Jeep lineup in the next few years

[Cutlass327]

Thank you, Jeepdreamer! You beat me to it

But yes, I do admit I would like a 4 door, it does seem like it would have it's useful times in a few years...

I will say though, with our emissions crap and the required DEF Diesels need now, they seem to be a bigger pain. Plus the fact that you have to fill up with fuel AND the DEF, the MPG gain of a diesel in money savings will not be as much anymore. Diesel fuel is higher than regular gas, DEF is an added cost, repairs/maintenance to the DEF system, all add up.

[Longtallsally]

I agree with Cutlass. IMO, if you want a diesel, you want an OOOOLD one so you can do things like 100% veg. We shopped on a new X5 diesel for my wife- good mileage at ~25 mpg, but he also told us that it could only take "high test" diesel and that even B98 is pushing it.

Another point, in terms of this mythical improvement in economy. I just don't see it. Our anvil powered '85 Gwagen with a 5cyl NA diesel gets 22mpg at around 60 mph steady (and it won't go a whole lot faster). Well, my '12 Rubicon got just under 21 mpg at 70 mph in a cross country drive to break it in- with AC, cruise, GPS, etc. Even taking the X5 improvement of ~4 mpg, that's not enough to matter to me. Now if you start talking apples to apples in vehicles (obviously the x5 and JK are not) and tell me I can get 30 mpg in most conditions and have the same capability, ou got my attention. But I don't see that happening.

My last point is on this notion of these no longer being "Jeeps". I call baloney. Find a more capable off road machine out of the box than the Rubicon. And what makes the CJ so great? It didn't even have lockers, had poor articulation, was maybe as comfy as a Rover, only marginally more reliable with the hodge podge of parts, and had plenty of weak components in the D20 axle- not to mention the rust issues. The TJ w the first step to modernizing the Jeep in finally introducing coil springs and a proper HVAC system. Explain the difference there between the TJ and JK? Similar running gear, still body on frame, etc. Sorry, but those statements are pretty unfounded. The JK has more power, better economy, more space, better articulation, more creature comforts, and I think I've read a new and better version of the lockers (in the rubicon). Explain to me how this is worse? Time marches on, folks. If a real Jeep only has leaf springs, well I dunno what to say.

[ClaasB.]

[kickingprop]

Explain the difference there between the TJ and JK?

The difference was the TJ came with the 4.0 which was a fantastic motor that made good low RPM torque which is whats important for off-road considerations. The POS minivan engine that came in the first 4yrs of the JK made no torque in the lower RPM band. The pentastar V6 seems to be a vast improvement over the 3.8 but in my opinion, losing the I-6 engine configuration was a terrible move.

[Scrambler84]

Its called jealous, but don't follow me, you wont make it.

[Bad Karma]

Fixed it for ya!

Though, like a fungus, the JKs and their off shoots (J8 etc) are growing on me. May be another 20 years before I could afford one but oh well.

They still made Jeeps in 1986... It was 1987 that the stopped making Jeeps...

[jeepdreamer]

They still made Jeeps in 1986... It was 1987 that the stopped making Jeeps...

Lol...That is one of those Jeep related statements that will forever be a contentious bone needing picked. Personally, I look at Great granddady Jeep as the bench marker. The MB and early CJ2a are Jeeps, the 2a included since it was their first step into the civilian side of the market. Any and all that followed have been upgrades, improvements, or just plain strays from the conceptual fold. Does that make them "not a Jeep"... no. Jeep changed from a vehicle to a lifestyle and since no two people are the same it only follows that off shoots of the Jeep heritage would follow. For me, as long as it stays close to the do it all as best you can and get your butt somewhere others vehicles fear to tread... then I'm ok with it.

[Hilldweller]

The difference was the TJ came with the 4.0 which was a fantastic motor that made good low RPM torque which is whats important for off-road considerations. The POS minivan engine that came in the first 4yrs of the JK made no torque in the lower RPM band. The pentastar V6 seems to be a vast improvement over the 3.8 but in my opinion, losing the I-6 engine configuration was a terrible move.

The dyno figures from the 4.0 to 3.8 to the 3.6 aren't all that remarkably dissimilar ----- real dyno results, not factory propaganda.
What does stand out and make the big differences are the transmissions mated to those mills.

The newest iteration of the Wrangler is wonderful to drive when the gears and tires are properly matched. The new Rubicon is fantastic on the road and in the thick of things.

[grecy]

The dyno figures from the 4.0 to 3.8 to the 3.6 aren't all that remarkably dissimilar ----- real dyno results, not factory propaganda.
What does stand out and make the big differences are the transmissions mated to those mills.

The newest iteration of the Wrangler is wonderful to drive when the gears and tires are properly matched. The new Rubicon is fantastic on the road and in the thick of things.

If you analyse the dyno graphs carefully, you'll notice the shape of the curves are quite different.
The 3.6 has more area under the torque curve than any other engine, making it much, much more "driveable".

It's tuned completely differently throughout the rev range.

-Dan

[Grasslakeron]

Think of it like sesame street: What doesn't fit..... CJ......YJ.......TJ or LJ....... JK? BTW, if that is what the new jeeps will look like in a year or two.....Jeep/Fiat can keep it.