trubo V8 for new Jeeps? - 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 > trubo V8 for new Jeeps?

FS: Jeep Fog Light LED Bulbs! Several Brightness Options! USA Standard Chromoly Front Axle Shaft Kits with Dana 30 4The Jeep Forum Discount is ON!

Reply
Unread 06-06-2015, 04:13 PM   #1
Jurassic_Jeep
Registered User
2014 WK 
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 155
trubo V8 for new Jeeps?

I've heard of the possible V6 direct injection turbo engine coming to FCA, but this article claims a 540 hp Maserati V8 turbo engine (which is a Ferrari derived motor) may also be coming (probably not true but who really knows?):

http://releasedatecars2016.com/2016-...fresh-changes/

A turbo V8 would be the best of both worlds (despite the smaller displacement).

Believe this is the motor in the Maserati they are talking about, a luxury Jeep sounding like this is pretty cool:


Would be awesome if Jeep took advantage of what the Italian 'family' has to offer

Jurassic_Jeep is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-06-2015, 05:55 PM   #2
kryogen
Registered User
2011 WK 
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern, Quebec
Posts: 914
my issue with the jeep srt is that it's a street jeep.

If they made a "summit v8 turbo", I would jump on it. I want an SRT, but at the same time, I don't really want one because it's not really meant for off road.
__________________
2011 Grand Cherokee Overland V8
kryogen is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-06-2015, 06:16 PM   #3
jim_in_PA
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 1,004
Summit isn't marketed for off-road, either...but it is easier to modify if you want that than an SRT (which will be losing that name...) would be.
__________________
2012 Grand Cherokee Overland Summit 5.7L V8 - Winter Chill with New Saddle Interior - Nitto NT421Q
jim_in_PA is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-08-2015, 07:00 AM   #4
2kg4u
Registered User
2014 WK 
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 647
FCA is developing a turbo charged 4 cylinder, and a twin turbo 6 cylinder. The twin turbo may be slated for SRT vehicles. I saw the turbo 4 in a Renegade last week (development vehicle, not production).
__________________
Roy
2014 Overland, 3.6 L
Fumoto Qwikvalve, Ionic CXV running boards, Michelin X-Ice Xi2 snow tires
2kg4u is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-08-2015, 01:13 PM   #5
dcorn
Registered User
1998 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim_in_PA View Post
Summit isn't marketed for off-road, either...but it is easier to modify if you want that than an SRT (which will be losing that name...) would be.
Tell that to the Summit blasting through snow and dirt roads on the Jeep commercials...

What do you have to modify on a Summit to make it off-road capable? Turn the select-terrain to whatever surface you're driving on and hit the quadra-lift button to raise the suspension. Ready for the trails.
__________________
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit
dcorn is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-08-2015, 05:03 PM   #6
jim_in_PA
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 1,004
dcorn, to clarify/refine my statement...I didn't say Summit wasn't off-road capable; it's just not marketed for that, despite the commercials that show it powering down a dirt road/trail. I think that FCA is just trying to build excitement with those shots for the JGC line, not the Summit, but that version is flashier looking than a lower trim level would be. Summit requires physical modification to add recovery hooks up front (tow hooks) and some say that the Summit front and rear fascia may not be the best for off-roading. Not super hard to deal with, but it's left in the hands of the owner You also need to add the skid plates aftermarket...you cannot order a Summit with them from the factory. (same goes for the tow hooks and 18" wheels) That they omit certain off-road focused features from that trim level that are generally available for other trim levels is supportive of this.
__________________
2012 Grand Cherokee Overland Summit 5.7L V8 - Winter Chill with New Saddle Interior - Nitto NT421Q
jim_in_PA is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-12-2015, 10:07 AM   #7
jcav8r
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 34
Turbo's are the way of the future, like it or not.
jcav8r is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-12-2015, 10:21 AM   #8
Jeeples
Elbows Deep In WJ's
 
Jeeples's Avatar
2000 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: forum/f310/, UT
Posts: 6,063
A motor like that would be likely to go in a flagship vehicle. Like the new Grand Wagoneer perhaps?
__________________
His: '00 WJ 4.7 Limited- Some stuff

Hers: '03 WJ 4.7 Laredo- Some more stuff

Build Thread

Real men run the stock rear sway bar at any height
Jeeples is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-12-2015, 11:27 AM   #9
LibGrandCher
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: , Ontario
Posts: 554
My WK2 is V8.
I also own a Turbo 4 cylinder sports car.

I really don't get why car makers are going to turbos.

IMO, there is no benefit to the end consumer.

The exotic applications (twin turbos on 8s or 6s) are great but from my experience these tiny turbo 4s are no benefits to the consumer.

