Jeep Wrangler Forum banner

3.6L V6 engine question

12K views 62 replies 25 participants last post by  Old Dogger 
#1 ·
Hi,

I got my 2014 Wangler Unlimited Rubicon on June. I checked my engine cover printed "3.6L V6" only but I checked other rubicon engine cover with "3.6L VVT". Is my "3.6L V6" engine without VVT?
 
#6 ·
All Pentastars have MVE which stands for Mini Van Engine, advertising that would be kinda embarrassing too.
 
#20 ·
Of course, the mighty 3.8 was only being used in the Caravans and the Pacifica, when it was selected for the Wrangler in '07. So it is more accurate but just as dumb to call it a minivan engine.:thumb:
 
#23 ·
I have to admit, my 3.6 must have come from a Challenger. It runs fast, much faster than any previous factory Wrangler/CJ. I also believe it has more HP and torque than any previous engine in any wrangler/CJ - including the old V-8s.

That being said, I don't care where it comes from, I care what it DOES! Form over function for me, that's why I bought a Jeep. Let the posers have something with a name or image they can brag about.
 
#25 ·
I have to admit, my 3.6 must have come from a Challenger. It runs fast, much faster than any previous factory Wrangler/CJ. I also believe it has more HP and torque than any previous engine in any wrangler/CJ - including the old V-8s.

That being said, I don't care where it comes from, I care what it DOES! Form over function for me, that's why I bought a Jeep. Let the posers have something with a name or image they can brag about.
I think you prefer Function over Form actually, could be wrong but.....:)
 
#24 ·
The 3.6l pentastar motor is the new flagship v6 from Chrysler and replaced pretty much every old engine they had which included the 3.5, 3.3, 3.8, 3.7, and 4
.0, the new 3.2l based off the 3.6 platform will replace the 2.7l. When a company makes that many different 6 cylinder Motors then that really hurts profit and quality control, being that the 3.6l is such a good engine it only makes sense that they would use it in everything and just recalibrate the computer for different operations, for instance in a Chrysler 200 it is 305hp and I our jeeps is only 285hp.
 
#26 ·
Don't forget guys and girls the our JKs have the same engine that they are putting twin turbos on for the new production Maseratis. I'm thinking that would be an awesome future mod...
 
#36 ·
The 304 V8 was offered for a few years in the CJ-7. Not sure how many were produced, but I guess the take rate wasn't big enough to keep it going.

It was discontinued in 80 or 81, so maybe it also had something to do with the 79 energy crisis... That is the same era when a turd-storm of horrible cars like the Escort and Chevette got popular and Japan schooled them on doing small cars right.
 
#37 ·
The funny thing is, it was STILL weaker than what our V-6 produce now.

AMC V8 engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last 304 listed was 125 HP and 220 Ft lbs torque. The highest (using net ratings which changed in 1971) was 210 HP 245ft lbs torque.

Our V-6 is 285 Hp and 265 ft lbs torque. Not bad...

The strongest AMC V-8 (and wasnt used in a Wrangler/CJ) (using net ratings which changed in 1971) was 345 HP and 435 torque. THat most likely was in an AMX, Rebel machine or some other rare muscle car
 
#38 ·
Yea, that was the beginning of the CAFE era. V8's were choked to death. You could fix that though. My buddy had a 304 with a 4 barrel installed & all the emissions crap removed and it was a beast. Had a one piece fiberglass tilt front end when he got it, too.
 
#40 ·
The lack of a V8 in the modern Wrangler probably has more to due with fuel economy, safety ratings, and pricepoints than Jeep short-sightedness.

If you want a V8, drop a Hemi in it.
 
#41 ·
The lack of a V8 in the modern Wrangler probably has more to due with fuel economy, safety ratings, and pricepoints than Jeep short-sightedness.

If you want a V8, drop a Hemi in it.
That's the problem. Jeep is succumbing to the greenies instead of making the vehicles that they should be. And the reason that a hemi swap is not feasible for most people is the insane price. So pardon me for thinking that jeep should just do the right thing and make the vehicles that their loyal and dedicated customers want instead of the vehicles that soccer mom's want.
 
#44 ·
There are two benefits to the 3.6. One is more HP to the redline (which is always discussed here), and the other is the torque output..where it has 90% of its peak torque by 1700 RPM's or so.

That 2nd part seems to always be left out of the discussion.
 
#46 ·
I don't want to get into the torque vs hp discussion as that is seperate from "this is a weak engine"

Weak engines don't win races. 0-60 or 1/4 mile. thats why I always go to 1/4 mile times or 0-60. Its real world performance.

