New Jeep Wranglers - New Engine

[buster]

http://www.jeep.com/07wrangler/index.html

I love the look of the 2007 Wrangler. What do you guys know about the new 3.8L V6 engine? The 4.0 is gone after this year. If I didn't drive so much or get a job someday closer to where I live, I'd buy one.

 

[cousincletus]

I like the looks of the 2007 better than the old one. Don't know anything about the 3.8, but the 3.7 that's in the Liberty and p/u is a good engine but could get a little better gas mileage.

 

[windnsea00]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
http://www.jeep.com/07wrangler/index.html

I love the look of the 2007 Wrangler. What do you guys know about the new 3.8L V6 engine? The 4.0 is gone after this year. If I didn't drive so much or get a job someday closer to where I live, I'd buy one.

---

While the 4.0 was a well proven engine, its time was up after a few decades now. The new Wrangler looks good, too bad we just can't get the diesel here or not yet.

 

[Gary Allan]

That thing needs a diesel sooooooooo bad. The 4.0 was due to be canned ..about 40 years old (in a couple of configurations). It didn't fit in any other product line.

 

[MarkC]

Old but good. I'm glad I got one while the getting was good.

 

[Dominic]

Well its still a torquey pushrod, and its got 205hp. I don't think it will be a problem, but the old I6 will be missed.

 

[Raven18940]

As much as I love a I6 they're very inefficient space wise (unless there's a turbo maybe). I want to say the 4.0 was a good engine, but to be honest it really wasn't that great. No matter what the revs it never really seemed to go. And despise the fact that it was designed for torque low in the power band it didn't seem to have as much as it should. 225 lb-ft is only 56 lb-ft per liter which is pretty poor actually and the reason it uses so much gas.

Still part of me is sad to see it go. I wish they'd just modernized it. Some new, efficient and lightweight aluminum heads would have done wonders. A V6, no matter how good, just isn't right in a Jeep.

 

[Gary Allan]

You can get an aluminum head for the 4.0. I don't know how much it would yield ..but Hesco in Birmingham, AL makes one.

The prime feature of this engine was it's flat torque curve. It was almost flat from about 1800 on out. Antiquated design ..too heavy for the output ..can't rev freely ...no cross flow head. Lots going against it in this era

 

[Greaser]

We can say what we want about the 4.0L straight six but the proof is it's lengthy history.You can go onto any Jeep forum and TRY and find a complaint about durability in that motor.The 4.0L engine HAS made history allready and has NOTHING to prove.I own two ,and yes they like fuel, but the last thing I worry about on my Jeeps' are the engine...that says alot.The only engine replacement I would be as confident in as far reliabilty is concerned would be 3.0L Mercedes diesel like the ones that are going in the 07 Grand Cherokees,300 C vehicles.Off-roading is NOT street driving and we'll see what the newer engines can do.

 

[Greaser]

http://autonet.ca/Spotlight/NewModels/story.cfm?story=/Spotlight/NewModels/2006/06/01/1610340.html

 

[Eddie]

My 4.0 engine is still in my extended family and going well at 216,000 miles. Never a valve cover off. Only problem was a leaking rear crank seal. Friend of mine are approaching 480,000 miles on their 4.0 with only a valve and ring job at ~360,000 miles. Mobil 1 10w30 since the first oil change at ~2,500 miles. OCI=5,000 miles with a PureOne oil and air filter at 25,000. Now that is reliability and a few less mpg is ok when one thinks of needing a new vehicle at 80-120,000 miles because the engine is gone. JMO and observtions. Ed

 

[Raven18940]

Yeah, they're reliable. I used to drive mine like a race car and it's still going strong today. Sure it needed new diff gears from all the burn outs I used to do (open diff you see) and the second gear synchro is neverly gone, but the engine was never questioned. And what a noise it would it make.

 

[Mr. Boston]

Is this the same 3.8 used in the vans?

 

[JTK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Boston:
Is this the same 3.8 used in the vans?

---

Time will tell, but I'm guessing it's based off the pushrod iron block, aluminum head 3.7L V6 from the liberty? That engine has good power. Only thing the spec sheet says for the 2007 Wranger is 3.8L OHC V6.

Joel

 

[adam123]

heres the link To The Specs and Informantion about the 3.8L

 

[Zaedock]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raven18940:
As much as I love a I6 they're very inefficient space wise (unless there's a turbo maybe). I want to say the 4.0 was a good engine, but to be honest it really wasn't that great. No matter what the revs it never really seemed to go. And despise the fact that it was designed for torque low in the power band it didn't seem to have as much as it should. 225 lb-ft is only 56 lb-ft per liter which is pretty poor actually and the reason it uses so much gas.

Still part of me is sad to see it go. I wish they'd just modernized it. Some new, efficient and lightweight aluminum heads would have done wonders. A V6, no matter how good, just isn't right in a Jeep.

---

The 4.0L wasn't a good engine, it was an excellent engine. The 4.0L made 80% of it's torque off idle. Much better than the new 3.8L which makes peak torque at 4000RPM. The new heavier Wrangler is going to be a slug.

BTW, why is a V6 not right in a Jeep? Jeep started using V6's back in 1966.

 

[TheTanSedan]

The I6-242 burned gas in 4WD configuration, especially with the addition of lift kits, winches, etc. At which point these Jeeps often exceeded 4,000-lbs.

In 2WD, at 3500# with driver (pair of '01 XJ's), 22 mpg hwy was our commmon number, and 18-19 around town. The durability was unexcelled.

As for being slow, they aren't. I haven't ever in a situation where I wished for more power. The throttle response is instantaneous which makes them very easy to drive.

A straight six, be it BMW, Chrysler Slant Six or any HD Class 8 diesel is flat hard to beat. You don't see V-configurations where a straight will work, either railroad, ship or power plant.

That said, I hope the new motor is good, but I would never expect it to do as well. The Buick 231-cid V-6's were awfully good, and I hope the same for the new Jeep power. I do like Jeeps, but see no real successor to the XJ-Cherokee where size and space, power and utility, were ideal.

 

[Chris142]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTanSedan:


The Buick 231-cid V-6's were awfully good, and I hope the same for the new Jeep power.

---

Those had an 80lb flywheel! Nothing would stop em

Time will tell but My opinion is that the new V6 will do well in high rpm places like mud bogs or sand dunes but will be hated by the rock crawlers.

 

[Shannow]

RIP the 4.0 six cylinder.

That engine made it's debut down under in the valiants, in 1966, as a 215, 245, and 265 c.i. option.

The 265, after a trip to the Weber factory in Italy was released with 224Kw (300bhp), capable of 14 second quarter miles, and a very effective race engine.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JTK:
Time will tell, but I'm guessing it's based off the pushrod iron block, aluminum head 3.7L V6 from the liberty?

---

The 3.7 is not a pushrod engine. It is based on the SOHC 4.7 V8, and is essentially that engine with two cylinders chopped off to make a V6.