Jeep News: Rumorpile: Next-Generation Wrangler Powertrain Details Are Partially Revealed

[William Maley]

Another piece of the next-generation Jeep Wrangler has been unearthed. The Truth About Cars has uncovered a document submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which reveals some partial details on the JL Wrangler's powertrains.

The documents revealed that the Wrangler would come with a 3.6L V6 with 285 horsepower and a turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder offering up 368 horsepower. No, this isn't a misprint. The other bit of information that can be gleaned from this document is that the Wrangler will only be initially offered as a four-door model - something we first we reported back in August.

Before anyone begins to panic because the two-door and diesel engine are not listed, we know both are happening thanks to spy shots and other leaks.

Source: The Truth About Cars

View full article

[David]

Talk about an overworked expected to have a short life 4 banger. V6 would be the better motor for long ownership. Course with the amount of lease deals FCA is doing on Jeep, I bet more and more will go with the T4 cause after 36K miles who cares who has to deal with an overworked motor.

I hope they look at doing a Hybrid. Diesel or gas motor with electric assist would be kick ass. Land Rover is doing it, no reason for the US brands not too.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...turbo 4..something from the Fiat or Alfa stable?  Maybe a variation of what was in Dart?  I haven't really paid attention to FCA's 4s.   I assume the V6 is the Pentastar. 

 

 

[David]

3 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Interesting...turbo 4..something from the Fiat or Alfa stable?  Maybe a variation of what was in Dart?  I haven't really paid attention to FCA's 4s.   I assume the V6 is the Pentastar. 

 

 

Yup, I figure looking at the doc it is the motor from the Alfa and the v6 is the Pentastar, my take on looking at the details what is available.

[ccap41]

5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Talk about an overworked expected to have a short life 4 banger.

I think the whole turbo 4-banger thing is overrated these days. It isn't average Joe and his friends turbo-ing one of their own cars with factory internals rated for stock power levels.. This is an OEM turbo setup. If they are smart(it is FCA ) they did their testing and retesting..and RETESTING on everything and it is 100% designed around the turbo boost levels and longevity should be a non-issue. Look at the Ecoboost F150's from 2011.. If there are any complaints about them it isn't engine failure, maybe sh!t components or whatnot but not the engine itself spining a baring or throwing a rod or some sh!t. 

[daves87rs]

Interesting, these guys may go a bit.....

Not worried about the engines choices though. My old school boy racer in me says most of your long term owners (not the lease "status" folks) are going to mod these Jeeps anyways. as they normally do. Or just fix them....

 

Thinking the pentastar could be quite fun in these, depending on weight......

[Robert Hall]

6 minutes ago, daves87rs said:

 

Thinking the pentastar could be quite fun in these, depending on weight......

The Wrangler has had the Pentastar since 2012, same output...the only engine in the US market since '12.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[daves87rs]

3 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

The Wrangler has had the Pentastar since 2012, same output...the only engine in the US market since '12.

Dang, totally had a brain fart there....you're right!

Also reminds me that I have not been a newer Jeep in a while....need to fix that problem....

[Robert Hall]

I like the 3.6 and 8spd auto in my GC...smooth, reasonably quiet, decent gas mileage and powerful enough.   I imagine it would be nice in the lighter Wrangler.

[David]

9 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I like the 3.6 and 8spd auto in my GC...smooth, reasonably quiet, decent gas mileage and powerful enough.   I imagine it would be nice in the lighter Wrangler.

Agreed the combo has been very nice in my son's GC. It seems to be pretty solid engine/transmission combo.

[David]

Interesting the chart they filed 

[Frisky Dingo]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I think the whole turbo 4-banger thing is overrated these days. It isn't average Joe and his friends turbo-ing one of their own cars with factory internals rated for stock power levels.. This is an OEM turbo setup. If they are smart(it is FCA ) they did their testing and retesting..and RETESTING on everything and it is 100% designed around the turbo boost levels and longevity should be a non-issue. Look at the Ecoboost F150's from 2011.. If there are any complaints about them it isn't engine failure, maybe sh!t components or whatnot but not the engine itself spining a baring or throwing a rod or some sh!t. 

 

No real internal issues, but there were plenty of problems with turbos, fuel system, and oil/cooling systems. I was at a Ford dealership when they came out.

