Was it ever decided if the 2013 JK's were affected or was this issue resolved before they were released? Please forgive me if I overlooked the answer. I am a noobie to the forum.

 

Personally, I have not heard of a 2013 having issues.

 

My build date was August 2012 just FYI. Has under 500 miles on it.

 

The re-engineered heads were installed starting in July.

 

Looks like I may have barely missed it! Thanx!!

 

Yes, but keep an ear-out...nothing has been proven yet.

 

Just drove home from work. I think I read on here of people taking the jeep to 6500 rpm's. I can't imagine that. I have a manual trans and started revving the engine at a stop light. Going much over 4-5k rpm's seems so unnatural. No way am I going to intentionally take it to 6500.

 

It's a whole different story when the engine's under load, IMO. I have an auto, and once I passed 1K miles I got into "lets-see-what-this-Pentastar-can-do" mode for a little while. So I tried a WOT start from a stop sign a few times. What impressed me was how smoothly it went right up to redline in 1st gear and just slipped crisply into 2nd before I even realized it was at redline. It sounded as strong at redline as it did at 4000. I hardly noticed any power loss like most other engines exhibit when approaching redline. Compare and contrast to the 3.8 in my wife's JK which sounds and feels like it's going to self-destruct at anything over 4500.

IMO, if Chrysler can get this head problem licked, and assuming no other lingering gotchas or other flaws that exhibit at higher mileage, I'd say the 3.6 is a winner.

Now I wonder if that twin-turbo 3.0L version is still going to be produced? That'd be an engine swap I could really get into...

 

To many whistle and bell's the more unreliable the Jeep become's !

33

 

I thought the same thing when GM switched to HEI, and when they added emission controls, when they went to computer control, etc. But aside from some problems with the early version of the technology, it's generally worked out well, at least the way I see it.

The 90s+ vehicles that I've owned have been much more reliable than the 70s and 80s vehicles that I've owned. There are many reasons for that aside from and including the technology, IMO, but my experience with newer technology has generally been a good one. And I'm referring to technology under the hood, not the gadgetry inside the passenger compartment.

Sure, I'd love to have an old Power Wagon (or something similar) with a plain old pushrod V8 and points/condenser ignition -- not because it's more reliable than the new stuff (which I don't believe it is, proper maintenance considered) but because it's a hell of a lot easier/cheaper to fix when, not if, it eventually breaks. This, IMO, is the biggest downside to modern technology -- very little is repairable anymore and everything is just replaced and discarded. But that trend is present in a lot more than the auto industry.

At the end of the day, I'd rather be in an F-22 than a Nieuport 28. Just my