[MoparNorm]

Well, the "exhaust note" is missing in my brand new Wrangler, but, yes,...smooth, powerful and impressive.
My first tank was at 23.9 mpg, including, two runs up from sea level to over 8,000 ft., so yes, Im impressed.

 

[aldo90731]

Agree. I went from a 2009 JKU Rubicon with the 3.8L minivan engine to a 2012 JKU Rubicon with the new Pentastar 3.6L: it is night and day. The Pentastar is butter-smooth, eager, refined, powerful and fuel efficient.

 

[JA Cumbo]

That is amazing MPG from a Wrangler! I remember when the 4 cyl was the standard it seemed like 20 MPG was considered pretty good.

 

[MoparNorm]

That is amazing MPG from a Wrangler! I remember when the 4 cyl was the standard it seemed like 20 MPG was considered pretty good.

A lot of folks that were first time Jeepers, who wanted fuel economy, were fooled into getting the 4 banger. It was underpowered, and displayed incredibly poor fuel economy when worked.
The real test for me will be when I go from the stock 3.73 gears and 32" tires, to my 5.38 gears and 37" tires. If the Pentastar maintains an 18 mpg combined average, I will be very happy. The 3.8 was approx. 14 and no power.

 

[Dave Z]

The 3.5 is one of the great engines IMHO, but time has moved on a bit. It's been 13 years since Chrysler put one into our 300M!

 

[aldo90731]

The real test for me will be when I go from the stock 3.73 gears and 32" tires, to my 5.38 gears and 37" tires. If the Pentastar maintains an 18 mpg combined average, I will be very happy. The 3.8 was approx. 14 and no power.

My mods are less extreme than yours, but by the time I added those 35" tires and almost 1,000 lbs in steel bumpers, winch, spare tire carrier, miscellaneous body armor, skip plates and suspension parts (I transferred all my mods from my old JKUR to my new one), my 2012 still averages 2 mpg over my 2009, and have more power to boot

 

[saltydog]

The 3.5 is one of the great engines IMHO, but time has moved on a bit. It's been 13 years since Chrysler put one into our 300M!

I would have to agree, the 3.5 has charm to it.

 

[MickM]

I loved my 3.5L and I love my 3.6L it seems like a biological child of the 3.5L its quicker smoother and quieter but has the same awesomeness.
Mick

 

[Dave Z]

Yup. The 3.5 had a certain oomph of instant gratification but the 3.6 is stunning in its ability to maintain 80 mph while ticking over at 1,500 rpm with the eight speed.

 

[JA Cumbo]

The 3.5 is one of the great engines IMHO, but time has moved on a bit. It's been 13 years since Chrysler put one into our 300M!

Keep in mind I had my 300M for 9 years and I also don't get out much.

 

[Dave Z]

Gotcha...

I love the 300M... in many ways I still like it better than the 300C.

 

[UN4GTBL]

Yup. The 3.5 had a certain oomph of instant gratification but the 3.6 is stunning in its ability to maintain 80 mph while ticking over at 1,500 rpm with the eight speed.

It's pretty close in the vans too.

The vans get a pretty decent note on them too.

 

[MoparNorm]

Yup. The 3.5 had a certain oomph of instant gratification but the 3.6 is stunning in its ability to maintain 80 mph while ticking over at 1,500 rpm with the eight speed.

74 actually, which is what the CHP Officer said as she gave me a warning...