Edmunds Review of 2012 Wrangler - Page 2 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 08-31-2011, 08:30 PM   #31
Jeeper
 
ranjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lowell, AR
Posts: 695
Even a Cummins diesel in 6th gear at 45 will not have what you're looking for and they have far more torque than a Hemi.

__________________
2012 Rubicon Unlimited
Black, Auto, 4.10
Metal Cloak 3.5" Game Changer Lite, 37x12.50R17 Nitto Trail Grapplers, JCR Stinger & Rear Crusader Tire carrier with Rotopax, Recon 10.5K winch, Evo Protek skids, ACE sliders, sPod, Viair ADA
My YouTube Videos
ranjr is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 08:34 PM   #32
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415

I will own one next week and I drove one last week. As I have said about 8 trillion times by now it doesn't need more power, it needs more torque. Going 45 mph in 6th gear you should not have to drop two or three gears just to get it to go. My 20 year old daily driver with 160 hp and 3.08 gears can do it, there's no reason in the world a brand new Jeep with 290 hp can't do it.
What's your DD?

__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:07 PM   #33
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
If you're in 6th at 45mph, the problem isn't the engine or trans, it's your driving. I'd bet your beater weighs a whole lot less than the JK, but I'd still like to see just how hard it pulls at 45mph in 6th.
With the current engine, you are correct. You shouldn't be in 6th at 45 mph. That doesn't mean it's right for every engine and it doesn't mean it's the right engine.

How much would you like to wager? If it makes a difference, you are going to lose the bet. The JK I test drove is lighter by probably 200 lbs.

I didn't say it pulled you into the seat, but at least it is acceptable. It's a lot better than the '12 I test drove which would do nothing at all. I'm hoping mine with 3.73s will at least do something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranjr View Post
Even a Cummins diesel in 6th gear at 45 will not have what you're looking for and they have far more torque than a Hemi.
What is the 6th gear ratio on a Cummins? If it's the same (or even in the same zip code) as the JK you don't know what you're talking about. A Cummins will walk comfortably away from 45 mph in a gear with a comparable ratio to the JK. I'm not looking for tire smoke, I've already got one car and one truck for that, just the ability to drive around without having to choose between more rpm than it should need and shifting constantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
What's your DD?
It's a 1990 F-150. Six cylinder, 5 speed, 3.08's. My fifth gear ratio is .8 compared to the JK's .84 6th gear since I'm sure that will come up in the near future if I don't list it. It's on 28" tires. If you crunch all those numbers you'll find the overall ratio gives the JK w/3.73s a gearing advantage on anything smaller than a 36" tire and with 3.21s on stock tires the two are almost identical. In 5th at 45 mph I'm at 1500 rpm and when you push the pedal it accelerates and will do the same down to about 20-25 mph on level ground if I choose to be mean to it which isn't very often since it's treated me well for almost 400k miles.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:14 PM   #34
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,785
Ah-- kinda like comparing my Tj to my newer Jk (I think)
The 4.0 w/ 3.07 and 31's- had less power but I did not have to down shift as much.
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:18 PM   #35
Jeeper
 
ranjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lowell, AR
Posts: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415
What is the 6th gear ratio on a Cummins? If it's the same (or even in the same zip code) as the JK you don't know what you're talking about. A Cummins will walk comfortably away from 45 mph in a gear with a comparable ratio to the JK. I'm not looking for tire smoke, I've already got one car and one truck for that, just the ability to drive around without having to choose between more rpm than it should need and shifting constantly.
I owned a 2006 Mega cab 4x4 with the Cummins, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Overdrive on any vehicle is just that an overdrive.



I also drove my Father's 1996 F150 with the 300 I6, 5 speed, and 2.73 rear for a month waiting on my 2012. It was horribly slow. BUT it would pull third gear turning into my subdivision at 10 mph, just not very fast.

The issue isn't with the engine/tranny, it's your driving habits.
__________________
2012 Rubicon Unlimited
Black, Auto, 4.10
Metal Cloak 3.5" Game Changer Lite, 37x12.50R17 Nitto Trail Grapplers, JCR Stinger & Rear Crusader Tire carrier with Rotopax, Recon 10.5K winch, Evo Protek skids, ACE sliders, sPod, Viair ADA
My YouTube Videos
ranjr is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:28 PM   #36
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
All I know is that I learned to drive a manual on about five outings with my dad in 1994 in a community college parking lot. Thereafter, the next manual I drove was my 2010 JKU, which I had the dealer drive to my house because I wasn't at all confident I was going to be able to pull out of the dealership and into traffic without stalling and/or killing myself.

Whatever that means about my perspective, it does seem weird to me that I routinely shift between, 4th, 5th, and 6th on every highway drive, with 6th making the fewest (if any) appearances. And that 4th gear is my gear of choice up to about 75 or even 80 mph, especially uphill. The key is to stay above 2500 RPM unless you're just trying to maintain speed on a straightaway or downhill, in which case you can drop to 2k or so. It's got to be 2800 and up if you want passing power. Preferably 3k or more.

Driven that way, I've got plenty of power (even with 3.21s and the stock 32" Rubi tires), but that sure seems like a lot of shifting.

But I've got nothing to compare it to. And plus I've got years worth of shifting to make up for, so it's cool.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:48 PM   #37
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranjr View Post
I owned a 2006 Mega cab 4x4 with the Cummins, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Overdrive on any vehicle is just that an overdrive.
If that truck wouldn't pull away from 45 in 6th gear there was something wrong with it.

Quote:
I also drove my Father's 1996 F150 with the 300 I6, 5 speed, and 2.73 rear for a month waiting on my 2012. It was horribly slow. BUT it would pull third gear turning into my subdivision at 10 mph, just not very fast.
Mine is quicker than a 3.8L JK, not sure about the 3.6 since I didn't push very hard on the test drive. I know my truck has run 16.8 at 77 in the 1/4 with most of the acceleration over with by the 1/8 mile stripe. It's not fast, but it's not the slowest thing at the track either.

