 5.3 V8 with 300 HP and the Jeep JLU and Gladiator share the same V6 engine as the JL...
It woud be interesting to see what the Gladiator hype would have been if the Hemi was an option in it...That's been one of my sore spots with the Gladiator ,it's advertised tow capacity is pushing the engine to it's mechanical limits .
I was recently under a JK , they are built really stout , as far as the drive train and steering components , and the oil filter looked like it belonged on a Toro mower.
I don't understand the 3.6 in that chassis . I'm sure it's fantastic in a 2 door JK/JL .
I also think a larger engine could mean the difference in average success and massive success in the market for the JT.
It's screwed up for something that looks like that not to have power to match , like a Corvette with a 4 cylinder.