2014 Wrangler Info??? - Page 4 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Future Models & Prototype Discussion > 2014 Wrangler Info???

SYE Kits from CCOR! 706-207-4140Stainless Steel Door Hinge PinsPoly Door Hinge Bushings

Reply
Unread 12-28-2012, 11:48 PM   #46
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by cherox View Post
These systems DO consume extra gas unnecessarily when conditions are optimal. In my opinion, these systems have NO place in a Wrangler! /purist
You say that as if Command-Trac and Rock-Trac systems don't. They all have the same front axle architecture, which is what causes the parasitic drag which, in turn, reduces fuel economy. Instead of using free-wheeling hubs or locking hubs, they use constantly-engaged hubs, which means the front axle and driveshaft always spin, even in 2WD. This places a parasitic drain on power, regardless of transfer case position. The difference is, Selec-Trac, Quadra-Trac, and Quadra-Drive systems can all utilize the additional stability of 4WD on road as well as off, using the same amount of fuel and causing the same amount of wear in 2WD or 4WD Full Time position.

Case in point: A ZJ uses the same amount of fuel in 2WD as in 4WD Full Time, because the components cause parasitic drag in 2WD, and cause increased driveline inertia in 4FT. I've tested that myself.

You know what else Wranglers don't need, if you're a purist? Power steering, a/c, interior lighting, working radio, a name that consists of more than CJ and a number, et cetera. Come on, people, it's the 21st century, we don't have to compromise usability and capability.

__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 06:48 AM   #47
Emoto
Registered User
2002 KJ Liberty 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 145
I believe you made an error in your description, so have updated it below to match the markings on my SelecTrac transfer case on my '02 Liberty.

If they offer a T-case as described below on a Wrangler, I will buy one immediately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cherox View Post
I'd have to disagree only because I think you're referring to one of the "Quadra"-type full time systems. I'm sure you're familiar with Selec-Trac and its different approach to this, but for those who aren't:

Traditional Selec-Trac (Found in the XJ Cherokee and 93-04 Grand Cherokees) relies on user input to determine which system it should be in. The options are as follows:

2WD (Use year-round, unless conditions are wet, unsteady, etc)
-----
4WD HI (Part-time; both differentials forced to spin at same rate, will bind if not slippery enough)
-----
4WD Lo (Part-time; both differentials forced to spin at same rate, will bind if not slippery enough)
-----
FullTime 4WD (Full-time; Diffs not locked, Usable year round, even on dry pavement)
------
Neutral (For towing behind other vehicles, etc)
------


Traditional Command-Trac and other similar systems (like Rock-Trac) also rely on user input. However, you are NOT given a full-time / AWD option. It has everything Selec-Trac has except for that.

The various full time systems do not have this setup. They are always in four wheel drive full-time, unless you drop them down to 4wd LOW. These systems DO consume extra gas unnecessarily when conditions are optimal. In my opinion, these systems have NO place in a Wrangler! /purist

My point is this.. If the Wrangler had the option of a Selec-Trac 4wd system, I'd be SOLD without a second thought. But instead it has part-time ONLY systems, which are great for off-roading and deep snow, but are terrible in inclement weather, including heavy rain, light snow and patchy areas of ice.

So Jeep, if you're listening.. Lets go. Stuff a 242 into some of these new Wranglers! I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for this.
__________________
Saving up for a Wrangler...
Emoto is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 08:56 AM   #48
Marauder_Pilot
Moderator
 
Marauder_Pilot's Avatar
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
Posts: 1,837
The Wrangler's aerodynamics, or total lack thereof, consume far more fuel than any AWD/full-time 4WD system.
__________________
"Buying a Jeep for on-road handling is like downloading porn to savor the cinematography."
-TTAC

| ARB/Old Man Emu | Northridge 4x4 Canada | Warn | Modern Classic Enterprises | American Expeditionary Vehicles | GenRight | Poison Spyder | OR-FAB | Metalcloak | East CoastGear Supply | JKS | M.O.R.E. |

2000 Jeep Wrangler TJ Sport-OME HD Lift, ProComp bumper, 32" BFG TA K/Os
1994 GMC Sierra 1500 2WD-Stock
2010 Kawasaki KLR650-Stock
Marauder_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 11:37 AM   #49
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emoto View Post
I believe you made an error in your description, so have updated it below to match the markings on my SelecTrac transfer case on my '02 Liberty.

