Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum > Edmunds Review of 2012 Wrangler

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Edmunds Review of 2012 Wrangler Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-18-2011 07:41 AM
ShoreWrangler
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
"The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."
09-18-2011 09:23 AM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
^^Thanks, I like it!^^
Thanks.
09-18-2011 03:07 AM
demarpaint ^^Thanks, I like it!^^
09-17-2011 08:51 AM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by demarpaint View Post
Nice lets hear about it!
OK.
It's a 55 Chevy 210, 2 door sedan. I was shooting for a late 60's street machine look. Body is pretty much stock, but the suspension is lowered with drop spindles in the front and de-arched leafs in the rear. Steering is factory. Brakes are Impala power discs in the front, drums in the rear. Interior was reupholstered with 60's era diamond stitch vinyl. Only real interior mods are a tach, 3-pack gauge panel and a Hurst Quarter Stick. I built the engine, did the trans work, most of the mechanical work (save for the rear gears and diff, I don't mess with those). I bought the car with the body and paint as you see them, but mechanically it was a mess. I've fixed most of it.

Engine:
Vortec 4-bolt main 350 block
GM production steel crank and powdered rods
Keith Black 11:1 pistons
Comp XR294HR cam, GM roller lifters, Comp solid pushrods, Scorpion 1.5 full roller rockers, Comp valve springs
Edelbrock Performer RPM heads with a mild port job and relieved valve guides (they run a little tight from the factory)
Edelbrock Performer RPM Air-Gap intake
Holley 670 Street Avenger carb, with a K&N X-Stream air filter setup and Stub Stack. Carb has a few tweaks I'm not giving up.
Hooker Super Comp headers, 2.5 inch flowtubes, 40 series Flowmaster mufflers, dumped.
Castrol 10w-40 Edge oil

Trans:
GM TH350
B&M 2500 stall convertor
B&M Shift kit
Red Line synthetic fluid

Rear:
Production 55 GM housing (Similar to a Ford 9")
57 Center section with Yukon 3.55 gears and Eaton Posi
Red Line synthetic gear oil

It runs pretty well, but I can't launch the car hard on a sticky tire because of the weak rear. I also am limited to a 255 tire at the widest, and am currently running a 235. One of my plans for it is to relocate the rear springs to squeeze a wider tire under it. I've only had it to the track once, and it went 13.0 at 117mph off a really slow 60" because of having to walk it out to keep from just spinning half way down the track. If you know your trap speeds, you know the car is quick. It will walk a C5 Z06 Vette from a roll, I just can't hook up off the line. Doesn't really matter to me, it's a street car.
09-16-2011 08:24 PM
demarpaint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
Well, mine doesn't turn very well, but it gets it in a straight line!!



Nice lets hear about it!
09-16-2011 07:49 PM
panthermark ^While I agree that the 3.6 isn't a Jeep engine....it is still a good engine. The question is.....how much would a Wrangler specific engine cost? If R&D bumps the price up another $3000-$4000...how many sales will Chrysler lose? I think Chrysler has done the best they can to keep the price where it is at, increase HP, increase torque, and gain fuel economy.....all while using an engine that can fit in multiple products.
09-16-2011 07:25 PM
oilwell1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeeperJake View Post
re: "A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel."

Not to reinvent the argument here....
doesn't each of those changes rather suggest other compensatory modifications will also be necessary to achieve 'best overall package' for the unit?
No. The basic design will stay the same. It will obviously need a little fine tuning, but that's to be expected and isn't a major change.

Quote:
I for one am tremendously impressed and pleased with the upgrade in all components over the last 50 years.

While I'm on the I-5 far more often than such as Bear Creek Pass, the fact I need a wide range of capacities in each component and overall design of the Wrangler.
Some advancements have been OK. Others have been useless over the long term even though they had their time.

A Wrangler specific engine that was designed for it would offer far more capability in all circumstances than taking something off the shelf and building a bunch of compromises just to make it work will offer.

Quote:
Given that "100 more ft/lb of torque" , what of my daily driver would be improved? And what suspension/transmission/drive line etc would need mods to handle it. If a drive shaft/U joint needs to handle another 40% torque load, what other engineering needs comes with it, and at what cost?
Probably nothing, and even if things do need beefed up Chrysler has parts on the shelf that will do the job.
09-16-2011 04:32 PM
JeeperJake re: "A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel."

Not to reinvent the argument here....
doesn't each of those changes rather suggest other compensatory modifications will also be necessary to achieve 'best overall package' for the unit?

I for one am tremendously impressed and pleased with the upgrade in all components over the last 50 years.

