Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
2010 Chevrolet Camaro revealed!
Spy Shots: Honda's hybrid Prius-fighter caught
Best shot yet of the Transformers 2 mystery Vette
Spy Shots: Subaru WRX STI spec C
In The Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes SLK55 AMG
First Drive: 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 w/VIDEO![In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Ford Flex Limited [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/07/ford-flex45015_thumbnail.jpg)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Ford Flex Limited [w/VIDEO]
First Drive: 2009 Mazda6
Should've bought a Garmin? Testing the iPhone 3G's GPS capabilities
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this threadJeep's second SEMA Concept: the Wrangler Ultimate
(Page 1 of 1)
Mr. Fletcher Esq. @ May 22nd 2007 5:51PM
#1: The 4.0L straight six couldn't meet tightening emissions standards, and from what I gathered at AllPar.com the manufacturing equipment was simply worn out.
Chrysler (I love saying that again instead of Daimler-Chrysler) put in a simple reliable engine with a low peak for torque. The 3.7 and 4.0 V6s may produce more horsepower and torque, but at higher RPMs than than the minivan motor. The 3.8L V6 is the best engine in Chrysler's current inventory that matches the off-road driving dynamics of the Wrangler. Also from what I've heard at AllPar is the 3.7 and 4.0 V6s wouldn't have enough excess production capability to meet the Wrangler's needs.
Chrysler won't put a V8 in for fuel economy reasons. Wranglers were never known for the economy, but a V8 would be a guzzler.
Is the minivan motor the perfect motor? No, but it seems to work well-enough for now. I'm sure in 2010-11 when the Phoenix V6s come online they will produce more power. Until then Chrysler made the best decision with what they had. Off-roaders are saying the 3.8L V6 is doing okay and their opinion is what matters most.
I agree with you that the Wrangler is way too heavy even with all the improvements. I wish all auto manufacturers would start putting the vehicles on a diet.