I notice that Acura/Honda tried turbos then discontinued making them.

FCA has enough issues with tried and true technology . I don't need any more reason to visit my dealership.

My 2 cent would be for them to try electric assist motors.

....drop microphone...
LibGrandCher is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-12-2015, 11:31 AM   #10
wyat72
Registered User
2011 WK 
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sioux City, Iowa
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcav8r View Post
Turbo's are the way of the future, like it or not.
Turbos were a way of the past too. Turbos were phased out as NA motors evolved. I believe it will happen again. Foced induction adds complexity to an engine, plus the NA engine has proven to still be cheaper, more reliable, and more fuel efficient engine. Examples are the Ford engines, I have yet to see a one get better fuel economy then a similar powered naturally aspirated vehicle.

It sickens me that Turbos can be gamed into looking like the "greener" option when in reality they are just more expensive and generally less reliable.

That being said, I love Turbos for their performance benefits.
__________________
2011 Grand Cherokee Laredo X, Pentastar, Qudra Trac I.
wyat72 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-12-2015, 01:25 PM   #11
Kev M
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medford, NJ
Posts: 1,200
It's the law of unintended consequences.


CAFE requirements and EPA testing standards have made an playing field that is not level when comparing NA and Turbo motors. Unfortunately the turbos seem to give greater mpg numbers in the EPA tests but then fail to match that efficiency (or even that of their NA counterparts) in the real world.


Our other car is an example. Nissan Juke 1.6L rated at 25/30 mpg - I HAVE managed to get 27-28 mpg on the rare occasion I can hold it down to 60-65 on the highway for extended periods of time, and more likely running around town get something closer to 22-24 mpg, all running on 91+ octane.


Meanwhile our WK2, weighing nearly a FULL TON MORE and rated at only 16/21 mpg can run 87 octane and turn in 19-20 mpg around town and 23-24 mpg on the highway at 75-80 mph. I've even managed long-distance round trips that have averaged as high as 25-26 mpg if I can keep the speeds down like on the Juke.
Kev M is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-15-2015, 11:09 AM   #12
10Xk
Registered User
2014 WK 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by kryogen View Post
my issue with the jeep srt is that it's a street jeep.

If they made a "summit v8 turbo", I would jump on it. I want an SRT, but at the same time, I don't really want one because it's not really meant for off road.
They are all street jeeps!
10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-15-2015, 11:32 AM   #13
asorr1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev M View Post
It's the law of unintended consequences.


CAFE requirements and EPA testing standards have made an playing field that is not level when comparing NA and Turbo motors. Unfortunately the turbos seem to give greater mpg numbers in the EPA tests but then fail to match that efficiency (or even that of their NA counterparts) in the real world.


Our other car is an example. Nissan Juke 1.6L rated at 25/30 mpg - I HAVE managed to get 27-28 mpg on the rare occasion I can hold it down to 60-65 on the highway for extended periods of time, and more likely running around town get something closer to 22-24 mpg, all running on 91+ octane.


Meanwhile our WK2, weighing nearly a FULL TON MORE and rated at only 16/21 mpg can run 87 octane and turn in 19-20 mpg around town and 23-24 mpg on the highway at 75-80 mph. I've even managed long-distance round trips that have averaged as high as 25-26 mpg if I can keep the speeds down like on the Juke.
The Juke is a bad example, its absolutely horrible on gas. My girlfriend has a 2014, same engine and its a joke. She's lucky to get 180-200 miles out of one tank (mixed city and highway) Thank god its a lease!
__________________
2015 Grand Cherokee Laredo With 8.4 radio with nav/wheel group and All Weather Group added.
asorr1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-15-2015, 11:47 AM   #14
dizz1979
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rehoboth, MA
Posts: 101
The Juke has the aerodynamics of a cardboard box.
dizz1979 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 06-15-2015, 12:00 PM   #15
jcav8r
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyat72 View Post
Turbos were a way of the past too. Turbos were phased out as NA motors evolved. I believe it will happen again. Foced induction adds complexity to an engine, plus the NA engine has proven to still be cheaper, more reliable, and more fuel efficient engine. Examples are the Ford engines, I have yet to see a one get better fuel economy then a similar powered naturally aspirated vehicle.

It sickens me that Turbos can be gamed into looking like the "greener" option when in reality they are just more expensive and generally less reliable.

That being said, I love Turbos for their performance benefits.
You're totally right. And that's the marketing message in a nutshell....Turbo = green(er) efficiency. In reality, they actually have become much more efficient than they were in the past and I think it will continue to improve.

With that said, I will always choose a beefy NA V8, because reasons.
jcav8r 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






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.