While I'm on the I-5 far more often than such as Bear Creek Pass, the fact I need a wide range of capacities in each component and overall design of the Wrangler.

Given that "100 more ft/lb of torque" , what of my daily driver would be improved? And what suspension/transmission/drive line etc would need mods to handle it. If a drive shaft/U joint needs to handle another 40% torque load, what other engineering needs comes with it, and at what cost?
09-16-2011 09:58 AM
Mr. Sinister I've done battle with a few of those in my time.
I always loved the Lightning, from the old 351w models to the newer ones. I would take one of those over a SRT10 Ram any day of the week. Simple pulley swap and you're smacking that Dodge in the mouth.
09-16-2011 08:45 AM
oilwell1415 Mine isn't the best at anything, but it's really good at everything.

09-16-2011 08:35 AM
Mr. Sinister Well, mine doesn't turn very well, but it gets it in a straight line!!



09-15-2011 09:15 PM
oilwell1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
Straight line or twisty? I got you covered in a straight line.
And unless it's significantly modded I've got it covered on both.
09-15-2011 07:39 PM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportsGal501 View Post


With all this talk about power,let me know when yall want to hit the tracks.

My 2009 VW GTI would luv the company.............
Straight line or twisty? I got you covered in a straight line.
09-15-2011 05:31 PM
SportsGal501

With all this talk about power,let me know when yall want to hit the tracks.

My 2009 VW GTI would luv the company.............
09-15-2011 05:19 PM
Mr. Sinister I've got nothing else to add here. You're not changing my mind, and I'm obviously not changing yours. It is what it is.
09-15-2011 04:46 PM
panthermark ^^Both of you are correct.
Gearing is VERY important. The old gearing/tranny combo was a joke. The new combo is MUCH better.
As for the Wrangler, I would also give up 100HP for a 100 lb-ft of torque....I doubt I would ever take a Wrangler above 80 mph anway. And at 4000 pounds (and a vehicle meant to crawl), torque is mucho important. But, the vehicle would still need to be geared properly from 1mph to 80mph.

I think the gearing is correct on the new Wrangler, I think Chrysler did a great job mating the new engine with the new tranny, I the new engine is awesome.....but I think a Wrangler could use a different kind of awesome engine.

With that said...it is what it is...and I've heard nothing but good things about the new engine. I would rather have this engine in the Wrangler, and Fiat/Chrysler be successful with this engile accross all lines, than for Fiat/Chrysler to spend a ton of money on a "Jeep only" engine, raise the price of the Wrangler...and end up shooting themselves in the foot because another $4000 has been added on to the price of every Wrangler.
09-15-2011 03:45 PM
oilwell1415 I got some more data, so might as well address some of this other stuff too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
310ft/lbs? Truly staggering for an engine rated at 275ft/lbs in 1991......

It was never rated at 275 ft-lbs, the highest rating it ever got was 265 ft-lbs. Mine did just over 270 ft-lbs at the wheels. You do the math.

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?
I would be a little upset if they made all those changes because they would be unnecessary. A redesigned head with a smaller bore and longer stroke is the only major mechanical change it would need to run as clean as a newer design. A few other minor tweaks like a roller cam would finish the job. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
So, granted that your test numbers are legit (But I still want to see an impartial test, this is the internet, nothing personal)

Great. So now I'm a liar because the numbers aren't what you wanted to see.

and now that we've performed this utterly pointless test,

It isn't pointless, it works perfectly well to show that torque does better on the street than power does all else being equal, or as close to equal as we can make it.

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.

Ask and ye shall receive. In 4th gear the run from 45-65 averaged just over 11 seconds. I also did it in 3rd just for kicks. If I go 45-65 it's about 8 seconds including a shift to 4th gear at just under 60 mph. If I change it to 40-60 it's 6 seconds going all the way in 3rd.

FYI, 5th is the highest non-OD gear in the JK. My wife will be out of town next week, so I'll be able to get some seat time in the Jeep and see what it does. My guess right now is that in 5th it still loses and in 4th it still loses, but not by as much. Not really much point in trying the lower gears unless we want to try 0-30, but the JK will lose that one impressively.

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.

So now we're going to compare the acceleration of a Jeep in 2nd gear to the acceleration of a truck in 3rd gear? Not much of a comparison as far as I can see.

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.

When did I ever say that 6th was meant for passing? If 6th isn't meant for it in the JK, then 5th isn't meant for it in my truck. The only thing I have ever claimed is that if the current engines had any usable torque it wouldn't need 4.88 or 5.13 gears to get out of their own way and they wouldn't have to run through the gears every time they needed to change speeds.