Quote:
The issue isn't with the engine/tranny, it's your driving habits.
No, it's that they keep building things bigger and heavier and putting smaller engines in them that can't do the job without a bunch of gear. You shouldn't have to learn to drive a Jeep like a Honda just to get it around town.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:50 PM   #38
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
Tell you what, somebody find the 45-65 acceleration numbers for a 1990 F-150 6 cylinder 5 speed and a 2012 JK 6 speed. I'll eat my shoe it the 3.6 JK is slower. Even if it were, it still is besides the point that you shouldn't be in 6th at 45mph anyway.
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 09:52 PM   #39
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
I can probably arrange that next week.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 10:02 PM   #40
Jeeper
 
JeeperJake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,839
I had a 1953 Buick Special with 3 on the tree and a straight 8 that would pull from about 10mph in high gear.....didn't really have any reason to do such all that often, other than entertainment value....and to marvel at how smooth that much torque could be.

I must in the the "1%" club at long last, as this whole discussion is about a different style of driving than I seem to need or want.

Even back in the 60s muscle car era, I personally preferred the 'torq-flite' button shifter Chrysler had at the time, for such thrills as the rolling start at 30-45.

It might help living in rural area now as well, since the complex demands of city road warriors is mostly absent.

The 3.8/auto is performing quite nicely for my daily needs. I actually did fire up the Hemi a few days ago to run some friends around the county. What a barge.
__________________
get in--buckle up--hang on
"soothing agricultural implement/personal servant/Walter Mitty multidimensional access utility device conveniently travels on pavement when necessary and often keeps me warm/cool/dry/soothed as needed."
JeeperJake is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 10:06 PM   #41
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
I think you misunderstand the point of gearing in the axles and transmission. The BEST setup for power gives you a numerically high gear in the rear axle to aid with acceleration from a stop and while moving, and a tall overdrive to drop the RPM on the highway and give you mileage. Even during the muscle car era where torque was everywhere, you still had plenty of 3.55, 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends. Even today, one of the most popular performance mods is changing your rear gear ratio. In the case of the Jeep, NO gas engine is going to deliver great torque below 2000 rpm, or where you spend a lot of your time on the trail, so you need gear to get you into the powerband. Higher gearing isn't a tradeoff, it's good mechanical engineering. You can have all the power in the world, but if the gears are numerically too low, you're not making squat down low. As a guy who has been drag racing and building my own cars for the past 15 years, I know a thing or two about this stuff. A big engine with numerically lower gears is not as efficient or versatile as one that is mated to a good OD trans and has steeper rear gearing.
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 10:44 PM   #42
Jeeper
 
off a cough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 188
I think you guys need to give upon this dream of factory hemi-powered Wranglers. Fed.gov has spoken and the nannies won't suffer your V8s. Next time, vote better.

Diesel needs better consumer adoption. Chrysler has not had great sales with diesel powered KJs or WKs and it is hard to blame them for being hesitant to invest in US emissions and maintenance commitments. The US consumer still equates diesel with big noisy trucks that white trash blow soot out of, or worse yet their dad's shite-box diesel Oldsmobile that GM insulted us with during the 80s. It doesn't help that those same fed.gov nannies have raised the price of diesel with sulphur reductions. Diesel can happen, but it has some challenges in the US.

Get used to V6 engines, and look to Ford's Ecoboost as an example of where we'll soon be. direct injection and a turbo tuned for low-end torque will be brutal in a JK.

In the mean time, today, I'm driving the most powerful factory Jeep (Wrangler/CJ) ever built. I'm not sure I understand the part where that's a bad thing. But do carry on.
__________________
New and shiny:
2012 JK Rubicon Unlimited 5-speed auto

Gone but not forgotten:
2004 TJ Rubicon 5-speed manual

off a cough is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 10:47 PM   #43
..shall not be infringed!

WF Supporting Member
 
Up Hill Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Up the hill, CA Northcoast
Posts: 4,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by off a cough View Post

In the mean time, today, I'm driving the most powerful factory Jeep (Wrangler/CJ) ever built. I'm not sure I understand the part where that's a bad thing. But do carry on.
I think I like you.
__________________
2012 JKU Rubicon
Sahara Tan
Auto
3.73


Up Hill Bill
Up Hill Bill is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 08-31-2011, 11:00 PM   #44
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,251
I just sold my '06 Ram w/Cummins TD. It was an absolute rocket. That thing would accellerate 60-100 very quickly. Thoese came with 610 ft/lbs but with a smarty tuner, they would push 750 ft/lbs without much effort.

I put the same motor in a Hummer H1, it develops gobs of torque at 1600-2000 rpm, put the tcase in low, with the 2:1 reduction geared hubs - plenty of power to idle up a wall.

Sadly, those trucks came stock with a an older GM diesel. So while you can put in a DMax or Cummins, it'll cost you big bucks.

I was thinking about this today, the Cummins 5.9 or 6.7 is probably too long to fit, the shorter V8 DMax has a lot of extra stuff that might not fit under the hood.

If Oilwell lived closer, I'd probably do a build with him with one of the above.
__________________
'14 Anvil JKUR (sold the '12 at 52K miles)
'13 unlimited stripped sport (red one)
'13 JKU sport (blue one)
'10 Unlimited sport (other red one)
'08 Unlimited X (green one)
3JKs1H1 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 05:09 AM   #45
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,290
You guys mentioning the Ford 300 I-6 failed to mention that engine is a torque monster, [for a 6 cyl engine]. IMO it is one of the best engines Ford ever made, it makes all its power way down low in the rpm range. Something I wish Jeep would do with the Wrangler.

I think the Pentastar engine is one of the best things coming from Chrysler in a long time. I just don't like using engine rpm to make power, when power can be made from more stroke in a truck engine. Wranglers weren't made for winning races. JMO

Wrangler should have its own dedicated engine, designed with low rpm and torque in mind. A different crank, different connecting rods and some tweaks to the engine would be nice. But Pentastar was designed to be used in multiple vehicles, sort of a one size fits all mentality. Still its a big improvement over the 3.8L.