Like I said, I still want an INLINE diesel. I do understand the need for torque. But saying the Pentastars are weak is a falsehood. You may prefer a different type of power (which I do) but I will not say these engines are weak. They are strong and good on gas. If you question that, see what it does in a Challenger. Matches a standard big block (383 or 440 4 barrel) in 1/4 mile times and gets 30 MPG.

Weak engine - not in any sense of the word.
 
#52 ·
I also find it interesting that you chose 1978, which is probably the worst year for engine performance because of emissions regulations and it's affect on overall vehicle performance. So the smallest engine offered in the Jeep that year in a year that has probably the worst overall performance I would certainly expect that you'll see slow Jeeps.

After doing some of my own research though and looking more into performance data for earlier years, even dipping down into the pre-CJ7 years when horsepower still hadn't fallen off, I'm finding that the times still may not be enough to beat a modern fuel injected Jeep, in large part to a very peaky torque curve that drops off substantially before even 3,500 RPM. So I'm willing to concede the point.

However, that does not invalidate my overall point that I was trying to make.

And my point is that the Pentastar, while substantially better than the 3.8, is still not a great Jeep engine. It really does lack low end torque. Anything much below 2,000 RPM just doesn't give you much power. Sure, it cranks out a lot of horsepower at 6,200 RPM but so what? You still have to put really short gears in it to have any real semblance of crawling ability on anything very technical. I have 4.56 gears in my 2012 with a short 35" tire and I still can't get great control over big rocks to the point where I'm putting serious planning into a 4 speed Atlas. Those same gears and tires in a 4.0 Wrangler would perform a lot better in the big rocks because the 4.0 has better low end torque.
 
#53 ·
Well you answered your own question. I didn't choose 1978. It was one of the data points I found. No Mal intent there. It's just the data that's out there. That's also why I asked you to show me, I put up the data I can find. If you can show hard data otherwise, I'll agree with you.

Like I said, I would prefer a v8 like you would. I also said I would prefer an inline diesel ( inline motors are usually better for torque-i prefer a cummins over a vm too) The torque would be better for off roading which would fit the intended use of wranglers better.

All that being said, i am impressed with the pentastar. That 15.0 1/4 is better than a 383 road runner or matches a late 80s early 90s 5.0 mustang. I know, I had an 86 stang, and ran it on the track. The road runner with a big block weighs less than my jk- I posted that in another thread. The 3.6 may not be the perfect match for a wrangler, but it's a great motor. And it works for what I need it to do.

Not trying to be rude, but my view is based on real life numbers, not emotions. I never would believe a v6 could beat a 383, but it can. The results are there in black and white. The pentastar doesn't even need a turbo like the Buick in the grand nationals did.
 
#57 ·
I know there is probably no way to quantify this...

But I would really like to see a 4.0 put in a heavier JK....and a 3.6 put in a lighter TJ.

 
#58 ·
Back in 2012 I got a chance to spend the day wheeling the J12 concept truck with the head of the Wrangler division at Jeep.

He was telling me about the work they did on what was going to be the next generation 4.0. They completely reworked the head and got some very impressive numbers out of it on all fronts. Great torque and horsepower, substantially better emissions, etc. But ultimately what ended up killing it was that it was much easier to pass crash tests with a V6 than a straight 6. Well, and a not insignificant bias against "that damn AMC engine" in the Chrysler organization. But mostly because of the crash tests.

Still, it would have been cool to get the test mules they used and toss one in an older Jeep. :D
 
#59 ·





There are couple of 3.6 vs 3.8 charts out there. But in terms of the 3.6 vs the 4.0....it looks like the big difference is below 1600 rpms. So off idle power favors the 4.0...which is to be expected.
 
#60 ·





There are couple of 3.6 vs 3.8 charts out there. But in terms of the 3.6 vs the 4.0....it looks like the big difference is below 1600 rpms. So off idle power favors the 4.0...which is to be expected.
That's the point I've been trying to make all along. :beerdrinking:
 
#61 ·
Glad you guys brought up the 78' CJ. I had one that I bought new in 78, it had a 258CID and a Carter 2 barrel. Loved that thing and drove it through college and sold it to a friend that still has it.

That engine would pull my 2014 backwards, low end torque was great. Even with the 3 speed tranny. Pretty sure it could not keep up in a race though..

I love my new Jeep too, but will never forget my first:)
 
Top