Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

Official!! Pentastar in 2012!!

16K views 92 replies 61 participants last post by  asknight 
#1 ·
#7 ·
Yup, I'll definitely be looking to trade in the 2010 Flame Red Sport for a 2012 Cosmo's Blue Rubi. Oh baby!:highfive:
 
#9 ·
I'm pretty pleased I traded in my 2008 Sahara 2 door. My main problem with it was the fact that the 2 door has no real space in it and is impossible to get in and out of.

I would have traded in for a 4 door, but I really wanted a different engine. Looks like my wait may be over soon! Lets hope they get a good transmission in there.
 
#13 ·
jeeez that is going to be great! now maybe I will look into getting a 4 door! Just hope all my mods can be swapped over or Im screwed......
 
#21 ·
We have been hearing this for so long, year after year.

Oh it's official, the JK gets the pentastar and possibly a diesel.

We have seen that posted for 2010, 2011, and now 2012. I think I may have seen it posted for 2009 even.

I will believe it when I see it. I am also skeptical of what this engine will be like in the JK. I may be wrong, but I think even though it makes more horsepower and torque than the 3.8L, it does so at an even higher rpm than the 3.8L. The main complaint about the 3.8L is not really the numbers it makes, but how it is delivered, at an abnormally high rpm for a Jeep. Incidentally, the superchargers that are offered for the 3.8L deliver about the same horsepower and torque as the pentastar, and can be had for around $5,000. That might figure into your equation about trade in and current state of modification, depreciation, etc.

Now if this was a diesel or hemi, it would be a different story.
 
#25 ·
I don't think that's true. It's been known for a long time that the first pentastar vehicle would be the 2011 Grand Cherokee. The only speculation was if the 2011 Wrangler would get it as well. It was never official, just speculation. Now it's official!

Also, while peak torque and power may be at a higher rpm then the 4.0 (or maybe even 3.8), at 1500 or 2000 rpm I sure this motor has more torque and power then the 4.0(or 3.8), even though it peaks later. Finally, 90% of the torque is available from 1,600 to 6,400 rpm. Sounds good to me, very flat!

I think this engine will be well suited to the Wrangler. While a Hemi would be fun, it is unnecessary. A diesel?...yeah that would be amazing, so much torque and fuel economy.

I think it might be time for a new Jeep, I may just be first in line to get a 2012.
 
#22 ·
Definitely wait and let a few others Beta test it....being the guinea pig sucks....

If the world doesn't end in 2012 (No, I don't actually believe it, but it's funny) then, hey....trade up to '13, or'14....
 
#32 ·
Can always swap a pentastar into a older model as well, Im sure its much cheaper then a hemi swap.:drool:
 
#28 ·
Wait until the '12s comes out then scoop up an '11 for cheap since everyone wants the new guy! You'll only have a year to drive it anyway. :eek:

Anyway, they should work on an engine like the 3.5L from an f150. Yes, it's complicated but 90% of it max torque(420) at 1700rpm is pretty narly.
 
#37 ·
We need to go back to the time when CJ's came with V8's. I know they were low output V8's in stock trim. But, with a little tweaking here and there, a person could double their output easily with simple modifications, with no computer foolery. Shave the heads, do a five angle valve job, comp cam, Victor Jr. Intake, and a 750 cfm carburator and that was about it. Adjust the ignition timing and dial in the carb and you were good to go.

We keep going to smaller and smaller engines, higher and higher rpm's, increasingly complex computerization on a vehicle that is going to operate in harsh conditons such as extreme heat and cold, and possibly being submerged in water and mud. It just doesn't seem very smart to me to put this technology in a vehicle that will operate in the very conditions the technology fails in.
I can understand the sentiment, but anyone who drove a CJ and is being honest will tell you that they broke down five times as often as a JK does. There was nothing romantic or superior about constant valve cover leaks, swapping donut gaskets to fix exhaust leaks, rebuilding heads, starters stripping teeth, etc.

The nanny-state crap they put on vehicles now annoys the heck outta me (TPS, for example), but there is no doubt that engines and drivetrains today are much, much more reliable than they were when the CJ was around.
 
#39 ·
I will keep my 2010 cause I like the design of the interior better. Wonder if a little porting and polishing of the heads would help the 3.8 and not make it fail smog emissions test here in California. Would be nice to be alble to instal headers, better exhaust, new cam, and chip to get more power and still pass smog.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top