AF: Jeep teases a 392 Wrangler? Gladiator? | Page 6 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Jeep teases a 392 Wrangler? Gladiator?

Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by LeeRyder, Jul 11, 2020.

  1. Ryan

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    6,893
    Likes:
    12,345
    I'd like the 392 to be offered on multiple trim levels. Wrangler Rubicon 392 and Wrangler Mojave 392 would both be great.

    What would make things really interesting is if they make it an option on every trim level, so someone could buy a Wrangler Sport 392 and create their build from scratch. The Charger Scat Pack is around $10,000 more expensive than the SXT, so even if the 392 engine was, say, a $9,995 option on the Wrangler, you could get a 4-door Sport 392 for around $45,000.
     
  2. Zagnut27

    Zagnut27 Jeepaholic

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,489
    Likes:
    10,764
    Yes, all of this! :)
     
    page2171 and Ryan like this.
  3. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,935
    Likes:
    20,615
    I'm not sure Rubicon would make sense - it would interfere with the off-road capability to have a huge heavy V8...
     
  4. Mopar02

    Mopar02 Mopar02

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Likes:
    71
    3.0L turbo inline six would be best but who even knows now when that's arriving.
     
  5. Ryan

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    6,893
    Likes:
    12,345
    For whatever reason, that's the trim they chose to use for the Wrangler 392 concept. I think introducing the Mojave trim level with this concept would have made more sense, but whatever.

    Jeep-Wrangler_Rubicon_392_Concept-2020-1280-01.jpg
     
  6. IronMike3406

    IronMike3406 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    248
    Likes:
    398
    After watching the Kevin and Brittany Williams on Youtube aka LiteBrite I'd beg to differ on the 392 not making sense. They do rock crawling to playing in the sand and the 392 has held up quite well.... Granted they've modded the suspension quite a bit now.
     
    dmcdonald and thebluegoat like this.
  7. HotCarNut

    HotCarNut Defender of Reality
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,927
    Likes:
    2,767
    What's the weight differential between the 392 HEMI and the 3.6L Pentastar, or for that matter the 3.0L Gen III diesel? Just wondering if the suspension work they did for the diesel would work for the HEMI.
     
  8. HEMI345

    HEMI345 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2017
    Messages:
    267
    Likes:
    298
    For me, the 392 means more off road capabilities.
     
  9. WXman

    WXman Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    916
    Likes:
    1,149
    For me, the 392 would mean that I can have the power I need without all the ultra-expensive and unreliable diesel idiosyncrasy.

    No turbo, no over-engineered EGR system, no DPF, no DEF fluid tank, no CAC hoses, no $92 oil filters, no $45 fuel filters.... just naturally aspirated, simplistic American POWER.

    Yeah, that's what Gladiator and Ram 1500 desperately need.
     
  10. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,935
    Likes:
    20,615
    I am wrong about the weight of the 392. It's actually about the same as the diesel. I take back my objection — unless it would interfere with suspension articulation due to its size. I gather, though, that isn't the case.

    I was really hoping they would make the Wrangler straight-engine-only at some point — the upcoming straight-six, the four-cylinder turbo, and an inline turbo from whoever sells one (not the huge Cummins) — so they could have truly extreme front suspension articulation on at least the Rubicon.
     
    HotCarNut likes this.
  11. aldo90731

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    10,245
    Likes:
    21,506
    The 392 makes sense on JT; it is completely unnecessary on JL. It is clearly a “halo” product. As such, it will sell in small numbers and at a high premium, but should help sell lots of V6 and 2.0T Wranglers.
     
    Zagnut27 and HotCarNut like this.
  12. HotCarNut

    HotCarNut Defender of Reality
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,927
    Likes:
    2,767
    I think the straight six would be ideal for the Wrangler, particularly if they can package a turbo in there. Nobody in the lowlands thinks about it, but at altitude those NA engines' power drop is noticeable in the significantly weighty 4-doors.
     
    Zagnut27, tlc and Dave Z like this.
  13. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,935
    Likes:
    20,615
    The straight six is turbo-only. GME-T6, to go with the GME-T4. I've been thinking for quite a long time that the Wrangler could probably be lighter and more capable if they went to inline engines only. I might be wrong, though.

    One influence on my general automotive thinking was comparing the 1990s Shadow/Sundance to the equivalent Honda Civic. The Shadow and Sundance, like the Chevy Cavalier, had an optional V6 in the plans from the first day, so they had to make extra space under the hood, which made them larger and heavier. The Civic had three engines — all the same 1.8 in different forms of tune. That helped the Civic to be much lighter than the Mopar or GM compact.

    (While the Mopars were launched with turbo-fours, I am pretty sure the product planners assumed a V6 for the future.)

    'Course sometimes that thinking paints you into a box that is inconvenient, e.g. inability of LH to take a V8, or the long delay in giving the Accord the V6 that most Americans thought it needed. But usually it gives you something cheaper and more efficient.
     
    tlc and HotCarNut like this.
  14. Zagnut27

    Zagnut27 Jeepaholic

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,489
    Likes:
    10,764
    392 or the 5.7 in JT would be awesome. I guess I probably shouldn’t get my hopes up though.
     
  15. LordHobbit

    LordHobbit Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    182
    Likes:
    298
    Cummins makes their 2.8l 4 cyl diesel. It's not real powerful so if they tweaked it a bit I always thought that'd go well in Wrangler.

    R2.8 Turbo Diesel | Cummins Inc. (at https://www.cummins.com/engines/repower )
     
    HotCarNut, dakota21 and Dave Z like this.

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.