NEW V 6 or INLINE 6 - Page 2 - 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 Wrangler Forums > JK Wrangler Technical Forum > NEW V 6 or INLINE 6

ROCKRIDGE4WD Introduces a NEW Jeep Wrangler JK *led* tail Premium LED Lighting by VISION X, Proudly sold at ROCKRIDGNEW JK WRANGLER GRAB BARS NOW at ROCKRIDGE4WD

Reply
Unread 05-23-2006, 10:56 PM   #16
Forumpete58
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 253
Actually I saw a debut of the '07 just the other day on TV and they said the Wrangler was getting a new V6 motor not keeping the I6 we all love
Those Bastards!!

Forumpete58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-23-2006, 11:10 PM   #17
Karamba
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokinout
Anyone know where the weight is comin' from?
IFS. And two fat chicks on the rear seat.
Karamba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2006, 08:36 AM   #18
pbrutsch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by strokinout
It's funny. I think that the KJ looks smaller than the Cherokee, but it weighs heavier. Anyone know where the weight is comin' from?
It is smaller. Not a frelling clue where the weight comes from. A KJ weighs the same as a WK

Sometimes DCX produces obese monsters - a V6 LX weighs 3800 LB, fer christ's sake! The original Charger didn't weigh that even with a 426 Hemi
__________________
[SIZE=1][b][i]Real[/i][/b] Jeeps don't need no stinkin' spark plugs![/SIZE]
pbrutsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2006, 07:15 PM   #19
ODAMO
Registered User
2008 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 94
The Cherokee is unibody, The Wrangler unlimited is body on frame. Plus the Unlimited has stronger (heavier) underpinnings. If you compare the weight/power/gearing of the Rubi Unlimited vs Hummer H3. The JEEP will win both on and off road. 4300 lbs with all thats it's got is not bad at all.
ODAMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2006, 11:04 PM   #20
Karamba
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California
Posts: 559

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrutsch
It is smaller. Not a frelling clue where the weight comes from. A KJ weighs the same as a WK

Sometimes DCX produces obese monsters - a V6 LX weighs 3800 LB, fer christ's sake! The original Charger didn't weigh that even with a 426 Hemi
My tiny little station wagon was: curb weight 3,627lbs with an 2.5 liter I6.. new slightly bigger one 3,847lb with 3.0I6. Somehow I like'em heavy.. So I guess that ain't DCX only..
Karamba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 12:39 AM   #21
BigGreenoh9
Registered User
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrutsch
It is smaller. Not a frelling clue where the weight comes from. A KJ weighs the same as a WK

Sometimes DCX produces obese monsters - a V6 LX weighs 3800 LB, fer christ's sake! The original Charger didn't weigh that even with a 426 Hemi
he** no! the KJ is as nowhere near heavy as a WK...the KJ is 4000 lbs whereas the WK is more like 4700 (its a heavy mofo...and the tranny doesnt engine break for sh**)

the increased weight is from modern engineering....ever notice how each car is more stiff than its predecessor? thats attributed to extra steel/aluminum/whatever located in all the right places...i KNOW a new charger feels like a vault compared to the original thanks to modern engineering.
__________________
Current: 1997 XJ Sport 4x4 - 4.0/AW4/231
Previous: 1987 YJ - 4.2/BA10/207; 2005 WK - 5.7/545RFE/245
BigGreenoh9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 07:19 AM   #22
NoUse328
Registered User
2005 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,392
Back on topic...

The JK needs a good diesel. Preferable somewhere around a 2.5 or 3.0 tdi which should give it reasonably good mileage.
NoUse328 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 02:01 PM   #23
pbrutsch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoUse328
Back on topic...

The JK needs a good diesel. Preferable somewhere around a 2.5 or 3.0 tdi which should give it reasonably good mileage.
We know. Outside of the US it'll get the 2.8L CRD (shared with the KJ). I would expect 20MPG city (real world). EPA said my CRD KJ would get 21... 23 in the real world.

The big question we all want answered is...

