How good an engine is the V6 - Page 6 - 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 > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > WK2 Grand Cherokee Forum > How good an engine is the V6

FS: Jeep Fog Light LED Bulbs! Several Brightness Options! Clayton Off Road JK Short Arm Suspension Kits~Artec JK 1 TON SWAP~

Closed Thread
Unread 04-26-2013, 04:35 AM   #76
Kev M
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medford, NJ
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickRocks View Post
As for any other V6 fan boys... You didn't buy the best engine, you bought what's best for YOU and your needs. There is a difference.
Someone clearly doesn't understand the concept of "best".

Sounds like a lot of Harley owners who assume Big Twins must be "best" because they cost more than Sportsters, but "best" is ALWAYS dependent on context regardless of one definable category (like HP) that's arguably contrary.

Kev M is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 05:02 AM   #77
gabbagabba
Registered User
2014 WK 
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Southwest, NH
Posts: 386
The OP asked if the V6 is good. There clearly seems to be agreement that it is. There is then the whole argument here whether the V8 or V6 is better. If you want to go a little faster, or tow, and dont mind less mpg, get the V8; if you are happy with better mpg, and still very good power, get the V6.

It is also worth mentioning that the V8 takes 89 while the V6 takes 87 or flexfuel.

I wanted to buy a v8 but drove it in the durango and the jeep and apart from making a cool noise was not much faster at all. It nade me want to questions if they sent me out in the v8 or made a mistake. I also found a flat stretch of 55 mph road and looked at the mpg EVIC. The V8's realtime best/peak was 20mpg flat 55mpg on cruise whereas my V6 would be showing about 30mpg+ in that ideal circumstance (of course over the course of a trip with ups/downs, etc the average would be 23-25 hwy).
gabbagabba is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 05:13 AM   #78
KickRocks
Registered User
2013 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Highland, CA
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev M View Post
Someone clearly doesn't understand the concept of "best".

Sounds like a lot of Harley owners who assume Big Twins must be "best" because they cost more than Sportsters, but "best" is ALWAYS dependent on context regardless of one definable category (like HP) that's arguably contrary.
It isn't cost that makes it "the best"... that's the whole point. It does more.. has more. That's why Chrysler charges more. If it didn't they would look rediculous charging more for it.
KickRocks is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 05:18 AM   #79
KickRocks
Registered User
2013 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Highland, CA
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbagabba View Post
The OP asked if the V6 is good. There clearly seems to be agreement that it is. There is then the whole argument here whether the V8 or V6 is better. If you want to go a little faster, or tow, and dont mind less mpg, get the V8; if you are happy with better mpg, and still very good power, get the V6.

It is also worth mentioning that the V8 takes 89 while the V6 takes 87 or flexfuel. I wanted to buy a v8 but drove it in the durango and the jeep and apart from making a cool noise was not much faster at all. It nade me want to questions if they sent me out in the v8 or made a mistake. I also found a flat stretch of 55 mph road and looked at the mpg EVIC. The V8's realtime best/peak was 20mpg flat 55mpg on cruise whereas my V6 would be showing about 30mpg+ in that ideal circumstance (of course over the course of a trip with ups/downs, etc the average would be 23-25 hwy).
You're correct... the V8 can take 89, but runs perfectly fine on 87. 89 is only recommended when towing heavy loads. I've run both and didn't notice any difference.
KickRocks is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 06:37 AM   #80
illflo
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Remington, Virginia
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickRocks View Post
Let me ask you this... if the V6 is better than the V8, why would Jeep/Chrysler charge MORE for the V8? Why is it considered an UPGRADE over the V6? Seriously, you're living in a fantasy land. You refuse to acknowledge facts...pure and simple Enjoy your fantasty life...Enjoy your V6..

Dude, did you read the post? I have no problem with the V8. It's a great engine. But it's not objectively superior. It's better [I]at certain things[I]. I'm not arguing the V6 is better. Go back and read my response. If you aren't going to read my responses then don't bother arguing. I won't engage blather.

Someone else got there first in a response so I won't address it, but it's an upgrade because it costs more, not vice versa. Jeep is stroking your ego and making you feel better about paying more for an older, heavier engine by calling it an upgrade. You paid more for the little Hemi badge on the back of your Jeep. It's a great engine, but it's older and heavier. My 5.3 V8 in my chevy pickup (which weighed significantly more than the WK2) got better Mpg.


My point is that you are presenting your opinion as fact; and that's misleading. And you continue to do it. Like I said, if you won't read my posts, then don't respond. The V8 and V6 are both great engines. I've said that from the beginning. But they serve different needs, so while more power and speed may be 'better' for you, it wasn't for me. So for you, the V8 may have been a better fit. The V6 was a better fit for me. This has been my point all along.

We have an obligation to be accurate on here: I know I used a ton of the stuff found on here for my buying decision. That's why I'm worried about you being misleading.

