2021 Wrangler 392

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 6.4L is a little silly. It’s good for the mall cruiser pavement princess Jeeps that never see dirt. I think the 5.7L would be ideal. Unless you’re Offroad racing you don’t need a ton of horsepower. The 5.7L would be nice in sand where the 3.6L kinda falls short.
 
dareo said:
What would the the 4:1 transfer case add? I would think that with an 8 speed torque converted automatic and a 2.71:1 T case you would have absurd amounts of torque at very low throttle inputs.

A manual option, as always, would be welcomed. The Dana 60s would be nice too!
Click to expand...

If I gave you a ride in my son's Jeep (2.72:1) vs mine (4:1 ), you would feel the advantage. If the owner of one of these added larger rubber, the auto would appreciate it. I can get out of my Jeep in compound low range and walk ahead and away from it while it drives.

I wish Jeep offered something you won't wreck your seats and dash when it rains. I also think $65K is ridiculous but in line with other SRT products. My buddy just ordered a Hellcat and got a deal at $62K. Personally, I build my own rigs and could probably make two complete rock buggies for the price. I do appreciate the effort by Jeep to make a cool rig. Ford and Jeep going at it makes it better for the enthusiast.
 
Zaedock said:
If I gave you a ride in my son's Jeep (2.72:1) vs mine (4:1 ), you would feel the advantage. If the owner of one of these added larger rubber, the auto would appreciate it. I can get out of my Jeep in compound low range and walk ahead and away from it while it drives.

I wish Jeep offered something you won't wreck your seats and dash when it rains. I also think $65K is ridiculous but in line with other SRT products. My buddy just ordered a Hellcat and got a deal at $62K. Personally, I build my own rigs and could probably make two complete rock buggies for the price. I do appreciate the effort by Jeep to make a cool rig. Ford and Jeep going at it makes it better for the enthusiast.
Click to expand...
So its all about it going extremely slow? I believe they have crawl control. Is there any scenario where the 6.4 wouldn't easily overcome the traction of all 4 tires? Off road scenarios of course. I enjoy a youtube channel, Matts Off Road Recovery, where he's pulling stuck vehicles out with a 4.0 I6 Cherokee. That setup is less than half the output of a 392 and only a 4 speed auto.
 
dareo said:
What would the the 4:1 transfer case add? I would think that with an 8 speed torque converted automatic and a 2.71:1 T case you would have absurd amounts of torque at very low throttle inputs.

A manual option, as always, would be welcomed. The Dana 60s would be nice too!
Click to expand...

Crawl ratio. Especially with the manual trans I would want.

If I decide to build a Jeep to my specs, I'll just get an older model and an Atlas 4-speed T-case with the lowest ratios vailable being from 4.8:1-11.70:1, with whatever engine, trans, and axles I choose.
 
Last edited:
dareo said:
So its all about it going extremely slow? I believe they have crawl control. Is there any scenario where the 6.4 wouldn't easily overcome the traction of all 4 tires? Off road scenarios of course. I enjoy a youtube channel, Matts Off Road Recovery, where he's pulling stuck vehicles out with a 4.0 I6 Cherokee. That setup is less than half the output of a 392 and only a 4 speed auto.
Click to expand...
It is all about going slow (or having the option to). You'd be surprised how fast my Wrangler (on 35's, locked dana 44s from a grand wagoneer) felt out in Moab in 1st gear (Ax-5, 3.92), low range (stock NP 231, 2.72), with 5.13 gears (crawl ratio of almost 55:1)--felt way too fast a couple of times, and would have been much easier to have been able to keep inching along rather than using the clutch. I don't do enough of that kind of driving to make the expense of a 4:1 kit worthwhile, but I can definitely see the advantages.

I love Matt's Offroad Recovery -- He needs wheelspeed for most of his recoveries, so a 4:1 would likely be a pretty big disadvantage for him, especially in the sand (where I see him a lot).
 
Cool that they are doing this. Slightly sketchy I’d imagine with a short wheelbase and high center of gravity. Although, I haven’t driven a modern Jeep so maybe they handle at speed better now.
 
RhondaHonda said:
Cool that they are doing this. Slightly sketchy I’d imagine with a short wheelbase and high center of gravity. Although, I haven’t driven a modern Jeep so maybe they handle at speed better now.
Click to expand...
My old boss had a G63 pushing 700 on a solid front and rear and a shorter wheelbase than the JLU. drives just fine no problems at all just needs more some more get up and go.
 
I hate to sound like the BITOG old man, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a bunch of these show up at Copart shortly after release. I owned a 392 Challenger and have rented a JL Wrangler, that's a lot of engine for the JL. I priced out the Rubicon JL I rented and was floored to find out it was a $55k vehicle, I expect this will be north of $70k.

Sweet vehicle nonetheless, I just hope the buyers respect the power their right foot has when they're powering this beast.
 
Nick1994 said:
The 6.4L is a little silly. It’s good for the mall cruiser pavement princess Jeeps that never see dirt. I think the 5.7L would be ideal. Unless you’re Offroad racing you don’t need a ton of horsepower. The 5.7L would be nice in sand where the 3.6L kinda falls short.
Click to expand...
My GC (well, my 2016, this one has only been back to the camp once so far) has seen mud, dirt, towing in both, deep snow....etc. The 6.4L doesn't make it any less capable, but you do have to watch tip-in or you end up with 4 rooster tails of whatever you are on.
 
OVERKILL said:
My GC (well, my 2016, this one has only been back to the camp once so far) has seen mud, dirt, towing in both, deep snow....etc. The 6.4L doesn't make it any less capable, but you do have to watch tip-in or you end up with 4 rooster tails of whatever you are on.
Click to expand...

That tip in is dangerous. The first weekend I owned my Challenger I got ticked off by someone in a parking lot and lit the tires up by accident. Taught me a lesson to respect what was under the hood.
 
2EHA said:
There is no extra heat, the hellcat uses a clutch to activate the blower on demand and keeps the charge cool. My old E55 did the same thing.
Click to expand...
Like Mad Max? Lol...The clutch is not there to turn the blower on and off, it's a sprag unit. Purpose is to keep the inertia of the blower rotating components from back driving the engine via the belt when the throttle is shut quickly at high rpm
 
Skippy722 said:
They do. There is also a module you plug into the OBD port and it’ll remember your setting so you never have to click the button again either.
Click to expand...
Yes, so it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. As long as it can be turned off I'm OK with it.
 
2EHA said:
This would’ve been cool like 5 years ago but now, meh. You can outrun a 392 on foot.

The Trailcat in 797hp trim would be incredible but safety concerns made them scrap that idea.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what you drive that makes you think a 392 is slow...


I'd be happy with just the regular 5.7L, and I hope they put one in the Gladiator. The 3.6L isn't a bad engine, but it makes it's power higher up in the rev range so it doesn't feel torquey at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Rental Review: 2025 Durango GT
Replies
15
Views
759
HoosierJeeper
MCompact
2021 Wrangler Sahara 4xe- One year in...
Replies
18
Views
904
svtrit
M
A week with a 2021 BMW X3e (hybrid)
Replies
10
Views
1K
edyvw
rstcso
Out with the Audi & In with a Pilot
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
CKN
A
New BMW X3 M40, INSANE power delivery (2024)
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
20K
Jimmy_Russells
Back
Top Bottom