[waspie]

woohoo!!! great news for diesel fans like me

 

[MoparNorm]

Those Grand Cherokee motors have to come from somewhere.
Hopefully this also signals the possibility for Wrangler.
Wrangler owners, not Grand Cherokee owners, are the ones clamoring for diesels.
Why they chose the Grand Cherokee first just shows that Jeep management still remains clueless as to their customer base.
Keeping hopes alive for the refresh that comes in 2015.

 

[Dave Z]

Cool. They've been saying they would, of course. Hmmm, 200 - 250 per day. That's around 40,000 per year. That's moderately ambitious, it sounds like two vehicles.

 

[waspie]

Cool. They've been saying they would, of course. Hmmm, 200 - 250 per day. That's around 40,000 per year. That's moderately ambitious, it sounds like two vehicles.

Maybe that "suspect" Ram that was spied last week?

 

[Erik Latranyi]

Durango/Grand Wagoneer could absorb some of that as well!

 

[Longtimejeep]

Wonder if the diesel will have the 8 spd too. Would love to know what kind of mpg's are possible.

 

[RVC]

Why they chose the Grand Cherokee first just shows that Jeep management still remains clueless as to their customer base.

Who knows, maybe the US Wrangler will also get the same VM-Motori A428 that they use in Europe...

 

[DDakRT]

Wasn't there words that the North American 300/Charger was set to receive this diesel as well?

 

[jimboy]

The 300, Wrangler, and Grand Cherokee/Durango would all benefit greatly from a diesel engine. I would definitely consider a 300 if it came with a diesel option. ( I am currently paying nearly $1.25 pr liter for mid grade right now) I don't know what that is in U.S. gallons tho. About 65-67 liters to fill my maggies tank. (+ $70.00)

 

[MoparNorm]

Who knows, maybe the US Wrangler will also get the same VM-Motori A428 that they use in Europe...

I hope NOT, it's foo underpowered for US usage, however it also doesn't meet EPA specs and the 3.0 does.
It's cleaner, more powerful and get better mpg than the 2.8.

 

[Marauder_Pilot]

Why they chose the Grand Cherokee first just shows that Jeep management still remains clueless as to their customer base.

It's because the diesel is inevitably going to jack up the price, and the average Grand Cherokee is selling for more than the Wrangler. It can absorb the price shock a little better.

Plus, the Grand Cherokee already has a good record of strong(er than projected) diesel sales.

Plus, its the worst model in the lineup, EPA-wise. (Not by much, but still) The diesel will put it up near the top.

 

[BRANDM]

I think your correct that the grand cherokee can initially carry the cost of the diesel easier than the wrangler. It would be great if they could teeth it in the grand and then get a suitable diesel in the wrangler.

 

[BRANDM]

I should have been a little more specific in my writing. In my mind I was thinking "teething" for the perception of the general public, dealerships, marketing, not so much hardware and designed use. I fully expect a wrangler to have different performance paramaters requiring a different engine or at least a different tune (if a different tune would be possible). Thanks for making me be more specific and less vague.​

 

[Erik Latranyi]

In my mind I was thinking "teething" for the perception of the general public, dealerships, marketing, not so much hardware and designed use.

The public perception has changed. Ask VW about all the diesels they sold. Jeep has a history with diesels in the US via the Liberty experience and the Grand Cherokee.

There has been volumes written on the pent-up demand for a diesel in the Wrangler. But I bet we will hear the oft-repeated excuse --- wait for the next generation.

 

[Seagondollar]

Horsepower and displacement?

 

[Erik Latranyi]

If the engineers can drop a little weight from the next Wrangler, other than higher MPG, what additional advantages would they obtain in regards to front suspension design and capability? By switching to forced induction inline 4-cyl powerplants, (both gas and diesel), and removing the wide V motor, would the engineers would have more room to play with drivetrain design?.

The engineers will still have to accomodate the gasoline V-6 engines in the bay and suspension.

 

[ChrycoFan]

I hope NOT, it's foo underpowered for US usage, however it also doesn't meet EPA specs and the 3.0 does.
It's cleaner, more powerful and get better mpg than the 2.8.

I was unaware that any VM diesel meet the US T2-B5 regulations. I thought that the V6 had been engineered to meet either the interim Eu V or the Eu VI regulations, but not the other I-4, as yet. But that is still a long, Looooong, way away from meeting the much cleaner T2-B5 regulations. Europe's 2016 EU VI regulation is approximately as clean as the transitional T2B9-T2B11 'transitional' regulations, that are no longer legal in the USA for at least 15 years.

Having Italian diesels manufactured in American vehicles in Detroit, that are meant for export to Europe and elsewhere, probably don't have to meet US T2-B5 regulations that they would have to meet, if sold here.

It is very difficul to clean up diesels at a reasonable cost, for sale in the USA. That is why there are so few, and VW pretty much has the market to itself.

 

[Jeepnut]

If the engineers can drop a little weight from the next Wrangler, other than higher MPG, what additional advantages would they obtain in regards to front suspension design and capability? By switching to forced induction inline 4-cyl powerplants, (both gas and diesel), and removing the wide V motor, would the engineers would have more room to play with drivetrain design?.

The turbo 4 could work for some but I don't see it happening. IMHO I think we will see frame revisions ala 2013 Ram and the windshield will no longer fold so they can give it a steeper rake. I know this may tick off some purists but even when I had my TJ I never folded the windshield and honestly never wanted to. But i admit thats because im an east coaster anddont have the ample playgrounds that Norm enjoys! I also would guess that the 2 door will gain aslight wheelbase extension to aid in fitting the 8HP.

 

[RVC]

I hope NOT, it's foo underpowered for US usage, however it also doesn't meet EPA specs and the 3.0 does.
It's cleaner, more powerful and get better mpg than the 2.8.

I was unaware that any VM diesel meet the US T2-B5 regulations. I thought that the V6 had been engineered to meet either the interim Eu V or the Eu VI regulations, but not the other I-4, as yet. But that is still a long, Looooong, way away from meeting the much cleaner T2-B5 regulations. Europe's 2016 EU VI regulation is approximately as clean as the transitional T2B9-T2B11 'transitional' regulations, that are no longer legal in the USA for at least 15 years.

Having Italian diesels manufactured in American vehicles in Detroit, that are meant for export to Europe and elsewhere, probably don't have to meet US T2-B5 regulations that they would have to meet, if sold here.

It is very difficul to clean up diesels at a reasonable cost, for sale in the USA. That is why there are so few, and VW pretty much has the market to itself.

Are you guys sure you are not talking about last gen's engines? According to VM, all their new engines for automotive use respect both EU and US standards. Read here for more info
http://www.vmmotori.it/en/01/00/01/dettaglio.jsp?id=56
http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1695.pdf