If they offer a T-case as described below on a Wrangler, I will buy one immediately.
The Selec-Trac system in the XJ, ZJ, and WJ (NP242/NV242) uses the pattern he laid out. 2 - 4Hi - 4FT - N - 4Lo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marauder_Pilot View Post
The Wrangler's aerodynamics, or total lack thereof, consume far more fuel than any AWD/full-time 4WD system.
This is exactly the case. My point is, simply, the Command Trac, Rock Trac, Selec Trac, and Quadra Trac systems all have the same front axle drag issue that reduces fuel efficiency in all applications, even in 2WD. The reduction is noticeable in XJ, ZJ, and WJ applications with Selec Trac and Command Trac vs regular 2WD versions. No idea about the 2WD JK vs the 4WD JK, but I would imagine ~1mpg difference under the same conditions.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 12:39 PM   #50
Marauder_Pilot
Moderator
 
Marauder_Pilot's Avatar
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
Posts: 1,837
That's a great point of view if you live somewhere that never sees snow and rarely sees rain.

I, on the other hand, haven't taken my Wrangler out of 4-Hi since, literally, October 15th, because otherwise it'll spin out and kill me on the ice and snow-covered roads up here. I would gladly buy a Wrangler with a full-time 4WD option, even if it cost me way more than 1 MPG.

The Wrangler/CJ has ALWAYS sacrificed fuel efficiency for performance. Solid axles suck fuel. Gaping wheelwells suck fuel. Robust 4WD systems suck fuel. High ride heights suck fuel. Flat bodywork sucks fuel. Gaping grilles suck fuel. Lower-hanging, jagged undercarriages suck fuel. If you want to save fuel on the next-generation Wrangler, AWD vs 4WD is the absolute bottom of your list of starting points.
__________________
"Buying a Jeep for on-road handling is like downloading porn to savor the cinematography."
-TTAC

| ARB/Old Man Emu | Northridge 4x4 Canada | Warn | Modern Classic Enterprises | American Expeditionary Vehicles | GenRight | Poison Spyder | OR-FAB | Metalcloak | East CoastGear Supply | JKS | M.O.R.E. |

2000 Jeep Wrangler TJ Sport-OME HD Lift, ProComp bumper, 32" BFG TA K/Os
1994 GMC Sierra 1500 2WD-Stock
2010 Kawasaki KLR650-Stock
Marauder_Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 03:15 PM   #51
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,595
It's a wonder they got it to 20-something highway. But yeah it's got the worst aerodynamics on the market and that causes the most fuel efficiency trouble, but any 4WD system Jeep could mount to a Wrangler would have the same driveline drag as Rock-Trac and Command-Trac, so the argument of "AWD uses more gas" is irrelevant in this case, therefore I think it'd be a great idea to offer Selec-Trac or Quadra-Trac systems on Wrangler. Improved stability and safety on road in poor conditions always sounds like a good idea to me. I had a few situations just yesterday that made me glad my Grand has that Full Time position. As long as it has a locked 4Lo position, I'm all for it.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-29-2012, 09:43 PM   #52
GoHack
Registered User
2013 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 35
It's not so much the body design that kills the mileage, though it doesn't help, but rather the unloaded turning Front Axle/Drive Shaft, the Tire Sizes and types, and the needed Wheel Sizes, the needed Lift Kits, and the Low Gearing needed to turn them. Of course, Automatic Transmissions don't help either.

In 1985 I bought my first Jeep, a brand new CJ-7, w/a 258 CI I6 Carburated engine, 5 Spd M/T. It was totally stock, except for the Hardtop. It had basic 15" Steel Wheels, P215/75R15 Radial Highway Tires, Manual Locking Hubs, w/something like a high 3.07 gearing. I could get 25 mpg, at highway speeds, w/that rig. Of course the fuel back then was of much better quality than what we have now-a-days. It had no bells and whisles, no power steering, no A/C, no radio, and manual roll up windows.

If it were to snow, or if I where to go offroad, I simply went and locked the Hubs, and drove in 2 wheel drive until I actually needed to shift into four wheel drive via the transfer case. It was good to do it at least once a month anyway, for some twenty miles or so, in order to keep the bearings dry and lubricated, and the Locking Hub operational.

Then came Chrysler's taking over Jeep, who wanted to expand the sales of the Jeep to those who where mechanically ignorant. The same went w/the other 4x4 manufacturers as well. Provide for people who couldn't read their operational manuals, and where technically ignorant, on how to use, and when to use, a four wheel drive vehicle. Gone went the Manual Locking Hubs, to Automatic Hubs, to assorted Shift on the Fly designs, and All Wheel Drive.

