2021 Jeep Rubicon 392

serious question; wouldn't the 2.0T be better for offroading, on-road handling, fuel economy, cheaper to ensure, etc. etc.?

i get the V8 will sell just because it has a V8, and lets be honest; people buy a Jeep to make a statement. I'm just talking about usability, in which case I don't understand a V8. A bit like a V12 G-wagen.

3.0 diesel makes 480 lb/ft at 1600.
 
serious question; wouldn't the 2.0T be better for offroading, on-road handling, fuel economy, cheaper to ensure, etc. etc.?

i get the V8 will sell just because it has a V8, and lets be honest; people buy a Jeep to make a statement. I'm just talking about usability, in which case I don't understand a V8. A bit like a V12 G-wagen.

On paper it is a better engine than the 3.6 because of the better fuel economy and higher torque, but it's a shitty and noisy engine that doesn't rev and that needs to catch his breath before every shift. Plus apparently they start to take those engines out under warranty because they leak from everywhere and because Fiat engine
 
On paper it is a better engine than the 3.6 because of the better fuel economy and higher torque, but it's a shitty and noisy engine that doesn't rev and that needs to catch his breath before every shift. Plus apparently they start to take those engines out under warranty because they leak from everywhere and because Fiat engine
And its available only in automatic if im not mistaken

Отправлено с моего CLT-L04 через Tapatalk
 
The Pentastar V6 is a good engine and the fuel economy is more than ok.

Jamais je choisirais le 2.0t pour un jeep
 
Dans un Wrangler ca prend le 3.6... en plus que le 2.0 est en option lol! 1,000 bâtons

J'aurais aime avoir le choix d'un plus petit moteur que le 3.6L, pis ses debiles la sorte ca avec 470hp LOL, meme 285hp c'est 100hp de trop dans ste petite charette la.
 
295 LB-FT @ 3,000 RPM

that's much better than the V6 :

256 LB-FT @ 4,300 RPM

besides, if you're crawing who cares if you make more than 50 lbs-ft; the goal isn't to do burnouts in the woods on a low-friction loose surface. It's more about suspension travel and body control which is easier with a lighter vehicle.

Gears are everything, HP is mostly pointless offroad, you need a good crawl ratio, 2.5L TJs were alot better offroad than the L6 4.0 because they had 4.10 gears vs 3.07 in the L6. The V6 has more than enough torque in 4low and a really good weight repartition ( front midship setup ).

In the rubicon HP is even more pointless with the 4:1 T-case.
 
serious question; wouldn't the 2.0T be better for offroading, on-road handling, fuel economy, cheaper to ensure, etc. etc.?

i get the V8 will sell just because it has a V8, and lets be honest; people buy a Jeep to make a statement. I'm just talking about usability, in which case I don't understand a V8. A bit like a V12 G-wagen.

VS what, the 392? On fuel economy and insurance? Sure, it'd be cheaper. Better for offroading? Nope. 470hp is asking a lot from a stock Jeep drivetrain but 350hp like the 5.7 would be just perfect.

295 LB-FT @ 3,000 RPM

that's much better than the V6 :

256 LB-FT @ 4,300 RPM

besides, if you're crawing who cares if you make more than 50 lbs-ft; the goal isn't to do burnouts in the woods on a low-friction loose surface. It's more about suspension travel and body control which is easier with a lighter vehicle.

Low-end torque/power does not mean peak tq/hp at a lower RPM.

For offroading I'd rather have a bigger engine that make 400lbs-ft @1600rpm and peaks at 450 @4500 with a 6k redline than a small turbo engine pushing 500lbs-ft @3500 but making only 150 @1600.

Big cubes = low end power

The thing is you're not always crawling in the kind of offroading conditions we got here(All Canada and Northern USA) slick, loose, slimy, muddy, rutted trails are pretty much the norm here. You don't go anywhere "crawling" like in the South West states where the rock is like sandpaper and as long as you've got rubber down, you'll keep going.

Gears are everything, HP is mostly pointless offroad, you need a good crawl ratio, 2.5L TJs were alot better offroad than the L6 4.0 because they had 4.10 gears vs 3.07 in the L6. The V6 has more than enough torque in 4low and a really good weight repartition ( front midship setup ).

In the rubicon HP is even more pointless with the 4:1 T-case.

Ca c'est ske le monde pauvre se disent pour se convincre que leur moulin a coudre en dessous du hood fait la job.

HP = wheel speed

C'est bon a rien un grément de 120hp gearé 300:1 quand les tires virent a 1.2mph @6000rpm paske t'as pas assez de moteur pour le mettre en 2eme.

Pour faire dla trail au Quebec ca prend 2 choses: Des tires pi du moteur


Un 2.5 ca allait pas mieux qu'un 4L
 
C'est a se demander si les Dana44 vont resister quand les gars vont mettre des 35-37 pouces sur leur bébelle
 
Un 2.5 ca allait pas mieux qu'un 4L

Tu es en train de me dire qu'un truck avec un crawl ratio de 44:1 va pas mieu dans le bois qu'un avec un crawl ratio de 32:1 !? Ok a par monter une longue cote bouetteuse le 2.5L va etre meilleur partout a cause du gearage. J'ai eu un cherokee 4.0l geare 3.07 pis c'etait de la marde tellement ca va trop vite en 1er, ca aurait beau avoir 500hp ca l'aurait reste de la marde pareil.

Ils mettent des gros moteur pour la route surtout, mais c'est clair qu'avoir de la gear ( rubicon ) pis de la rod ( 392 ) ca doit passer sur un moyen temps, tant que ca casse pas lol.
 
Last edited:
Tu es en train de me dire qu'un truck avec un crawl ratio de 44:1 va pas mieu dans le bois qu'un avec un crawl ratio de 32:1 !?

Oui moi je te dirais ça...

Personne fait du rock crawling au Québec. Des côtes bouetteuse, des trous de bouettes, des bancs de neiges, du sable, c'est ce que l'on as au Québec.
 
^^^^T'es rencontre assez de spot de belle roches pour crawler. Mais spa le genre de trail que tu fait avec un TJ stock.

Tu es en train de me dire qu'un truck avec un crawl ratio de 44:1 va pas mieu dans le bois qu'un avec un crawl ratio de 32:1 !? Ok a par monter une longue cote bouetteuse le 2.5L va etre meilleur partout a cause du gearage. J'ai eu un cherokee 4.0l geare 3.07 pis c'etait de la marde tellement ca va trop vite en 1er, ca aurait beau avoir 500hp ca l'aurait reste de la marde pareil.

Ils mettent des gros moteur pour la route surtout, mais c'est clair qu'avoir de la gear ( rubicon ) pis de la rod ( 392 ) ca doit passer sur un moyen temps, tant que ca casse pas lol.

Non ca allait bin en criss un TJ/Cherokee stock ak un 4.0L. Ca avancait quand tu pesais sul gas pi t'était capable de le faire crever a 7-800rpm sans que y'etouffe.

Un rubicon stock c'est bin trop degearé. Le mien fallait je roule en 2e-3e(auto 4vitesse) pour que les tires se vide si je voulait pas tenir ca a 6000rpm.^^^^
 
c'était populaire ici dans le temps et ça n'a que un 1.3L à injection bon pour 66hp

1986-Suzuki-Samurai-Off-Road.jpg
 
Back
Top