Source: FCA's new 2.0-liter turbo 4-banger to make nearly 300 hp

[Wooders]

Originally Posted by chris0375

Because there are almost no cheaply available high power 4 cylinder engines around. It's really only been the last couple of years they have existed in production vehicles and only a few at that. Mercedes, BMW and hyundai?

A v8 is quite basic and well understood by lots of mechanics. The ecu and transmission etc have all been done before. Completely different to when it's installed by the manufacturer.

I think a v8 is definitely what a certain percent of the market is crying out for but that market is pretty much enthusiasts only. Your usual everyday family type buyer demands fuel economy and a relatively decent amount of power. This new engine will hopefully provide that. The pentastar already propels a jk quick enough most people will consider a v8 overkill.

With stock oem suspension I am not sure Jeep thinks the whole vehicle can justify a lot of power.

A v8 is cool and all but I just don't see it happening on a volume basis.

Chris,
I'll politely disagree on most points....

4cyls have been producing high horsepower for years. F1 has proven that. But it doesn't address the torque needs in most cases.and yes durability.

As for calling 8cyl basic, thats a bit silly. A v8 can be equally complex than a 4cyl.
In fact a V8 could be more complex because it has more considerations when being developed.

If ever there is an enthusiasts vehical the wrangler should be it. For the manufacturer to deny that.......

A lot of wrangler buyers also want to tow heavy loads, don't think a v8 is overkill then. But the 35" tyres that seem to be standard fitment isn't overkill?

I am not sure how power output applys to stock suspension. ...why would more power be an issue to the suspension?
But I'll bet my left nut the JL will be heavier than the JK and its already pretty porky.

Yup V8s are cool (knew we'd agree on something [emoji6] ). Just remember theres no replacement for displacement .

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

[lujabe]

Originally Posted by bleetnblurt

next hill please , v8 cruise , 4 zip and need to rev to do the same , how many rev's now ?
CRD well big difference to petrol , would like to see this thing do in mud
and so on, I take it its wheel base is good ?
but the weight , problem is to reach that so called power there is a thing called power to weight ratio , how light is this thing ? does any one know ? or does all just L@@K at the specs ?
let it rev go on , just see how long it will last because it has to rev harder than a six and or v8. and lets think of long distance . who the frik buys a 4x4 of any sort to L@@K good ? OH HANG ON !!!! I guess all of those who want not to L@@K like a RAV4 or CRV , so on , YUP YUP YUPPY. my driveway is toooo steep . or MATCHES MY SHOES , or IM THE ANTS PANTS .
oh but some will know REVING and just what it means to have a engine REVING MORE to what a v8 or 6 has to do , get there faster WEAR MORE QUICKLY.
BUT NO NO its NEAR 300 BRAKE horse power will last right ? YUK YUK YUK.
I wouldn't buy one if I was overweight and need a ton of equip to carry.
OH but it carries my YAP YAP FUR ERRR I THINK ITS A DOG .

Just drive one. The last two vehicles I owned were turbo petrol 4's. Both had bags of torque and while they were happy to rev, they spent most of their lives running under 2000 rpm and would happily pull from 1500 rpm in top gear. Frankly, I prefer them them to n/a 6 or 8 cylinders - both of which I usually find comparatively wheezy.

[chris0375]

Originally Posted by lujabe

Just drive one. The last two vehicles I owned were turbo petrol 4's. Both had bags of torque and while they were happy to rev, they spent most of their lives running under 2000 rpm and would happily pull from 1500 rpm in top gear. Frankly, I prefer them them to n/a 6 or 8 cylinders - both of which I usually find comparatively wheezy.

I don't think you are going to change his mind. He is of the "no replacement for displacement" mindset that was last true 15 years ago.

[Wombat756]

Originally Posted by chris0375

I don't think you are going to change his mind. He is of the "no replacement for displacement" mindset that was last true 15 years ago.

Yep. Ive got a turbo 4 forrester that has done over 200k with nothing but servicing and no sign of it slowing down. It was nearly as quick in a straight line as the 6 litre v8 ute we had before the jeep, and uses much less fuel.

Yet in another section of this forum we have a multi page thread on bleets rebuild of his "more reliable" v8? Fair enough.

Personally, i can see what they are trying to do with bringing in a turbo 4. And if i was considering upgrading to the new model, id check one out, drive it, and make up my mind. Just as i did when swapping from a v8 to my current pentastar. First time i have ever bought something that isnt a v8 (the subaru is the wifeys) and i couldnt be happier.

Maybe others could open up to the possibility there are new ways to do things now. Or we could all just go back to carbies on engines making less than 1 horsepower per cubic inch like the good old days. .....

[bleetnblurt]

and yet STILL one can not see.
F 4 , not F 1 , as there is a big diff between v10 and 8 to 4
and look at the factor that most will strip down a engine after each race (when one can afford it)
no one thinks on just how the engine gets up to , gears well, but after each time it still needs to get to top gear, give it all the gears you want , BUT go up a hill with them , see if you reach the top in top gear in a 4 .
not that any engine could , BUT 4 is 4 8 is 8 ,
if you are into 4 then go buy a boxer engine , or a rotary
and zip and zang all you want . you will be the one that has to keep spending time under the bonnet , and when you understand , SPEED is not all that matters.

[chris0375]

Originally Posted by Wooders

Chris,
I'll politely disagree on most points....

4cyls have been producing high horsepower for years. F1 has proven that. But it doesn't address the torque needs in most cases.and yes durability.

As for calling 8cyl basic, thats a bit silly. A v8 can be equally complex than a 4cyl.
In fact a V8 could be more complex because it has more considerations when being developed.

If ever there is an enthusiasts vehical the wrangler should be it. For the manufacturer to deny that.......

A lot of wrangler buyers also want to tow heavy loads, don't think a v8 is overkill then. But the 35" tyres that seem to be standard fitment isn't overkill?

I am not sure how power output applys to stock suspension. ...why would more power be an issue to the suspension?
But I'll bet my left nut the JL will be heavier than the JK and its already pretty porky.

Yup V8s are cool (knew we'd agree on something [emoji6] ). Just remember theres no replacement for displacement .

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

All good I like a good debate.

I was meaning production vehicles. After all no one will be putting an f1 engine in their car and I am guessing engine life is terrible.

The vast vast majority of wranglers do not have 33 or even 35 inch tyres. Plenty on this forum do but not in general. Jeep needs to appeal to the every day driver. They need the volume to make money. Yes I consider 35 inch tyres overkill for the vast majority of people.

The wrangler does not handle well. It's not at all as forgiving to mistakes as a normal car with ifs and no flex.

[Tyvokka]

Just a reminder guys to play the balls not the man.

I have driven 1.6L turbo petrols and diesels... They're crap compared to the Pentastar V6, and crappier the Magnum V8.

I cannot imagine the SRT or Track Hawk with a tiny little quad turbo triple super charged motor..maybe oneday..