it's not personal, i'm just sick to death of the inaccuracies in the arguments. it's not about the jk "beating" the tj, it's about putting this issue to rest.
i don't know what numbers you're looking at, but the jk makes more hp throughout the rpm range and at the most 5 lb/ft less torque, but only where the 4.0 makes peak torque around 2700 rpm. the 3.8 also makes more peak torque. it makes the same torque as the 4.0, a whole 200 rpm later. i don't think you're reading the chart correctly.
the links should go to a 2006 2 door auto x and a 2007 2 door auto x. apples to apples. base model auto vs. base model auto.
accelerations 0- 60 mph 9.8 s
accelerations 0- 60 mph 9.5 s
They say 4078, Jeep says 4078 is the 4 door. Jeep says the 2 door is 3760. acceleration is not just about hp, it's about the entire torque curve. if you want to get into the technical aspects and sciences behind it, i can do that. less hp/tq and lighter weight doesn't always win.
I wonder if the OP with just 7 posts had any idea what a pandoras box he was opening up. I notice that he has disappeared from the discussion. I can't blame him. It probably reminded him of some kids in a sand box fighting over whose truck can haul more sand.
It's really quite simple. The Jeep is what it is. If it seems under powered to you, add a SS or don't buy it. If the power seems ok, enjoy the experience.
End of Problem and all is well!!
-------HAPPY NEW YEAR---------------
There are SO MANY more items for discussion, that are WORTH some attention, rather than worthless jabs at something we have no control over
This issue isn't going to be put to rest. I drop the clutch on my TJ and it feels faster, stronger, whatever than it does when I do it in my JK.
Have you ever owned a TJ?
Oh.. My screen is kinda small so I was misreading that chart. Where did that come from anyway? If it's really a straight comparison of a TJ and JK it sure don't level with my experience.
FYI, the links you posted in the other thread doesn't lead to a comparison. They just went to Auto-catalog.com.
When I went there the site said the 1996-2006 TJ 4.0 has 181 hp and wieghs 3197lbs.
It also says the 2008-2010 JK has 202 hp and weighs 4078 lbs.
That's a lot of weight and not so much HP. If you want to talk about science, that's pretty clear math there. That much weight is gona mean a lot more 0-60 time. I doubt 20 HP is gona make that up. I'm sure there's a few HP, weight, speed calculators on the internet.
Btw... The weights I used were both 2 door versions.
For anyone who is so happy with the power of jk I really admire his satisfaction : )
From my side of view i can say that this vehicle still lacks in power whether some of you agree or not, at the end its how i see it from my view.
And for whom got carried away a little and got angry because of what i have said, i want to tell him that i do have a JK & i love this car but it really annoys me when the car has a difficult time in speeds over 80 miles where sometimes i need to go over that speed specially when i travel from a place to another that requires above a 1000 miles distance .
No hard feelings guys, if u like the power that is good for you, i just wanted a car that can handle high speeds nicely, i dont complain about the acceleration, coz mine has a good number of that after i changed a few things in it. & if i did complain about a simple thing that doesnt make me hate the car or go for another one, its not making sense !! At the end this forum was made so ppl can discuss about their cars and talk about their experience .
i never owned a tj, but i've logged enough hours in them that i have more seat time in a tj than my jk.
here's the direct copy/paste since the links are broken:
2006 JEEP WRANGLER SPORT 4.0L automatic
version for North America USA, 2-door soft-top, 4x4 part-time (Command-Trac NV231, rear permanent, front engaged manually in off-road conditions, shift-on-the-fly) with aut 4-speed gearbox. Condensed specs: engine displacement: 3956 cm3 / 240.7 cui; power: 142 kW / 190 hp / 193 PS / 4600 ; torque: 319 Nm / 235 lb-ft / 3200 . Dimensions: length 3947 mm / 155.4 in, wheelbase 2373 mm / 93.4 in, standard tire size P 225/75 R 15, official base curb weight 1568 kg / 3457 lbs. Performance: top speed 173 km/h (108 mph) (theor.); accelerations 0- 60 mph 9.8 s (sim.); 0- 100 km/h 10.3 s (sim.); 0- 1/4 mile 17.3 s (sim.); Fuel consumption: official: , a-c pred. average: 16.4 l/100km / 17.2 mpg (imp.) / 14.3 mpg (U.S.) / 6.1 km/l .
2007 JEEP WRANGLER X 3.8L automatic
version for North America USA, 2-door soft-top, 4x4 part-time (Command-Trac NV241, rear permanent, front engaged manually in off-road conditions, shift-on-the-fly) with aut 4-speed gearbox. Condensed specs: engine displacement: 3778 cm3 / 231 cui; power: 151 kW / 202 hp / 205 PS / 5000 ; torque: 321 Nm / 237 lb-ft / 4000 . Dimensions: length 3881 mm / 152.8 in, wheelbase 2424 mm / 95.4 in, standard tire size P 225/75 R 16, official base curb weight 1717 kg / 3785 lbs. Performance: top speed 178 km/h (111 mph) (theor.); accelerations 0- 60 mph 9.5 s (sim.); 0- 100 km/h 10.1 s (sim.); 0- 1/4 mile 17.2 s (sim.); Fuel consumption: official: , a-c pred. average: 17 l/100km / 16.7 mpg (imp.) / 13.9 mpg (U.S.) / 5.9 km/l .
i use this site because it's the only one that had the 0-60 times for both years listed. there's not a lot of data out there because i suspect there isn't much interest in what a wrangler will do 0-60. why there is a swing between one model to the next that should weigh exactly the same, i don't know.
i'll end my argument in this thread with this:
I would be more than happy to meet someone with a 4.0 Automatic Sport/X at my local dragstrip to settle this. Cecil County Dragway in Rising Sun, Md. My buddy has a 06 X, but it's a 6 speed. While I'd be happy to to do this with his jeep, I don't want any beef about launching a manual or shift times. What your butt tells you means nothing. I've been drag racing since before I had a license, I've built my own cars, built my own engines, I know the butt dyno lies. Until someone is willing to do a real world test between these two jeeps, I'm sure this debate will continue. But for now, I've said my piece, provided links and data and I'm tired of having this discussion over and over.