The only fantasy I live in is the one where I was able to afford a WK2.
__________________
'12 V6 WK2 Laredo X
illflo is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 06:48 AM   #81
Jackal01
Moderator
 
Jackal01's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Houston, Texas, Texas
Posts: 2,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by illflo

Dude, did you read the post? I have no problem with the V8. It's a great engine. But it's not objectively superior. It's better at certain things. I'm not arguing the V6 is better. Go back and read my response. If you aren't going to read my responses then don't bother arguing. I won't engage blather.

Someone else got there first in a response so I won't address it, but it's an upgrade because it costs more, not vice versa. Jeep is stroking your ego and making you feel better about paying more for an older, heavier engine by calling it an upgrade. You paid more for the little Hemi badge on the back of your Jeep. It's a great engine, but it's older and heavier. My 5.3 V8 in my chevy pickup (which weighed significantly more than the WK2) got better Mpg.

My point is that you are presenting your opinion as fact; and that's misleading. And you continue to do it. Like I said, if you won't read my posts, then don't respond. The V8 and V6 are both great engines. I've said that from the beginning. But they serve different needs, so while more power and speed may be 'better' for you, it wasn't for me. So for you, the V8 may have been a better fit. The V6 was a better fit for me. This has been my point all along.

We have an obligation to be accurate on here: I know I used a ton of the stuff found on here for my buying decision. That's why I'm worried about you being misleading.

The only fantasy I live in is the one where I was able to afford a WK2.
Well said. KR doesn't understand the meanings of "objective,subjective, opinion, best". Or he just has some issues with understanding.

Sent from my iPad using JeepForum
__________________
2011 Billet JKUS

Jackal01 is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 07:06 AM   #82
MickinNY
Registered User
2013 WK 
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Churchville, NY
Posts: 479
I'm full......too much popcorn.
MickinNY is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 07:14 AM   #83
Kev M
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medford, NJ
Posts: 668
Horse, water, drink - nevermind...
Kev M is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 08:51 AM   #84
Dave2002ti
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouC View Post
I do agree that now Chrysler needs to go to the next level but keep in mind, the latest and best technology does not always work the best in the field, this has been seen time and time again. The current Hemi design is well proven, and long lasting. Whether its a true hemi or not, it puts out good power and torque for its displacement if you compare to what Ford and GM offer. The MDS system works very well in my experience. Comparing the modern 6.1 Hemi vs the 66-71 street 426 Hemi, here are a few facts for you..
1) the 6.1 has close to a full liter less displacement
2) the 6.1 was rated at 420 hp and 420 ft lbs NET power
3) the 426 was rated at 425 hp and 490 ft lbs GROSS power, there is a big difference, do you remember what happened to HP ratings when the ratings changed in '72, they went way down. So the modern 6.1 is damn close to the original.
4) the acceleration times of a 6.1 WK are faster than just about any Mopar muscle car that came with the 426.

Like I said, I agree that Chrysler will have to go to the next level, but to say that the best versions of the current Hemi are not the equal of the street Hemi in terms of power, means you are not looking at facts. Gross HP and Net HP which was the change in the rating system back in '72 if you recall is a big difference.

And going back to the question, the Pentastar is a good engine, just what they needed at the time, it does not replace a bigger displacement V8 but is fine for what it is. Compared to any other V-6 from Chrysler its light years ahead. Personally though I feel that the ancient 4.0 six had a lot more potential in it, such as being converted over to a cross flow head and stroked to 4.7 liters. Chrysler felt it was an old engine inherited from AMC and it was, but there are definite inherent advantages in the straight six design.
A real street hemi put out well over 500hp back in 1970. Figures you quote were insurance numbers. Back in the day the 440 was preferred by many for street use. The 6.1 was not even close to street hemi in hp or torque numbers. Back in the day the published hp and torque numbers for Chevy's 427, Chevy's ZL1, Pontiac's 455 Stage 4, the Buick 455, and Olds 455, Ford's Boss 429 and Chrysler's 426 and 440 were no where close to their real output. Best straight 6 engines ever were the big 6 and little 6 from BMW. Little 6 is the current BMW I6. Problem with I6's is packaging and weight distribution. A nicely tuned 3.6 Pentastar should be able to put out 360hp easily and meet all current emission standards in stock form. Wouldnt be the best engine choice for a GC since it would be slightly high strung but in a right sized Challenger would a 6spd manual would be fun ride to carve apexes in. No turbos for me.

Part of the problem with the current V8 is weight. Chrysler needs to join the early 2000's and move to an aluminum short block. Also multiple spark plugs are old school band aids for a lack of R&D dollars.