 

 

That said, I'm calling it, there's NO WAY the Wrangler is getting a 368HP turbo 4. That's more power than AMG is putting out in theirs, and way more than all the usual suspects- VAG, BMW, etc.

I bet money that '3' is supposed to be a '2'.

[Stew]

25 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

 

No real internal issues, but there were plenty of problems with turbos, fuel system, and oil/cooling systems. I was at a Ford dealership when they came out.

 

 

That said, I'm calling it, there's NO WAY the Wrangler is getting a 368HP turbo 4. That's more power than AMG is putting out in theirs, and way more than all the usual suspects- VAG, BMW, etc.

I bet money that '3' is supposed to be a '2'.

I 100% agree, 268 HP, but tuned for high torque low in the RPM range. 

[smk4565]

5 hours ago, Frisky Dingo said:

 

No real internal issues, but there were plenty of problems with turbos, fuel system, and oil/cooling systems. I was at a Ford dealership when they came out.

 

 

That said, I'm calling it, there's NO WAY the Wrangler is getting a 368HP turbo 4. That's more power than AMG is putting out in theirs, and way more than all the usual suspects- VAG, BMW, etc.

I bet money that '3' is supposed to be a '2'.

AMG's 2.0 liter makes 375 hp and 350 lb-ft and that has been around like 3-4 years.  So it is possible, but I wonder if they have tied a hybrid system to it and the electric motor with the gas is making 368 hp, although FCA and hybrid/electric don't really mix either.

It is possible to get 368 hp from a 2 liter, Alfa Romeo gets 505 hp from a 2.9 liter V6.  So the numbers match up.

[Frisky Dingo]

10 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

AMG's 2.0 liter makes 375 hp and 350 lb-ft and that has been around like 3-4 years.  So it is possible, but I wonder if they have tied a hybrid system to it and the electric motor with the gas is making 368 hp, although FCA and hybrid/electric don't really mix either.

It is possible to get 368 hp from a 2 liter, Alfa Romeo gets 505 hp from a 2.9 liter V6.  So the numbers match up.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it makes 0 sense, there's no precedent for it in anything mainstream, there's no other basis to the claims up to this point- in fact an insider said it'd have 'less than 300hp', it'd be awfully unreliable, and it'd hurt the image of the vehicle.

[smk4565]

3 hours ago, Frisky Dingo said:

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it makes 0 sense, there's no precedent for it in anything mainstream, there's no other basis to the claims up to this point- in fact an insider said it'd have 'less than 300hp', it'd be awfully unreliable, and it'd hurt the image of the vehicle.

Well, really any engine FCA makes is going to be unreliable.  

[David]

14 hours ago, Frisky Dingo said:

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it makes 0 sense, there's no precedent for it in anything mainstream, there's no other basis to the claims up to this point- in fact an insider said it'd have 'less than 300hp', it'd be awfully unreliable, and it'd hurt the image of the vehicle.

Remember, GM had many drag racing groups using the Quad 4 in a dual Turbo setup getting 1200hp. But I agree, I think the 3 was to be a 2 which makes way more sense.

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Well, really any engine FCA makes is going to be unreliable.  

Not true, the Pentastar has become very reliable and in the V6 with 8 spd tranny config, seems to be doing very well across all models that the powertrain is installed in.

[oldshurst442]

8 hours ago, dfelt said:

Remember, GM had many drag racing groups using the Quad 4 in a dual Turbo setup getting 1200hp. But I agree, I think the 3 was to be a 2 which makes way more sense.

 

Frisky said...mainstream...

The Quad 4 and the Ecotec producing 1000 some odd horsepower was certainly not mainstream.

Honda's 4 cylinders are also capable of high horsepower...but none of those were ever offered at the mainstream level.

Sorry for the interruption..continue on.

[oldshurst442]

Is it normal for me to think that a Wrangler really does not need a V6 engine?

And that it should go back to its 4 cylinder roots, even though the Wrangler has grown to be at least 50% larger than the original WW2 military vehicle?

[riviera74]

A turbo 4 over their V6 is silly, if not stupid.  If it is about CAFE, then it is the V8s that FCA offer that need to go on a diet.  In order for a 4cyl Wrangler to work, Jeep needs to dump several hundred pounds off that vehicle.  Otherwise, keep the Pentastar.

[Drew Dowdell]

Imagine the lag. That would be annoying while off roading

[ocnblu]

Needs to be turnt sideways and stuck in the Compass... STAT