First Pentastar Acceleration Numbers
#1
JK Freak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Bath, Oh
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Pentastar Acceleration Numbers
From Motortrend:
"The new engine offers excellent response and a noticeable improvement in power -- the Pentastar is significantly faster from a stop and when passing. Also, the engine sounds much more upscale than the coarse 3.8-liter, and the exhaust note is throatier. Paired with either transmission, it feels much more refined. Where the 3.8 feels pokey, the 3.6-liter actually makes the JK feel spry. Jeep estimates that the new engine reduces 0-60 times by 2-3 seconds with either transmission, and when we took a Wrangler Sport manual to the track, we confirmed this estimate. The new Jeep hit 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, while all of the 3.8-liter Wranglers took between 9.8 and 10.2 seconds."
From the spec box
Two door sport
285hp/260Tq
6 speed
3918lbs
0-60 in 6.7 sec
1/4 mile 15.2@89.1mph!!!
60-0 braking in 135ft
17/21mpg
Woohoo, low 15's stock, it might crack 14's once broke in
"The new engine offers excellent response and a noticeable improvement in power -- the Pentastar is significantly faster from a stop and when passing. Also, the engine sounds much more upscale than the coarse 3.8-liter, and the exhaust note is throatier. Paired with either transmission, it feels much more refined. Where the 3.8 feels pokey, the 3.6-liter actually makes the JK feel spry. Jeep estimates that the new engine reduces 0-60 times by 2-3 seconds with either transmission, and when we took a Wrangler Sport manual to the track, we confirmed this estimate. The new Jeep hit 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, while all of the 3.8-liter Wranglers took between 9.8 and 10.2 seconds."
From the spec box
Two door sport
285hp/260Tq
6 speed
3918lbs
0-60 in 6.7 sec
1/4 mile 15.2@89.1mph!!!
60-0 braking in 135ft
17/21mpg
Woohoo, low 15's stock, it might crack 14's once broke in
#3
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lugoff, SC
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet if we go back to 2006, we can find posts just like that on a TJ forum about the 3.8. Oh and back before the internet, for those of us old enough to remember, guys were saying the same thing about the 4.0 versus the 4.2.
#5
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"While this combination would've highlighted the weaknesses of the previous engine (universally considered a dog), the 3.6-liter V-6 shone."
Universally considered a dog? That's a bit of an exaggeration, plenty of people are happy with their 3.8's.
Universally considered a dog? That's a bit of an exaggeration, plenty of people are happy with their 3.8's.
#6
JK Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everything from the 4.0 to the 3.8 and now the 3.6 has been a vast improvement over my old 1993 125hp 2.5l. it was just hard to drive anywhere that had ,a hill, some strong winds or heck even mall speed bumps gave it fits. I think it's great they have more power now At the time I had my 2.5l the 180hp 4.0l felt like a hemi upgrade.
Oh yea, I built a 78 CJ and installed an AMC 360, even though it felt strong I don't think it had as much power as a 3.6 plus it only could get around 8mpg, driving it gramma
I really excited about the 3.6, should be a nice engine.
Oh yea, I built a 78 CJ and installed an AMC 360, even though it felt strong I don't think it had as much power as a 3.6 plus it only could get around 8mpg, driving it gramma
I really excited about the 3.6, should be a nice engine.
Trending Topics
#8
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been around for all of these motors and I can't think of a single person who I know that likes the 3.8 more than the 4.0. I guess there may be a few, maybe
#9
"universally considered a dog"
It is "universally considered a dog" . Try and find a review where they don't say things like "underpowered" or "disappointing". Jeep released this exiting new body style and then put a dated engine in it. It didn't fit the rest of the jeep. I think the difference between the 3.8 and previous jeep motors is that in the past Jeeps had engines that where comparable to the competition at the time. The 3.8 is the exception. Toyota and Nissan have been getting Pentastar numbers from V6s for years. When I test drove 3.8 equipped vehicles it was like travelling back in time to 1992. I think Jeep nuts have two methods for coping with the 3.8: denial (some people are happy with their 3.8L) or anger (it's a dog).
#10
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lugoff, SC
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to liking the 3.8 versus the 4.0, I cant stand the implementation of the 3.8 in the automatic JKU (this is my first automatic Wrangler). I really believe this has more to do with implementation versus the motor itself. I think its a combined problem of electronic throttle, improper gearing and general lack of power in the appropriate rpm range. I personally think it could be corrected, but with an 11, I can't do much.
I went from a 4.0 TJ to a 4.7HO WJ to a 3.8 JKU. I sure am missing my 4.7HO. I just can't afford to take the hit right now trading my 2011 in on a 2012. It has almost 20,000 miles in 4 months. The JKU has the best form factor of any vehicle I have ever worked out of. I love it, but I am really wanting more power at a reasonable cost.