2012 Pentastar - not the torque we had hoped for....
11-15-2010, 01:16 PM
#11
JK Freak
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: N.E. and S.W.
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no surprises here probably not worth the wait
That's too bad to hear, I too had high hopes for this motor. Not only does it appear that the new motor may underwhelm us but the buyers of 2012 JK's will not only have to live with the new "SUV" interior but also an exterior that could be potentially as disappointing as the new engine and interior are.
2010 the last great year of the JK...still has a Jeep interior and exterior and a motor that is very likely comparable to the upcoming 3.6.
I suspect that 2012 JK's will look very different I just hope they still are recognizable as a true Jeep and not something that is just another SUV. It's going to be interesting over the next 8 months or so as the news leaks out about the '12.
2010 the last great year of the JK...still has a Jeep interior and exterior and a motor that is very likely comparable to the upcoming 3.6.
I suspect that 2012 JK's will look very different I just hope they still are recognizable as a true Jeep and not something that is just another SUV. It's going to be interesting over the next 8 months or so as the news leaks out about the '12.
11-15-2010, 01:31 PM
#12
JK Super Freak
That's too bad to hear, I too had high hopes for this motor. Not only does it appear that the new motor may underwhelm us but the buyers of 2012 JK's will not only have to live with the new "SUV" interior but also an exterior that could be potentially as disappointing as the new engine and interior are.
2010 the last great year of the JK...still has a Jeep interior and exterior and a motor that is very likely comparable to the upcoming 3.6.
I suspect that 2012 JK's will look very different I just hope they still are recognizable as a true Jeep and not something that is just another SUV. It's going to be interesting over the next 8 months or so as the news leaks out about the '12.
2010 the last great year of the JK...still has a Jeep interior and exterior and a motor that is very likely comparable to the upcoming 3.6.
I suspect that 2012 JK's will look very different I just hope they still are recognizable as a true Jeep and not something that is just another SUV. It's going to be interesting over the next 8 months or so as the news leaks out about the '12.
A better exhaust, a better chip, etc, will put that engine in the 300's no problem. Still though, I think they again didn't address the real power issue, which is the transmission.
11-15-2010, 01:46 PM
#13
JK Super Freak
I wouldn't say that the 280hp engine is a total disappointment. It's too bad that Chrsyler can't make 280hp feel like 280hp, but at least we can. All those little mods that add a certain percentage of power will add a percentage based on 280hp, which means the gains will be bigger. Also, the right gearing will wake that thing up big time. A better exhaust, a better chip, etc, will put that engine in the 300's no problem. Still though, I think they again didn't address the real power issue, which is the transmission.
A better exhaust, a better chip, etc, will put that engine in the 300's no problem. Still though, I think they again didn't address the real power issue, which is the transmission.
11-15-2010, 01:51 PM
#14
11-15-2010, 03:28 PM
#17
JK Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Syracuse, New York, United States
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-15-2010, 03:44 PM
#18
JK Newbie
Join Date: May 2010
Location: bathurst newbrunswick canada
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a thought , doesn't chrysler heve a high out put 4.0 that they use in the nitro,not really sure about torque ant hp but it has more displacement that 3.8 and 3.6.
11-15-2010, 10:48 PM
#20
JK Super Freak
Hmm... I haven't heard that argument before. 
I don't think that's right. All the pushrod does is tell the cam when to open and close the valves. It's the valves' actions that affect the torque output; the pushrod is just the messenger. So, I'm going to say that this is not correct. And, pushrods do their jobs inefficiently, so I'll so far as to say that a pushrod engine creates less torque than the more advanced (pushrodless) engine. There was evidence of this years ago, such as the Ford 427 SOHC engine. Eliminating the pushrod made a world of difference.
I don't think that's right. All the pushrod does is tell the cam when to open and close the valves. It's the valves' actions that affect the torque output; the pushrod is just the messenger. So, I'm going to say that this is not correct. And, pushrods do their jobs inefficiently, so I'll so far as to say that a pushrod engine creates less torque than the more advanced (pushrodless) engine. There was evidence of this years ago, such as the Ford 427 SOHC engine. Eliminating the pushrod made a world of difference.