I still hope Chrysler steers clear of DI, but I know its coming at some point.
demarpaint is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 05:52 AM   #46
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,785
IMO never going to happen " if it ain't broke-why fix it" look at Chryslers sales numbers for the wrangler.

I think Chrysler should have an "option" for a diesel, even if the choice is more expensive. Plenty of folks paying top dollar for JKUR's for DD and never plan going off road.

If you want it-pay more for it... just my .02
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler triple rate 2.5" coils/RK rear TB w/ a teraflex raised bracket/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Synergy flipped draglink,ball joints,tie rod /Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/Rancho geo brackets/Ruff stuff uppers/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings/Rancho cat back exhaust.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 06:33 AM   #47
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 322
My 1996 F150 4.9L I owned for about three years would pull away @ 45 on up with a 5 speed without down shifting. My current work truck 5.8L F150 will do the EXACT same thing without down shifting. Actually, it is in 3rd @ ~ 32 mph speeding up with newer cars just fine an often times speeding up faster, converter locks up @ 35 mph, then the truck starts leaving the traffic pretty quickly...then goes into OD ~ 45-50. I can speed up all the way to 90MPH in the old F150 by pushing the gas without down shifting and staying in OD, granted it will down shift if you floor it.

The older motors, for what it is worth IMO, seemed to have the power down in the lower RPM range for some reason, maybe it was just how they "felt" by the ass dyno. That "may" be part of the reason they were slower on top end than today's cars, they were out of their torque band...add in the fact most had 3-4 speed transmissions.... I agree OilWell, newer cars seem to have to rev higher to make torque...but then again...HP sells, lots of people could care less about TQ.
__________________
-Justin
TxF150 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 06:37 AM   #48
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
IMO never going to happen " if it ain't broke-why fix it" look at Chryslers sales numbers for the wrangler.

I think Chrysler should have an "option" for a diesel, even if the choice is more expensive. Plenty of folks paying top dollar for JKUR's for DD and never plan going off road.

If you want it-pay more for it... just my .02

Agreed
__________________
-Justin
TxF150 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 07:02 AM   #49
Jeeper
 
SeaComms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Noosa, QLD, Australia
Posts: 780
They do have an option for a diesel - just not for sale in the US. UK dont even get the petrol as an option!

One thing I did find interesting is that report still shows it as having the 11.4in front brake discs. We have had 13.2in front discs since the 2010 model.
__________________
Cheers from Downunder, Dave.
2010 Dark Charcoal Pearl 'Renegade' pack (includes dual top options, 17in alloys, side steps etc).
2.5in Flexy springs, Bilstien 5100's, Teraflex rear trackbar bracket, Synergy front and rear sway bar links and front disco kit, Synergy steering damper relocation bracket, AEV front drop brackets, ARB front and rear bar, 10,000lb rope winch, Britax Xray Vision driving lights, GME 3440 UHF radio.
SeaComms is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 07:28 AM   #50
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
I think the Pentastar engine is one of the best things coming from Chrysler in a long time. I just don't like using engine rpm to make power, when power can be made from more stroke in a truck engine. Wranglers weren't made for winning races. JMO
It's a tradeoff, though. Traditionally, Stroke = Displacement = Fuel consumption, and we all know what a touchy subject that is with the automakers and big brother these days. The one glaring exception to that rule has been GM and their LS family of engines. The old LS1 made a real 350hp, and would knock down 30mpg with the 6 speed in the old Camaro/Firebird if driven conservatively. As time went on, you saw the LS2 with 400hp, the LS6 with 405, the LS3 with 430hp, the LS7 with 505hp, and all of them get decent fuel mileage for the power level if you drive gently and all of them have flat, broad torque curves. How did they achieve blistering performance AND good mileage? A 6 speed trans and the right rear gear ratio. They're also compact and relatively light engines, and respond very well to bolt on parts. The first thing I thought when I saw the new Hemi engines is that Chrysler has been reading GM's notes on how to build a modern pushrod V8.
Ford on the other hand, well they struggled for years trying to get good power out of their modular V8's. If you've ever driven a 96-98 Mustang GT, you know what I'm talking about. The took an engine that made little low end torque, and saddled it with the same transmissions and gear ratios that the old pushrod 5.0 used, which was well known to be a torquey engine, even at just 302 cubic inches. The DOHC Cobra performed better, but was still getting trounced by the LS1 Camaro/Firebird. Upgrading your rear axle gearing put you next to those cars, so it proves the point that proper gear selection to work with your engine's powerband and transmission gearing isn't a band aid, it's good mechanical sense. Now they're getting 412hp and decent fuel mileage out of the new modular 5.0, and that's impressive.
You don't build an engine combo around your gear set, you select your gear set to best compliment your engine combo. High revving, low geared vehicles is far from a new thing. If you ever have the opportunity to drove or ride in an old Boss 302 Mustang or Z/28 Camaro with their 302 engines, you'll see just how well small displacement, higher revving engines can work. A Jeep isn't a muscle car, but the principals are still the same. To address the complaints that everyone had about the Wrangler, namely the on road performance, Chrysler did the right thing here. If they installed a low revving, larger displacement engine, highway performance would have suffered even more. Old engines were not the torque monsters you thought they were. What torque they did make, was offset by the fact that you couldn't rev them. Modern emissions and tuning has made engines today produce more horsepower and torque than anything you saw from the introduction of smogger engines, all the way up through the 90's. You don't see commonplace large displacement engines anymore, and we probably never will again. The one undeniable truth is cars are faster and more powerful overall than they ever have been before. You might not get the kick in the pants you felt with an old pushrod engine and it's brick wall of a torque curve, but the torque is still there, only a lot smoother in delivery.
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 07:48 AM   #51
Statler & Waldorf Show