Will we get it in the US?
__________________
[SIZE=1][b][i]Real[/i][/b] Jeeps don't need no stinkin' spark plugs![/SIZE]
pbrutsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 08:37 PM   #24
keithert
Registered User
2005 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 2,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrutsch
We know. Outside of the US it'll get the 2.8L CRD (shared with the KJ). I would expect 20MPG city (real world).
If the diesel is only going to get 2-3 more mpg than a gas engine why pay extra for it and have to deal with finding diesel fuel and having a vehicle that sounds like a diesel. If it got 25 real world mpg that would be different, but for a few mpg why bother?
keithert is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 10:30 PM   #25
strokinout
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Holly Hill, Fl.
Posts: 464
Well, with a diesel will have more power, last longer, but it will cost more and weigh more. Honestly, you wouldn't have to worry about gearing as much. You could run a higher gearing with all that power. Not only that, diesels have most of their torque closer to idle and with the new JK's getting V6's, a diesel would prolly be the closest thing to the I6 that we have available. Know what I mean, Vern?
__________________
Ever sneezed with Copenhagen in?

Now looking for a another Jeep soon
In memory of:
1997 Jeep Wrangler 6-cyl.
1994 Jeep Wrangler 4-cyl.
strokinout is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-25-2006, 11:25 PM   #26
pbrutsch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithert
If the diesel is only going to get 2-3 more mpg than a gas engine why pay extra for it and have to deal with finding diesel fuel and having a vehicle that sounds like a diesel. If it got 25 real world mpg that would be different, but for a few mpg why bother?
The jump can be bigger than 2-3 MPG, usually in the 30% range (for the KJ, 16-17 MPG city + 30 % = 22-23 MPG city), sometimes more. I don't see the V6 JK getting more than 15-16 MPG city, so 20-21 MPG with a diesel is right in line. People with a lead foot and/or a 'modded' vehicle will naturally see lower numbers Heck, the 2006 TJ is EPA rated at 14MPG, people should be happy to get 20!

For some people the fuel economy increase is a side benefit - after driving my CRD KJ exclusively for a year I find myself frustrated with the lack of power in most gas engines ; finding a station that sells diesel is a non-issue, at least 'round here. A station that doesn't sell diesel is the exception rather than the rule.
__________________
[SIZE=1][b][i]Real[/i][/b] Jeeps don't need no stinkin' spark plugs![/SIZE]
pbrutsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-08-2006, 11:48 AM   #27
starscream
Registered User
1981 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrutsch
Fuel economy will be a wash. The V6 will be more efficient than the I6, but the extra weight of the JK overall will override any efficiency gains.
If it were the same body but heavier, you're probably right. But they curved the windshield, put plastic air dams under the engine, etc. to reduce the drag coefficient, which will have an effect especially on the highway as the speed goes up. I expect it to have better mileage and it should.
starscream is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2006, 07:42 AM   #28
pbrutsch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by starscream
If it were the same body but heavier, you're probably right. But they curved the windshield, put plastic air dams under the engine, etc. to reduce the drag coefficient, which will have an effect especially on the highway as the speed goes up. I expect it to have better mileage and it should.
OK, so it'll get 20-21MPG highway rather than 18.

But I still say that it'll be a wash for city driving where the weight of the vehicle will make more of a difference than any aerodynamic changes.
__________________
[SIZE=1][b][i]Real[/i][/b] Jeeps don't need no stinkin' spark plugs![/SIZE]
pbrutsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2006, 09:22 AM   #29
starscream
Registered User
1981 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrutsch
OK, so it'll get 20-21MPG highway rather than 18.

But I still say that it'll be a wash for city driving where the weight of the vehicle will make more of a difference than any aerodynamic changes.
Sure, but some people (like me) do a lot of highway driving. I do about 20% / 80% city / highway, not counting any off-roading.

So let's say I put 100,000 miles on the Jeep over its lifetime, with 80,000 being highway miles.

At 21 MPG I'd use 3810 gallons of gas.

At 18 MPG I'd use 4444.

Subtract 3810 from 4444 and you get 634 gallons. At $3 per gallon, that's a savings of $1900. That's nothing to sneeze at.

These little numbers can become a lot of dollars over the lifetime of a vehicle.
starscream is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
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.