I have no problems with the V6 in my GC. My only issue was is the drive by wire. It has sweet spots and it not linear but then many current vehicles suffer from this. Once I figured out the tranny and the loud pedal things are fine.
Dave2002ti is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 09:13 AM   #85
loveracing1988
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2002ti View Post

A real street hemi put out well over 500hp back in 1970. Figures you quote were insurance numbers. Back in the day the 440 was preferred by many for street use. The 6.1 was not even close to street hemi in hp or torque numbers. Back in the day the published hp and torque numbers for Chevy's 427, Chevy's ZL1, Pontiac's 455 Stage 4, the Buick 455, and Olds 455, Ford's Boss 429 and Chrysler's 426 and 440 were no where close to their real output. Best straight 6 engines ever were the big 6 and little 6 from BMW. Little 6 is the current BMW I6. Problem with I6's is packaging and weight distribution. A nicely tuned 3.6 Pentastar should be able to put out 360hp easily and meet all current emission standards in stock form. Wouldnt be the best engine choice for a GC since it would be slightly high strung but in a right sized Challenger would a 6spd manual would be fun ride to carve apexes in. No turbos for me.

Part of the problem with the current V8 is weight. Chrysler needs to join the early 2000's and move to an aluminum short block. Also multiple spark plugs are old school band aids for a lack of R&D dollars.

I have no problems with the V6 in my GC. My only issue was is the drive by wire. It has sweet spots and it not linear but then many current vehicles suffer from this. Once I figured out the tranny and the loud pedal things are fine.
So what is your explanation for the ford 6.2?
loveracing1988 is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 10:33 AM   #86
LouC
Registered User
2007 WK 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 1,319
Not even close you say YET, a WK with all wheel drive and as much if not more weight posts acceleration #s as fast, if not faster than any of the old school muscle cars. None of them stock ran 0-60 in 4.3 sec and very few ran the quarter in less than 14.
__________________
2007 WK Limited Hemi QDII
1998 ZJ Laredo 4.0 Selectrac
LouC is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 11:30 AM   #87
Dave2002ti
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 1,307
Do you have a clue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LouC View Post
Not even close you say YET, a WK with all wheel drive and as much if not more weight posts acceleration #s as fast, if not faster than any of the old school muscle cars. None of them stock ran 0-60 in 4.3 sec and very few ran the quarter in less than 14.
Well there were some 65 GTO's that could run zero to 60 in 4.6 secs and a L88 1968 Vette would run a quarter in 13.5 secs. Now if you had a clue and werent just spouting numbers you would understand that tires have improved dramatically since 1970. L88 had a 9.20x15 Firestone tire. A trailer tire from today on this Vette would set a faster 0-60 time. Also that 4.3 sec time in done with the aid of all types of electronic nannies that didnt exist back in 1968 or 1970. Put the Srt8 or whatever on a set F70X5 polygas Goodyears and pull the fuses for the nannies and lets see what kind of 0-60mph it runs. Also suspension and trannie design has made great strides. 0 to 60mph is all about getting power to the ground. Its why today poseurs like you can get a 911 with launch control.

A friend of my dad's had a real AC 427 Cobra and I can remember back in 1971 or 1972 he made me a bet that if I could grab the $100 bill out of the sun visor it was mine when he floored it from a stand still. I couldnt and up until he sold the car in 2005 no one ever did. Just FYI son a L88 engine turned out 550hp+ in production trim. L88 is comparable to a street hemi but was a better all around engine from a daily driver to a road course. I take a L88 over a street hemi any day since life doesnt just happen a quarter mile at a time. It has twist and turns!

Now 0-60mph times are nice but road course or autox times are more important. Any fool can go quick in a straight line or only turn left and not drive in the rain.
Dave2002ti is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 11:56 AM   #88
nyrhockey23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: , ct
Posts: 243
I have the V6 and it fits my needs perfectly. The Jeep for us is just a family car and don't do any heavy hauling so saw no need to pay more upfront for a bigger engine and pay more at the pump for as long as we have the Jeep. Getting to the next stop sign 1 second quicker to me was irrelevant.

I had one of those bad cylinder heads and had to get it replaced at about 15K but been rock solid otherwise in terms of reliablity. My only complaint is how slow it is at highway-merging speeds (45 to 60mph) where i just manually drop it down to 2nd gear and floor it. Other than that it accelerates very well.

As for KR, holy crap. Talk about not getting it.
nyrhockey23 is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 12:22 PM   #89
illflo
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Remington, Virginia
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev M View Post
Horse, water, drink - nevermind...
Guess that's the problem with kicking rocks. So many puns and so little time. Where's that giant picture of a rock when you need it?
__________________
'12 V6 WK2 Laredo X
illflo is offline  
Unread 04-26-2013, 01:29 PM   #90
jacko15
Registered User
2014 WK 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pennsylvania's North Shore
Posts: 813
Rocks is rocks.
rock.jpg  
__________________
Hers: 2008 Jeep Compass Sport
Mine: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V/6 ORA II
Michelin LTX M/S 2's
jacko15 is offline  
Closed Thread
Thread Tools






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.