Along the way, came the riding comfort, w/Electric Windows, A/C, Cruise Control, Tilt Steering, Coil Springs, Adjustable Suspension Comfort Systems, Independent Suspensions, Leather Seating, Heated Seats, Entertainment Systems, essentially things that once came w/the top of the line luxury vehicles.

.
__________________
'13 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, 3.6L V6 Engine, 6 Spd M/T, Billet Silver Metallic, Black Hardtop, Black Cloth Interior, Towing Package, Rubicon Unlimited 10th Anniversity Springs, Jeep Black Rubber Floor Mats, Black Molded Tube Side Steps, Warn M8000 Winch w/Warn Stock Bumper Mount
GoHack is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 07:00 AM   #53
Emoto
Registered User
2002 KJ Liberty 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC View Post
The Selec-Trac system in the XJ, ZJ, and WJ (NP242/NV242) uses the pattern he laid out. 2 - 4Hi - 4FT - N - 4Lo



This is exactly the case. My point is, simply, the Command Trac, Rock Trac, Selec Trac, and Quadra Trac systems all have the same front axle drag issue that reduces fuel efficiency in all applications, even in 2WD. The reduction is noticeable in XJ, ZJ, and WJ applications with Selec Trac and Command Trac vs regular 2WD versions. No idea about the 2WD JK vs the 4WD JK, but I would imagine ~1mpg difference under the same conditions.
Yes, you are right. I wasn't thinking about the actual pattern of where each item is in relation to the others, I was simply taking issue with calling "FullTime" "4WD Hi" which I though could be confusing.
__________________
Saving up for a Wrangler...
Emoto is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 08:54 AM   #54
csalev3
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 205
Personally, I don't think you should even look at fuel economy when wrangler shopping... That's not what you buy a wrangler for. Obviously the higher mpg the better.. Never crossed my mind when I bought my TJ.. Knew the mileage would suck but I bought it for the fun factor and offroad capability. Can't sacrifice jeep functionality for mileage... They're not meant to be comfortable daily commuters. They're brute factory built offroad vehicles... They've slowly been straying from their roots... But times are changing I guess.. Shouldn't ruin a legend though
__________________
1997 TJ, NEW FRAME, 4.0, 5 spd, d30, d35 aussie locked, np231 RR sye, tom woods driveshaft, 4" RC n20 lift, adjustable upper rear c/a, 33x10.5x15 BFG KM2s
1945 Willys MB, all original right down to the tires, 30k miles, 250 miles on rebuilt L134 engine. + 1946 Willys CJ-2a, barn fresh, new 6.50x16 NDTs, 15k miles
csalev3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 10:48 AM   #55
GoHack
Registered User
2013 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by csalev3 View Post
Personally, I don't think you should even look at fuel economy when wrangler shopping... That's not what you buy a wrangler for. Obviously the higher mpg the better.. Never crossed my mind when I bought my TJ.. Knew the mileage would suck but I bought it for the fun factor and offroad capability. Can't sacrifice jeep functionality for mileage... They're not meant to be comfortable daily commuters. They're brute factory built offroad vehicles... They've slowly been straying from their roots... But times are changing I guess.. Shouldn't ruin a legend though
With fuel prices that have broken $4 a gallon, even $5 in some places, mileage has to be a factor for most people.

While yes, fuel prices have presently dropped into the mid 3's at the moment, but just remember, we have an administration dead set on raising them, and getting us off fossil fuels. An administration which is talking about even more fuel taxes, and even a mileage tax. They also want to see off roading ended on public property as well. The Far Left Extremist's are in charge of Washington right now.

As I pointed out earlier, I use to own a Plain Jane CJ-7, w/absolutely no bells and whistles, including no Air Bags, that got well over 20 mpg, w/the Old 258 CI I6 engine. I wish they still made them that way, but they have gotten a lot bigger, w/more creature comforts, and safety.

My JK is my daily driver, as I'm sure is the case w/most people, so it has to meet both on and off-road standards for me. For on road, as a daily driver, I simply want good fuel mileage, for off-road, a good, reliable, and durable vehicle, which, even in stock form, can get me around most of the back country I drive. Of course, even off road, good fuel mileage doesn't hurt either, unless you don't mine carrying some Jerry Cans w/you.