WF Supporting Member
 
Mykll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Davidian Bunker
Posts: 835
Send a message via AIM to Mykll Send a message via Yahoo to Mykll
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
If you need multiquote click the quotation mark next to teh quote button on everything you want to quote except the last item. For the last item, just click the regular quote button.
Just to add a slightly different method. As you read through a thread, you can keep hitting the little quote buttons. Once you hit the end of the thread, you can also hit the normal Post Reply button on the bottom left and it will do the same thing.
__________________
2012 Sport S 2D, Silver, Hardtop, Manual, Tow, 3.73, Infinity, Air Bags, Power Convenience
Heated Seats, Side Steps, Hood Lock, Gas Cap Lock, Fuel Door
Ordered 6/27/11, D1 6/29/11, Built 7/22/11, Delivered 8/19/11.
Hummer Kills: 6
Mykll is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 09:44 PM   #52
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
I think you misunderstand the point of gearing in the axles and transmission. The BEST setup for power gives you a numerically high gear in the rear axle to aid with acceleration from a stop and while moving, and a tall overdrive to drop the RPM on the highway and give you mileage.
I understand just fine, I just think we have a 180 degree difference in our philosophies. If they would put the right engine in it there would be no need for overdrive in the first place. FWIW, if it needs more gear the absolute worst place to put it is in the axles. High numberical gears are horribly inefficient. It's much better to put more gear in the transmission where there isn't a 90 degree change in the direction of rotation.

Quote:
Even during the muscle car era where torque was everywhere, you still had plenty of 3.55, 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends.
During the muscle car era torque was not everywhere, crappy tires with no grip were everywhere. Engines then were complete dogs in every way compared to what we have today. The typicaly family sedan today is just as fast as the average sports coupe was in the 60's. At that time the manufacturers were at liberty to rate the cars pretty much as they saw fit and they used the gross power rating system. There were engines that lost half their power when they went to the net system in the early 70's.

Quote:
Even today, one of the most popular performance mods is changing your rear gear ratio.
Yes it is, I did dozens of them on 93-02 F-bodies and the occasional Mustang when I was in that line of work. Guess how much gain the average driver gets when swapping the stock 3.42 gears for 4.10s in an F-body. Nothing. They get tire smoke on the bottom and enough gain on top from being closer to the power peak at the finish line to make up the difference. 1st gear is useless for the purpose of the car without slicks and some suspension work. The only real benefit of the swap is because the car is more fun to drive.

Quote:
In the case of the Jeep, NO gas engine is going to deliver great torque below 2000 rpm, or where you spend a lot of your time on the trail, so you need gear to get you into the powerband.
The CURRENTLY AVAILABLE gas engines can't do it. There are plenty that can. I would love to see what my 300 would be like on the trail with between 310 and 320 ft-lbs of torque available from idle through 300 rpm. It could be built to make probably 20-30 ft lbs more than that. As I said earlier, a 5.7 Hemi could be built to have well over 400 ft-lbs available at low rpm. That would be awesome on the trail.

Quote:
Higher gearing isn't a tradeoff, it's good mechanical engineering. You can have all the power in the world, but if the gears are numerically too low, you're not making squat down low.
It is a trade off because of the engines the OEMs have been duped into building. Look at the reasons we have the engines we have today starting about 35 years ago. We started caring about the environment and didn't have the technology to keep our power and be nice to the environment at the same time. Engines were neutered to reduce emissions. Then the fuel crisis hit and the engines got smaller and they did even worse. In order for the small gutless engines to move the cars with anything resembling usefulness they had to put more gear in both the rear axles and the transmissions, which hurt the mileage on the highway. The result was the overdrive transmissions we have today. The OEMs started down the path of smaller engines with no torque and using gears to make up the difference and have never stepped back to see the big picture.

Quote:
As a guy who has been drag racing and building my own cars for the past 15 years, I know a thing or two about this stuff. A big engine with numerically lower gears is not as efficient or versatile as one that is mated to a good OD trans and has steeper rear gearing.
I've been doing this about 20 years myself. Drag racing, road racing, building things for others to do those things and even picked up a degree to help the cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by off a cough View Post
In the mean time, today, I'm driving the most powerful factory Jeep (Wrangler/CJ) ever built. I'm not sure I understand the part where that's a bad thing. But do carry on.
I'm thrilled to be able to do the same, I just thing they've all missed the boat for the last 10 years or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
You guys mentioning the Ford 300 I-6 failed to mention that engine is a torque monster, [for a 6 cyl engine]. IMO it is one of the best engines Ford ever made, it makes all its power way down low in the rpm range. Something I wish Jeep would do with the Wrangler.
This is what I've been saying all along, but with power being the buzzword of the century so far and with the average consumer being completely ignorant about what makes their car go we are stuck with high strung engines with no torque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
IMO never going to happen " if it ain't broke-why fix it" look at Chryslers sales numbers for the wrangler.

I think Chrysler should have an "option" for a diesel, even if the choice is more expensive. Plenty of folks paying top dollar for JKUR's for DD and never plan going off road.

If you want it-pay more for it... just my .02
It is broken, but nobody cares enough to vote with their wallet. The more I think about the diesel the more I just don't see it. Paying a few thousand dollars more for an engine that burns 20% less of a fuel that costs 15% more just doesn't sound like a very good return on my investment. Factor in the higher maintenance costs that typically come with a diesel and reduced fuel availability and it's just not worth it to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxF150 View Post
The older motors, for what it is worth IMO, seemed to have the power down in the lower RPM range for some reason, maybe it was just how they "felt" by the ass dyno. That "may" be part of the reason they were slower on top end than today's cars, they were out of their torque band...add in the fact most had 3-4 speed transmissions.... I agree OilWell, newer cars seem to have to rev higher to make torque...but then again...HP sells, lots of people could care less about TQ.
That is the exact reason they were slower on the top end. Most people never find out about how quickly they can accelerate above 70 or 80 mph. It doesn't take much power to push a truck past 100 mph, my 160 hp would do it if the limiter didn't catch it at 96 mph. The other argument is the ability to tow a 5 tons down the highway 80 mph, but how many people really do that? Most new trucks will never see a trailer, nevermind one that's close to max weight. I've towed 11k lbs with my 300 and it wasn't that hard. I would NOT choose to do it again, and wouldn't have done it in the first place if I had know what the trailer weighed when I hooked it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
It's a tradeoff, though. Traditionally, Stroke = Displacement = Fuel consumption, and we all know what a touchy subject that is with the automakers and big brother these days.
I will agree with this being traditionally true, but we've learned a lot since the days it was true. We now know that the path to efficiency isn't in stroke, but bore size. These days it is pretty much proven that you can get good fuel economy with any displacement because the basic designs are so much better today.

