Saw nice truck

[wildbill23c]

i heard that jeep couldn't meet new emission requirements with their good ol 4.0 so they went to the v6. having had many 4.0s and only one or two v6s, the v6 was more like i was driving a car. it was fine for what we used the jeep for but i don't know about off-road.

and i had one f150 with the 300-6 in it. it got horrible gas mileage. it was a 95 or 96 eddie baur and was an automatic. great for truck use but bad for a daily driver in texas where you spend more time on the highway than anything else when you are going anywhere. 120 miles from san antonio to home, or 150 from brownsville to home and it took a bunch of gas.

The V6 in the Jeeps is from their mini-van/car platforms so that's why they're like driving a car because in reality that's what you are driving anyways. Both my Jeeps had the 4L I6, great engines, fuel efficient, not so much, but they weren't really built for efficiency, they were built for their low end torque. I had 232k on my 96 Jeep Grand Cherokee on all original powertrain, never did any mods to it, kept it stock, beat the crap out of it offroad, never had any failures with it, kept it serviced properly, the failure was the viscous coupler in the transfer case around the 219k mark, which made it into a part time 4WD system which you wouldn't really notice unless you were trying to turn into a parking space or any other tight turning maneuvers on pavement. My 98 Grand Cherokee had 146k on it when I traded it in on my 08 Explorer with the 4.6L V8 I get about the same fuel economy with the V8 in the Explorer that I did in my 98 Grand Cherokee...my 96 Grand Cherokee got low 20's for fuel economy on the highway, never managed to get my 98 Grand Cherokee much over 18mpg for some reason, same engine/transmission, etc. I believe the only difference was my 96 Grand Cherokee had the 3.55 axle ratio where my 98 Grand Cherokee had the 3.73 axle ratio, I accepted the difference as acceptable because the 98 had a rear limited slip.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Stellantis Goes Six in a Row with a Twin-Turbo Inline-Six Engine

The 3.0-liter inline-6, called Hurricane, is set to debut this year and will offer two flavors of varying power for Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and other brands.

www.caranddriver.com

New 3 liter twin turbo i6 from stellantis this year..

Wimpy version over 400hp/450tq

Sweet version 500hp/475tq

Both are revvers, both have air/water intercooling... both will be plagued by typical stellantis electrical gremlins.

The length of a I6 combined with the width of a V8...

 

[Blmpkn]

BMW might take exception to that statement.

Eh, they can go suck on some strudelhausen lol.

The length of a I6 combined with the width of a V8...

The best of both worlds!

Thing is stupid wide though, your right.

 

[superj]

The V6 in the Jeeps is from their mini-van/car platforms so that's why they're like driving a car because in reality that's what you are driving anyways. Both my Jeeps had the 4L I6, great engines, fuel efficient, not so much, but they weren't really built for efficiency, they were built for their low end torque. I had 232k on my 96 Jeep Grand Cherokee on all original powertrain, never did any mods to it, kept it stock, beat the crap out of it offroad, never had any failures with it, kept it serviced properly, the failure was the viscous coupler in the transfer case around the 219k mark, which made it into a part time 4WD system which you wouldn't really notice unless you were trying to turn into a parking space or any other tight turning maneuvers on pavement. My 98 Grand Cherokee had 146k on it when I traded it in on my 08 Explorer with the 4.6L V8 I get about the same fuel economy with the V8 in the Explorer that I did in my 98 Grand Cherokee...my 96 Grand Cherokee got low 20's for fuel economy on the highway, never managed to get my 98 Grand Cherokee much over 18mpg for some reason, same engine/transmission, etc. I believe the only difference was my 96 Grand Cherokee had the 3.55 axle ratio where my 98 Grand Cherokee had the 3.73 axle ratio, I accepted the difference as acceptable because the 98 had a rear limited slip.

i know. i have had a number of cherokees, grand cherokees, comanche, and wranglers with the 4.0. our 03 wrangler is still a 4.0. i just sold my 99 cherokee with 355k on it a few months back and i would not have been worried to drive it anywhere in the usa. it was great truck.

i forgot that we have actually had two v6 jeeps. we had that 07 four door wrangler and an 01 liberty. both were ok for family vehicles and the liberty actually did well off-road but neither got better gas mileage than the 4.0 powered jeeps. especially once a small lift was put on, then they were down in the mid teens gas mileage and i only had 31s or 32s on them with one having the 4.10 and the other having 3.73 diffs in them.

the liberty motor went at 105k though because the radiator boke on the highway and the temp gage never registered there was no coolant in the engine. the knocking made us stop and that is how we found out it was down. the four door wrangler had 115k on it when we sold it because it was horribly uncomfortable for road trips. even the kids said hte back seat was horrible and they were coming from riding in a yj back seat.

 

[cbxer55]

BMW might take exception to that statement.

Datsun/Nissan as well. The early 240Z, 260Z 280Z and 280ZX were all straight sixes. I had two, 78 280Z and 80 280 ZX. They were happy revers. Those Z cars had the long hood look.

 

[Blmpkn]

Datsun/Nissan as well. The early 240Z, 260Z 280Z and 280ZX were all straight sixes. I had two, 78 280Z and 80 280 ZX. They were happy revers. Those Z cars had the long hood look.

They don't even begin to hold a candle to the 2jz.

 

[superj]

but those z cars were awesome cars. my brother had a few and they looked great and were a blast in the curves. same as my little straight 6 bmws that i autocrossed for so many years

 

[Roert42]

I like the look of a nice long hood. I’m ok with replacing some V6/8 with I6s in that way.