.
__________________
'13 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, 3.6L V6 Engine, 6 Spd M/T, Billet Silver Metallic, Black Hardtop, Black Cloth Interior, Towing Package, Rubicon Unlimited 10th Anniversity Springs, Jeep Black Rubber Floor Mats, Black Molded Tube Side Steps, Warn M8000 Winch w/Warn Stock Bumper Mount
GoHack is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 11:21 AM   #56
csalev3
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 205
Completely agree. My TJ is a daily driver. I drive about 40 miles a day, but I'm willing to trade the lack of mileage for doorless summer afternoons any day. Unfortunately, like you said, automakers are being forced to conform to mileage standards... Probably won't have a positive impact on the wrangler... As mentioned before, diesel would be a more economic option.A bit hypocritical but I just don't think a wrangler is a very feasible vehicle for anyone really really concerned with mileage. The symbolic shape of a wrangler and early CJs is like driving a refrigerator in a wind tunnel...
__________________
1997 TJ, NEW FRAME, 4.0, 5 spd, d30, d35 aussie locked, np231 RR sye, tom woods driveshaft, 4" RC n20 lift, adjustable upper rear c/a, 33x10.5x15 BFG KM2s
1945 Willys MB, all original right down to the tires, 30k miles, 250 miles on rebuilt L134 engine. + 1946 Willys CJ-2a, barn fresh, new 6.50x16 NDTs, 15k miles
csalev3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 12:13 PM   #57
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,595
Diesel would be ideal for the application. Improved fuel economy and torque are good.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the way the Wrangler has gone. You don't have to compromise usability for capability. This newest Wrangler is the most capable yet, and also the most usable as a regular vehicle. Welcome to the 21st century.

Also, the largest drain on a Wrangler's fuel economy IS the aerodynamics. It's not incredibly heavy, the parasitic drag of the 4WD system only accounts for 1-2mpg loss, and it has an engine that gets much better mileage in other applications. Where it loses out is in its poor aerodynamic profile, which uses a lot of energy to push through the air. I could do the calculations, but I don't rightly feel like it. The JK has the best aerodynamics of the CJ/Wrangler line, but they're still going to have to improve if they want it to meet increasing CAFE standards.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition

Because tacky green leather is SUPER COOL
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 12:56 PM   #58
brokenujoint
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: san diego, ca
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenskis View Post
YJ was 1987-1995, TJ was 1997-2006, JK started in 2007. Realistically I think 2016-2017 is likely for the end of the JK. http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...t-4-years-away The Wrangler is selling well and it has no competition, there is really no reason to redesign anytime soon. Not worth the wait in my opinion. Plus you never want to buy a vehicle in it's first year of production - there are usually several issues that are fixed for the 2nd (sometimes 3rd or 4th) year of production.
Typically true. However my 97 TJ Sport has had ZERO issues in the 15 yrs that I've owned it other than a TPS sensor under warranty 6 months after purchase. Gone through a few few things but that was due to wheeling it. 130,000 miles on the engine w/nothing but typical routine mtc. One clutch, one trans due to a botched clutch job from a moron i paid to have it done by, and thats it.

I was gonna get the 07 when it came out. Test drove the underpowered limo and said no thanks. Still getting used to the look of them after 5 or 6 yrs of seeing them. My sedan will be paid off by the time the redesign comes out and if I like it then, I may. I dont really care for the JK personally.
__________________
If @ 1st you don't succeed, grind it, hammer it, weld it, drink a beer and try again.
brokenujoint is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 01:05 PM   #59
csalev3
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenujoint

Typically true. However my 97 TJ Sport has had ZERO issues in the 15 yrs that I've owned it other than a TPS sensor under warranty 6 months after purchase. Gone through a few few things but that was due to wheeling it. 130,000 miles on the engine w/nothing but typical routine mtc. One clutch, one trans due to a botched clutch job from a moron i paid to have it done by, and thats it.

I was gonna get the 07 when it came out. Test drove the underpowered limo and said no thanks. Still getting used to the look of them after 5 or 6 yrs of seeing them. My sedan will be paid off by the time the redesign comes out and if I like it then, I may. I dont really care for the JK personally.
Agree completely. Test drove an 09 and hated it
__________________
1997 TJ, NEW FRAME, 4.0, 5 spd, d30, d35 aussie locked, np231 RR sye, tom woods driveshaft, 4" RC n20 lift, adjustable upper rear c/a, 33x10.5x15 BFG KM2s
1945 Willys MB, all original right down to the tires, 30k miles, 250 miles on rebuilt L134 engine. + 1946 Willys CJ-2a, barn fresh, new 6.50x16 NDTs, 15k miles
csalev3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 12-30-2012, 01:13 PM   #60
Powrjunkey
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Las vegas, Nevada
Posts: 4,513
The 12-13s are amazing. The TJ power in the JKU platform.
__________________
The difference between stupidity and ignorance. Ignorance is doing something wrong and not knowing better. Stupidity is knowing better, but doing it anyway. Don't be stupid!
Powrjunkey is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
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


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.