Quote:
The one glaring exception to that rule has been GM and their LS family of engines. The old LS1 made a real 350hp, and would knock down 30mpg with the 6 speed in the old Camaro/Firebird if driven conservatively. As time went on, you saw the LS2 with 400hp, the LS6 with 405, the LS3 with 430hp, the LS7 with 505hp, and all of them get decent fuel mileage for the power level if you drive gently and all of them have flat, broad torque curves.
I have never heard of a 6 speed F-body getting 30mpg without a lot of work. Even with work done I only can think of one F-body off the top of my head that I know has done it, and it wasn't a regular occurance. I own one of these cars and it has never done better than 26 mpg on the highway and 24 average. It is a convertible, but that isn't going to be worth 4 or 5 mpg. My wife drives this car like an old lady, so it isn't a heavy foot hurting the mileage.

I will give you the broad torque curve, but I will not give you flat. It is far from peaky, but they're not flat. Any one of them could be recammed to make more low end torque.

Quote:
How did they achieve blistering performance AND good mileage? A 6 speed trans and the right rear gear ratio. They're also compact and relatively light engines, and respond very well to bolt on parts. The first thing I thought when I saw the new Hemi engines is that Chrysler has been reading GM's notes on how to build a modern pushrod V8.
I'm really struggling with how to respond to this. I really want to say something mean, but you don't deserve it. I can't believe you are giving the credit for the performance and mileage to the transmission and gears. You must be aware of the advances the LS1 made in basic engine design that improved it in almost every way over the LT1. They were able to run over 10:1 compression even though they dumped the goofy reverse cooling system the LT1 had. Only a few years before you would have been laughed at if you said you were going to run that much compression on pump gas. They reduced the bore size from the traditional 4" of all prior 5.7L SBC engines because smaller bores are better for power (as long as the bore is still big enough to get some valve in it), mileage and emissions. To complement the smaller bore they developed a very efficient combustion chamber that didn't require much timing to make power. Every component in the engine was designed to minimize rotating or reciprocating weight and friction.

These cars get the same mileage with 4.10 or 4.56 gears as they do with the factory 3.42's. Older cars that these engines have been swapped into are also getting the same mileage and performance without the benefit of the .5 OD ratio of the 6 speed and with much lower gearing.

Also don't forget that the LT1 was backed by the exact same transmission and rear axle ratio as the LS1 and wasn't anywhere close in either performance or mileage.

All of this adds up to the great performance being almost exclusively due to the engine design, and having little if anything to do with the gearing.

Quote:
Ford on the other hand, well they struggled for years trying to get good power out of their modular V8's. If you've ever driven a 96-98 Mustang GT, you know what I'm talking about. The took an engine that made little low end torque, and saddled it with the same transmissions and gear ratios that the old pushrod 5.0 used, which was well known to be a torquey engine, even at just 302 cubic inches. The DOHC Cobra performed better, but was still getting trounced by the LS1 Camaro/Firebird. Upgrading your rear axle gearing put you next to those cars, so it proves the point that proper gear selection to work with your engine's powerband and transmission gearing isn't a band aid, it's good mechanical sense. Now they're getting 412hp and decent fuel mileage out of the new modular 5.0, and that's impressive.
The performance woes of the 94-98 Mustang wasn't a problem with the engine as much as it was a problem with a car that gained too much weight over its predesessor. The combination of less low end torque and a few hundred extra pounds was a killer. Even then the engine fulfiled its purpose: it made money. Any comparison of the 03-08 Mustang to a comparable year Camaro will show you that.

Quote:
You don't build an engine combo around your gear set, you select your gear set to best compliment your engine combo. High revving, low geared vehicles is far from a new thing. If you ever have the opportunity to drove or ride in an old Boss 302 Mustang or Z/28 Camaro with their 302 engines, you'll see just how well small displacement, higher revving engines can work.
This is a very misleading and ill thought out statement. It isn't an engine issue and it isn't a gear issue, it's a vehicle design issue. The whole vehicle has to be designed to work together. They don't do that any more, they just throw together whatever is on the shelf and do what they have to do to make it acceptable to all parties involved. That is what it takes to make money in the automotive industry today. Few vehicles are available with more than two engine choices to choose from compared to maybe having a dozen 40 years ago when the Boss and Z came out. Those cars were also built to compete within a specific set of rules that limited them to 302 cubic inches. I guarantee if larger engines were legal they would have been used. The only way to make power in a small engine is to spin it. When you spin it the low end torque goes away and you have to regear it. Regearing it is a fix for the loss of low end torque.

Quote:
A Jeep isn't a muscle car, but the principals are still the same. To address the complaints that everyone had about the Wrangler, namely the on road performance, Chrysler did the right thing here.
I disagree that this is the right thing, but it is the closest thing they had on the shelf.

Quote:
If they installed a low revving, larger displacement engine, highway performance would have suffered even more.
Absolutely not. The 290 hp we have now is twice the power needed to go well beyond the speed limit.

Quote:
Old engines were not the torque monsters you thought they were. What torque they did make, was offset by the fact that you couldn't rev them.
One of your first lines quoted above directly contradicts that old engines weren't torque monsters. You can't have it both ways. I don't need to rev an engine and I don't want to rev one. A high revving engine will never be as efficient as one that doesn't rev as high. The mechanical, fluid, and thermodynamic losses inside the engine all increase exponentially with speed. There is no way to change that.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 09:44 PM   #53
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Too long winded, had to split it into two separte posts....

