Allpar Forums banner

101 - 120 of 162 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
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.
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,572 Posts
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.
Yes, all of this! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: page2171 and Ryan

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
I'm not sure Rubicon would make sense - it would interfere with the off-road capability to have a huge heavy V8...
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
I'm not sure Rubicon would make sense - it would interfere with the off-road capability to have a huge heavy V8...
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.
 

·
Defender of Reality
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
I'm not sure Rubicon would make sense - it would interfere with the off-road capability to have a huge heavy V8...
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
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.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,397 Posts
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.
 

·
Defender of Reality
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
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.
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,572 Posts
392 or the 5.7 in JT would be awesome. I guess I probably shouldn’t get my hopes up though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
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.
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 )
 
101 - 120 of 162 Posts
Top