i cant stand this engine
08-13-2011, 10:02 AM
#63
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it's more to do with the US government-mandated mileage targets that are set for manufacturers.
In order to compensate for the gas-guzzling Hemi-equipped vehicles in the Chrysler fleet, they need to squeeze the most mileage out of their volume sellers to achieve their CAFE targets. Since the Wrangler is a high-volume seller for Chrysler, (and is also a bit of a gas hog due to it's near-vertical windshield and brick-like shape), they throw in tall but slightly more fuel-efficient 3.21 ratios in the X/Sport/Sahara 6-speeds (3.73s for the autos) as the majority of Wranglers sold are these variants. They can then afford to sacrifice a little mileage in their overall usage calculations for the entire fleet by giving the lower-volume selling Rubicons the 4.10s.
If Chrysler didn't offer the Hemi in any of it's vehicles, the Wrangler Sports would probably come with 4.10s as stock for the 6-speeds, 4.56s for the autos, & 4.88s for the Rubis.
In order to compensate for the gas-guzzling Hemi-equipped vehicles in the Chrysler fleet, they need to squeeze the most mileage out of their volume sellers to achieve their CAFE targets. Since the Wrangler is a high-volume seller for Chrysler, (and is also a bit of a gas hog due to it's near-vertical windshield and brick-like shape), they throw in tall but slightly more fuel-efficient 3.21 ratios in the X/Sport/Sahara 6-speeds (3.73s for the autos) as the majority of Wranglers sold are these variants. They can then afford to sacrifice a little mileage in their overall usage calculations for the entire fleet by giving the lower-volume selling Rubicons the 4.10s.
If Chrysler didn't offer the Hemi in any of it's vehicles, the Wrangler Sports would probably come with 4.10s as stock for the 6-speeds, 4.56s for the autos, & 4.88s for the Rubis.
Use to deal with this when I was a Stihl power equipment dealer. Called it carbon credits when they would force dealers to purchase a set quantity of their crappy over priced 4 cycle weed eaters. I had forgotten about that.
08-13-2011, 10:29 AM
#64
JK Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Houma, la
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine's really not that bad. I just (yesterday) drove to Destin, FL from South Louisiana and got 20.7mpg hand calculated. Totally stock with auto, 3.73, and drop in K&N. Power isn't great but not horrible.
08-13-2011, 11:31 AM
#65
I think the majority of the hate for this motor lies in the fact its not the 4.0.
I have no acceleration issues, I get 19 mpg average(but will change with tires and gears), and the motor is not unreasonably loud.
If you hate it so bad, change it, or sell the damn Jeep.
I have no acceleration issues, I get 19 mpg average(but will change with tires and gears), and the motor is not unreasonably loud.
If you hate it so bad, change it, or sell the damn Jeep.
08-13-2011, 04:26 PM
#67
JK Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Norfolk, ny
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEMI is no gas guzzler (by Jeep standards)
Gas guzzling Hemi??? I traded a 2006 Dodge Ram with a Hemi to buy my JK. It got 17 mpg around town and 20-22 mpg on the highway. The 3.8 can't do that and it has almost half the horsepower. The old "V8 = bad mpg" just isn't true now with the MDS engines. The government and/or Chrysler seem to be anti-V8. I think real world MPG should be more important than how many cylinders the engine has. If Chrysler has an engine that can get better MPG than the 3.8 with V8 power then why even make a 3.8? (or a 3.6 for that matter)
08-13-2011, 04:41 PM
#68
JK Jedi Master
Gas guzzling Hemi??? I traded a 2006 Dodge Ram with a Hemi to buy my JK. It got 17 mpg around town and 20-22 mpg on the highway. The 3.8 can't do that and it has almost half the horsepower. The old "V8 = bad mpg" just isn't true now with the MDS engines. The government and/or Chrysler seem to be anti-V8. I think real world MPG should be more important than how many cylinders the engine has. If Chrysler has an engine that can get better MPG than the 3.8 with V8 power then why even make a 3.8? (or a 3.6 for that matter)
My 3.8 does better than that.
08-13-2011, 05:17 PM
#70
JK Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Norfolk, ny
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you'd have to drive a HEMI to understand the difference. Even if the MPG is the same the differnce in Power is ridiculous for the same amount of fuel. I refused to buy a 3.8 - it was just insulting to the buyers intelligence to think that in this day and age a 200 hp V6 was acceptable -thats what the 4.0 was. I waited until Chrysler came up with something better. This was a thread on hating the 3.8..... I thought I was doing that pretty well......