Quote:
Modern emissions and tuning has made engines today produce more horsepower and torque than anything you saw from the introduction of smogger engines, all the way up through the 90's. You don't see commonplace large displacement engines anymore, and we probably never will again. The one undeniable truth is cars are faster and more powerful overall than they ever have been before. You might not get the kick in the pants you felt with an old pushrod engine and it's brick wall of a torque curve, but the torque is still there, only a lot smoother in delivery.
There is no doubt that we now have more powerful engines that make more torque than before. That is not the issue. The issue is that we also have more complex engines that have to rev to the moon and are not nearly the same return on our investment that they were a few years ago. How long do you think a Pentastar is going to last without needing some significant work? My old boat anchor 300 is quickly approaching 400k miles and I've never had to touch it. It also makes about 310 ft-lbs of torque at 1000 rpm. Show me a new engine of similar size that will do that. There are some that will match it by 2500 or 3000 rpm, but that isn't much use if you can't get to that rpm to use it.

BTW, I timed my truck 45-65 in 5th gear this morning. Out of several tries it averaged right about 14 seconds. My JK made it to the dealer today, so I should have some numbers for comparison in a few days. Mine has 3.73 gears which should help its cause, but the one I drove with 3.21s wouldn't even make the speedometer needle move in that situation.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 09:46 PM   #54
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
One more thing, my old worn out truck with ancient technology under the hood is still getting about 18 mpg on the highway at speeds it was never intended to approach. That seems like a pretty good achievement give what else it can do.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-01-2011, 10:35 PM   #55
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Sweet Jesus, you guys need to start giving seminars. Good stuff.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 05:55 PM   #56
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 2,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
Tell you what, somebody find the 45-65 acceleration numbers for a 1990 F-150 6 cylinder 5 speed and a 2012 JK 6 speed. I'll eat my shoe it the 3.6 JK is slower. Even if it were, it still is besides the point that you shouldn't be in 6th at 45mph anyway.
I hope you've got tasty shoes, the JK took 18.5 seconds compared to the 14 for my F-150 that I posted the other day.
__________________
2012 Silver Sport S, Silver, 6 speed, soft top, 3.73s, LSD, PCG, Infiniti, deep tint windows, Pro Comp 1028 wheels, 33" Duratracs, Smittybilt bumpers and steps, KC fog lights, Mopar slush mats and fuel door.

Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
oilwell1415 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 06:22 PM   #57
Jeeper
 
off a cough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 188
The trend these days seems to be more gears, not fewer. Excluding an overdrive is unlikely and ill-advised. Sure, 45mph is too slow, but why have your tranny at 1:1 at 70 mph?

8 speed double-clutch autos are our future, let's just hope they don't make the mistake Ford did recently in trying so hard to reach those asinine CAFE regs that they send transmissions upshifting too soon and then hunting when a butterfly hits your grill.

As for the Ford 300, it is one of the greatest motors ever built. It's that good. The AMC-inspired 4.0 had many traits in common, but was never quite as solid. I6 motors are my favorites, with low-end twist that a diesel could be proud of, balance, and longevity. BMW even created a couple that can rev.

They are also too long for most hoods, cannot be transversely mounted for FWD vehicles, and lack the versatility of V6 engines.

Get used to more V6s to match those 8 speed autos. They will replace V8s in many applications, and will produce the kinds of numbers to be taken seriously in doing so.

We need to accept this as the reality of the auto industry. Your nannies in Washington have spoken.

Here's a thought for you: hybrid Wranglers. Not to hypermile or pay homage to Al Gore, but to extend trail range and provide the serious torque of an electric motor. Not yet, but maybe some day. Complex and new challenges. I remember when guys feared fuel injection and automotive computers. We'll see it before factory V8s, guys.
__________________
New and shiny:
2012 JK Rubicon Unlimited 5-speed auto

Gone but not forgotten:
2004 TJ Rubicon 5-speed manual

off a cough is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 07:14 PM   #58
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
I understand just fine, I just think we have a 180 degree difference in our philosophies. If they would put the right engine in it there would be no need for overdrive in the first place. FWIW, if it needs more gear the absolute worst place to put it is in the axles. High numberical gears are horribly inefficient. It's much better to put more gear in the transmission where there isn't a 90 degree change in the direction of rotation.

So every single vehicle made today is wrong. Every transmission that isn't a 3 speed auto is wrong. This is essentially what you're saying. OD was invented so you could have a shorter rear gear for more acceleration, and lower highway RPM. How is this wrong?



During the muscle car era torque was not everywhere, crappy tires with no grip were everywhere. Engines then were complete dogs in every way compared to what we have today. The typicaly family sedan today is just as fast as the average sports coupe was in the 60's. At that time the manufacturers were at liberty to rate the cars pretty much as they saw fit and they used the gross power rating system. There were engines that lost half their power when they went to the net system in the early 70's.

Faster on AVERAGE yes, but if you're trying to tell me the little V6 sedan makes more torque than old big block..........
Even on horrible polyglas tires, the old muscle cars would still trap in the low 100mph range, even with ho-hum 0-60 times. I can't think of to many run of the mill family sedans that can do that. Why is that? 1/4 mile E.T. is not an indication of power, trap speed is. As a drag racer, you should know this. Put a set of slicks on a bone stock 454 Chevelle and see what happens. I know all about the gross power ratings system, and wrote a detailed description of it not too long ago on this very board.




Yes it is, I did dozens of them on 93-02 F-bodies and the occasional Mustang when I was in that line of work. Guess how much gain the average driver gets when swapping the stock 3.42 gears for 4.10s in an F-body. Nothing. They get tire smoke on the bottom and enough gain on top from being closer to the power peak at the finish line to make up the difference. 1st gear is useless for the purpose of the car without slicks and some suspension work. The only real benefit of the swap is because the car is more fun to drive.