This stuff isn't personal. There are 2 opinions here. If I'm wrong, you are as well.
I've not taken anything personal and I already said we simply had two different philosphies. My philosophy is to build an engine that has torque and can do the job with mild gearing. Your philosophy is to built power and bandaid the lack of low end torque with gears. As you said in one of your earlier posts, power is for going fast. I don't need to go much over 75 or 80 and neither do most other Jeep drivers, so how much power is really needed? I'm perfectly happy with a 3500 rpm engine that make twice as much torque as it does power. I have a 285 hp Jeep with 260 ft-lbs of torque. I would happily exchange 100 hp for 100 ft-lbs in that Jeep.

It would be nice if we could take a ride in my truck. It would probably change your mind about torque vs. power.
09-04-2011 11:57 AM
techflork thanks guys that was very helpful
09-04-2011 11:09 AM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflork View Post
yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
Inlines have less stress on the rotating assembly, so you do typically see them have long lives.
Better is subjective. They're longer and tougher to package for one, typically don't make the high-end horsepower a V engine does (but do make plenty of torque). Harmonics (vibrations) are also a little more noticeable with inlines, because there's really no counterbalance like in a V engine. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rules. The BMW inline 6 would make plenty of horsepower, because it could rev. They were smaller in displacement, so they made a little less torque, but having driven a few of those cars, you really don't even notice.
You see modern V8 engines getting the mileage they are due to good breathing, precise tuning, and the right combination of transmission and gear, I don't care what others may say. Every engine has a sweet spot where it's at its most efficient. Keeping the engine in that range is what gives you good mileage. Every engine has a powerband, and using the right transmission and gear keeps you in that range more often. When you shift a manual transmission under heavy acceleration the idea is to keep the engine in a certain rpm range so it doesn't drop way off in power between shifts. There's things like short shifting, rev matching and other techniques people use to try to get the most efficiency and/or power out of their engine, but we won't get into that here.
09-04-2011 10:59 AM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mykll View Post
Do you mean any 4+ wheeled production vehicle? My 2007 BMW F800ST does all of that fantastically well in 6th.

Other than that, I got nothing. I am lost in this longwinded seminar with this non-vehicle-technical brain of mine.
I'm sure it does, lol. Kinda different scenario, though.
09-04-2011 10:54 AM
kjeeper10
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflork
yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
The 3.8 been around for like 20 years I do believe.
The inline 6 was also a very reliable engine but as mentioned above just like the 3.8, are old engines. The 3.6 is now standardized in a lot of Chrysler vehicles.
I've driven V-8's that got better gas mileage so I don't know how that works. Probably more expensive to make and too
big for a wrangler?
09-04-2011 09:32 AM
techflork yeah i'm a pretty big noob but i'm learning. Just curious though, isn't an inline 4/6 engine better or tougher than a v6/8? May not be as fast but aren't those the engines that run till like 300,000 no problem? Why the v8? I don't want a v8 lol. Is it for gas mileage and more economical? Just curious sorry for the noob questions hah
09-04-2011 06:17 AM
Mykll
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sinister View Post
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.
Do you mean any 4+ wheeled production vehicle? My 2007 BMW F800ST does all of that fantastically well in 6th.

Other than that, I got nothing. I am lost in this longwinded seminar with this non-vehicle-technical brain of mine.
09-04-2011 05:47 AM
demarpaint Interesting read. I wish they Chrysler, Ford and GM could have done something with the I-6 to keep it current. Granted my 300 I-6 Ford engine can't win any races I feel more confident towing with it that I would with a V-6 making almost 2 times the hp. Wranglers were never intended to win races, but low end torque at a reasonable rpm is a nice thing to have. I guess the EPA and cost to keep the I-6 compliant killed them.
Sinister I'd love to see the 4.9L Ford engine with 4 valves per cylinder, that would be awesome!
09-03-2011 08:36 PM
kjeeper10 Great review.... Love the new engine, maybe in three years I'll own one
09-03-2011 08:08 PM
Mr. Sinister
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
"The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."

Explanation.....

n00bs.......

careful.......

Barrie........
09-03-2011 08:06 PM
kjeeper10 "The four-door is an awesome package visually. The boxy exterior appearance is aggressive, particularly in black. Its overall design respects the WWII military roots while incorporating a bit of the post-millennium HUMMER persona as well."

09-03-2011 07:51 PM
Mr. Sinister
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.
09-03-2011 07:30 PM
Mr. Sinister
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?
09-03-2011 07:14 PM
Mr. Sinister
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.....
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 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