Notices
JK Talk General discussion forum regarding thoughts, opinions and rumors about the Jeep JK Wrangler or related subjects that don't quite fit in the Modified, Stock or Electronics forums.

First Pentastar Acceleration Numbers

Thread Tools
 
Old 08-21-2011, 02:00 AM
  #1  
JK Freak
Thread Starter
 
Flip94ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Bath, Oh
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default 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
Old 08-21-2011, 02:20 AM
  #2  
JK Enthusiast
 
Sprocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thats a huge difference... Powerwise the 3.6 is far superior to the 3.8, no doubt about it. Now we will just have to see how the 3.6 holds up over the years...
Old 08-21-2011, 02:47 AM
  #3  
JK Enthusiast
 
inverse121's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lugoff, SC
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sprocket
Thats a huge difference... Powerwise the 3.6 is far superior to the 3.8, no doubt about it. Now we will just have to see how the 3.6 holds up over the years...
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.
Old 08-21-2011, 03:27 AM
  #4  
JK Newbie
 
mac-1-0-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Norfolk, ny
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I really doubt anyone said the 3.8 was superior to the 4.0. They had the same HP rating.
Old 08-21-2011, 03:55 AM
  #5  
Zim
JK Enthusiast
 
Zim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

"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.
Old 08-21-2011, 04:23 AM
  #6  
JK Newbie
 
madss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 08-21-2011, 04:46 AM
  #7  
JK Freak
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: York, PA
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wow, this is very impressive!

Could these new motors be swapped into the older JK's?
Old 08-21-2011, 04:49 AM
  #8  
JK Enthusiast
 
Sprocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by inverse121
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.


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
Old 08-21-2011, 05:19 AM
  #9  
JK Newbie
 
mac-1-0-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Norfolk, ny
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default "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).
Old 08-21-2011, 05:55 AM
  #10  
JK Enthusiast
 
inverse121's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lugoff, SC
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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
That's not what you said, you threw out something about longevity, and I quote, "Now we will just have to see how the 3.6 holds up over the years..." Every time a new motor comes out, people throw that type of stuff out.

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.


Quick Reply: First Pentastar Acceleration Numbers



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:28 PM.