Not being able to drive or pedal a car out of the hole is not an excuse. I got 3 tenths going from a 3.08 to a 3.73 in my 95 Mustang GT, on radials. Not to mention what you gain on your top gear acceleration.

The CURRENTLY AVAILABLE gas engines can't do it. There are plenty that can. I would love to see what my 300 would be like on the trail with between 310 and 320 ft-lbs of torque available from idle through 300 rpm. It could be built to make probably 20-30 ft lbs more than that. As I said earlier, a 5.7 Hemi could be built to have well over 400 ft-lbs available at low rpm. That would be awesome on the trail.

Probably would be, but it's completely unnecessary. There are countless 4 cylinder Jeeps on the trails that can clib with the best of them. Why? Well among other mods, PROPER GEARING. I can't think of many trail rigs with a V8 that I've seen that run a tall gear. They all run lower gearing.


It is a trade off because of the engines the OEMs have been duped into building. Look at the reasons we have the engines we have today starting about 35 years ago. We started caring about the environment and didn't have the technology to keep our power and be nice to the environment at the same time. Engines were neutered to reduce emissions. Then the fuel crisis hit and the engines got smaller and they did even worse. In order for the small gutless engines to move the cars with anything resembling usefulness they had to put more gear in both the rear axles and the transmissions, which hurt the mileage on the highway. The result was the overdrive transmissions we have today. The OEMs started down the path of smaller engines with no torque and using gears to make up the difference and have never stepped back to see the big picture.

You said it yourself, cars are faster today. They're damn sure not faster because they all run shorter gears. I mean are you going to tell Ferrari they're neutering their cars by using smaller displacement engines than they could be? Lamborghini? The 200+ mph Corvette ZR1 uses a 6 speed and a 3.42 gear. Would they be better served with a larger displacement engine and less gear? What about the Viper? It's got a 3.07 rear. Is this the only "right" car out there? Would it be better with a 4 speed and a taller gear?



I've been doing this about 20 years myself. Drag racing, road racing, building things for others to do those things and even picked up a degree to help the cause.

How many drag cars do you see running 3.08 gears?

I'm thrilled to be able to do the same, I just thing they've all missed the boat for the last 10 years or so.



This is what I've been saying all along, but with power being the buzzword of the century so far and with the average consumer being completely ignorant about what makes their car go we are stuck with high strung engines with no torque.



It is broken, but nobody cares enough to vote with their wallet. The more I think about the diesel the more I just don't see it. Paying a few thousand dollars more for an engine that burns 20% less of a fuel that costs 15% more just doesn't sound like a very good return on my investment. Factor in the higher maintenance costs that typically come with a diesel and reduced fuel availability and it's just not worth it to me.



That is the exact reason they were slower on the top end. Most people never find out about how quickly they can accelerate above 70 or 80 mph. It doesn't take much power to push a truck past 100 mph, my 160 hp would do it if the limiter didn't catch it at 96 mph. The other argument is the ability to tow a 5 tons down the highway 80 mph, but how many people really do that? Most new trucks will never see a trailer, nevermind one that's close to max weight. I've towed 11k lbs with my 300 and it wasn't that hard. I would NOT choose to do it again, and wouldn't have done it in the first place if I had know what the trailer weighed when I hooked it up.



I will agree with this being traditionally true, but we've learned a lot since the days it was true. We now know that the path to efficiency isn't in stroke, but bore size. These days it is pretty much proven that you can get good fuel economy with any displacement because the basic designs are so much better today.

But large bore/short stroke is an engine designed to rev, is it not? You don't get much displacement from the bore, you get most of it from the stroke.

I have never heard of a 6 speed F-body getting 30mpg without a lot of work. Even with work done I only can think of one F-body off the top of my head that I know has done it, and it wasn't a regular occurance. I own one of these cars and it has never done better than 26 mpg on the highway and 24 average. It is a convertible, but that isn't going to be worth 4 or 5 mpg. My wife drives this car like an old lady, so it isn't a heavy foot hurting the mileage.

I can think of a few buddies that have. Even my tank of a 2005 GTO would get 26mpg, and it was a good 500 pounds heavier. There are guys all over LS1.com that will attest to 30mpg highway.

I will give you the broad torque curve, but I will not give you flat. It is far from peaky, but they're not flat. Any one of them could be recammed to make more low end torque.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c5-scan-and-tune/2167889-official-gm-dyno-graph-for-ls1.html


I'm really struggling with how to respond to this. I really want to say something mean, but you don't deserve it. I can't believe you are giving the credit for the performance and mileage to the transmission and gears. You must be aware of the advances the LS1 made in basic engine design that improved it in almost every way over the LT1. They were able to run over 10:1 compression even though they dumped the goofy reverse cooling system the LT1 had. Only a few years before you would have been laughed at if you said you were going to run that much compression on pump gas. They reduced the bore size from the traditional 4" of all prior 5.7L SBC engines because smaller bores are better for power (as long as the bore is still big enough to get some valve in it), mileage and emissions. To complement the smaller bore they developed a very efficient combustion chamber that didn't require much timing to make power. Every component in the engine was designed to minimize rotating or reciprocating weight and friction.

These cars get the same mileage with 4.10 or 4.56 gears as they do with the factory 3.42's. Older cars that these engines have been swapped into are also getting the same mileage and performance without the benefit of the .5 OD ratio of the 6 speed and with much lower gearing.

Also don't forget that the LT1 was backed by the exact same transmission and rear axle ratio as the LS1 and wasn't anywhere close in either performance or mileage.

All of this adds up to the great performance being almost exclusively due to the engine design, and having little if anything to do with the gearing.

As efficient as the engines may be, if you're trying to tell my the trans and the gearing have little to do with the performance and mileage of the car, then I'm just going to tell you you're just plain wrong. Why don't they come with th350s and 3.08 gears? I can tell you for a FACT that putting a 4.xx gear in a F-Body drops the mileage, even a 3.73 But gains are commonly .3 -.5 of a second. Again, snoop around LS1.com


The performance woes of the 94-98 Mustang wasn't a problem with the engine as much as it was a problem with a car that gained too much weight over its predesessor. The combination of less low end torque and a few hundred extra pounds was a killer. Even then the engine fulfiled its purpose: it made money. Any comparison of the 03-08 Mustang to a comparable year Camaro will show you that.

You're right, and by using the same trans and rear gear, they were slower. But again, gear swaps are one of the most common mods on these cars, and it makes for solid results every time, even on street tires, through the entire rpm range.

This is a very misleading and ill thought out statement. It isn't an engine issue and it isn't a gear issue, it's a vehicle design issue. The whole vehicle has to be designed to work together. They don't do that any more, they just throw together whatever is on the shelf and do what they have to do to make it acceptable to all parties involved. That is what it takes to make money in the automotive industry today. Few vehicles are available with more than two engine choices to choose from compared to maybe having a dozen 40 years ago when the Boss and Z came out. Those cars were also built to compete within a specific set of rules that limited them to 302 cubic inches. I guarantee if larger engines were legal they would have been used. The only way to make power in a small engine is to spin it. When you spin it the low end torque goes away and you have to regear it. Regearing it is a fix for the loss of low end torque.

Again, so every small displacement performance car ever made is wrong? The little small block in my 55 Chevy has whipped more than a couple big block cars. This is wrong? I DESIGNED my setup to work together, and it works pretty well AND I get better fuel mileage, even with a 3 speed auto and a convertor.

I disagree that this is the right thing, but it is the closest thing they had on the shelf.



Absolutely not. The 290 hp we have now is twice the power needed to go well beyond the speed limit.



One of your first lines quoted above directly contradicts that old engines weren't torque monsters. You can't have it both ways. I don't need to rev an engine and I don't want to rev one. A high revving engine will never be as efficient as one that doesn't rev as high. The mechanical, fluid, and thermodynamic losses inside the engine all increase exponentially with speed. There is no way to change that.

What I'm saying is bigger engines are not the be all end all solution you think them to be. They never were. The old performance big blocks WERE torque monsters, and still are, even with net power ratings, but they couldn't rev. They made all their power down low, but fell flat on their faces up top, and drank fuel while they did it. They were killers at the drag strip and between stoplight, but people started figuring out you could outrun them with smallblock cars that could rev. Technology caught up, and smaller engines can and do make mincemeat out of the old big blocks, like I said above, by being able to rev and make more hp, at the sacrifice of torque. THIS IS NOT WRONG, this is making efficient power up top when you needed it, and keeping fuel mileage decent when you were just cruising. And they STILL get better mileage. How is that not as efficient? What kind of mileage does that I6 in your F-150 get, again? So the 300+ hp V6 Ford uses now is LESS efficient? LESS powerful? All torque is great if you never need to travel at higher speeds. Read this: http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
To be continued.....
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 07:30 PM   #59
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
Too long winded, had to split it into two separte posts....



There is no doubt that we now have more powerful engines that make more torque than before. That is not the issue. The issue is that we also have more complex engines that have to rev to the moon and are not nearly the same return on our investment that they were a few years ago. How long do you think a Pentastar is going to last without needing some significant work? My old boat anchor 300 is quickly approaching 400k miles and I've never had to touch it. It also makes about 310 ft-lbs of torque at 1000 rpm. Show me a new engine of similar size that will do that. There are some that will match it by 2500 or 3000 rpm, but that isn't much use if you can't get to that rpm to use it.

BTW, I timed my truck 45-65 in 5th gear this morning. Out of several tries it averaged right about 14 seconds. My JK made it to the dealer today, so I should have some numbers for comparison in a few days. Mine has 3.73 gears which should help its cause, but the one I drove with 3.21s wouldn't even make the speedometer needle move in that situation.
310ft/lbs? Truly staggering for an engine rated at 275ft/lbs in 1991......
Engines are what they are now. Government regulations, emissions, etc are making them more complex. But, like you said before, cars are faster than ever now. How is this wrong or bad? That old I6 of your is a great engine, but it's lazy, inefficient and not terrible smog friendly. It is what it is. It just wouldn't work today as a factory installed engine. But, let's say Ford kept this engine around. Added a 4 valve head, lighter rotating assembly, better fuel injection and made it rev as well as make great torque, and whatever modern sensors and equipment to meet today's standards. Would you be upset about this?
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-03-2011, 07:51 PM   #60
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilwell1415 View Post
I hope you've got tasty shoes, the JK took 18.5 seconds compared to the 14 for my F-150 that I posted the other day.
So, granted that your test numbers are legit (But I still want to see an impartial test, this is the internet, nothing personal) and now that we've performed this utterly pointless test, do it again in 4th (the highest non OD gear in your trans) in your truck, and 4th in your 2012 (the highest non OD gear). Hell, even try it in 5th. For giggles, here's what the 3.8 could do 45-65, when downshifted properly: 2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon - Long Term Verdict - Motor Trend
So, the 3.6 ought to be a good bit quicker.

6th is not designed for passing, accelerating, going up steep inclines, etc. It's made for low rpm cruising at highway speeds. Always has been, on every production vehicle a 6 speed has ever been installed in. The problem isn't the engine or the trans, it's your unrealistic expectations. Google "Trying to pass in 6th gear" and read some of the results. Tell us what you find.
This stuff isn't personal. There are 2 opinions here. If I'm wrong, you are as well.

__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2012 Auto-Journalist's Review zznalg JK General Discussion Forum 6 08-21-2011 07:17 PM
New member, new 2012 Wrangler Black2012 JK General Discussion Forum 10 08-20-2011 11:47 AM
Ordering a 2012 Wrangler Stallion289TX JK General Discussion Forum 16 08-10-2011 10:36 AM
Fellow Ohio Jeepers Help fick15 Ohio Jeep Forum 11 01-19-2010 10:56 PM



» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC