The Right Spec: 2021 Jeep Wrangler

"It’s an underpowered POS." Geez, tough crowd. I'm not going to write a poem about but it seems fine enough. Certainly not "POS" or "joke". It's a 10 year old port-injected naturally-aspirated V6 that run on 87. What kind of output are you looking for and what is the competition offering that is world's better?

Just as comparison: Honda Passport 280hp@6000 262lbft@4700 Chevy Blazer 308hp@6700. 270lbft@5000 Jeep Grand Cherokee 293hp@6400 260@4000 Hyundai Palisade 291hp@6000 262lb-ft@5200 VW Atlas 276hp@6200 266lb-ft@2750 Toyota 4Runner 270hp@5600 278@4400 So the Pentastar doesn't seem like it is really lagging other V6s. It isn't like it is a Subaru or something.

@ajla - All of the Jeep guys I know have complained about reliability and a lack of torque. They don't call it a POS because...well... it's a Jeep thing. I encountered a fellow with a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon who had a 5.7 litre V8 installed. It is stock and he loves it. My friend had an engine failure last year with the V6 in his Rubicon. it was just off of warranty. Jeep washed their hands of it. The rebuild went sideways and he had to buy a V6. He's mad at himself for not going the 5.7 hemi route since it would have been cheaper overall. 5.7's appear to be more plentiful at the wreckers and less expensive to rebuild than the V6.

@ajla - point well taken but in a Jeep Wrangler, especially the Unlimited, it seems crude and underpowered. I'm not impressed with it or the Wrangler. Most of my seat time has been a passenger off-road. My son's full-sized F150 with an 8 inch lift on 35's with the 90's era stock 5.0 (195 hp) feels much more lively and entertaining. I even like my son's 90's era Cherokee with inline 6 more than the V6. I've test driven a pentastar Ram 1500 and found it to be okay but in a Jeep... nah.

@Lou_BC "and a lack of torque" It doesn't lack torque. Its torque output is right in line with nearly ever other V6 on sale today. It sounds like the issue is more with the application rather than the engine itself.

@ajla If you stick to 2-doors, leave it stock height/tires, never tow, etc... no it's still underpowered! The others aren't built like a billboard either and who says they don't suck too? 300 HP sounds OK, if conditions are otherwise optimal, but in a truck, look for max torque that's quite a bit higher than its HP. If it's equal or less than, it's way up the rev band and short in duration. Take the Honda 2000; 200 HP and 90 lbs/ft of torque! On the other end, we have diesels. 300 HP usually means around 600 lbs/ft or more, starting right off idle.

@DenverMike "and who says they don’t suck too?" Lol, it seems like you have some strong engine opinions and a very low threshold for calling something a "joke". Anyway, I disagree with your conclusions but I'm not in the market for a utility vehicle.

@ajla As you've demonstrated the other mommy mobiles are no better, and let's not kid ourselves about who it is that buys 18 of the 20,000 copies of these that go out every month, so this doesn't have to be either. But against the half tons and Mustangs and such that fill in the rest of the no-prestige 50 grand toy market it's exactly like a Subaru or something. Too slow to seriously consider.

@Dan How fast do you think a base engine Wrangler should be? Caranddriver.com/reviews/a19423222/2018- jeep-wrangler-unlimited-v-6-awd- automatic-test-review/ Certainly not thrilling, but seems acceptable. And, from what I can see that's actually a tick quicker than a ZR2 or 4Runner. I think if you're comparing it to a $50k PP1 Mustang GT then you are kind of off in the wheatfield.

@ajla I see two groups of people here: those who are willing to rev the pants off a DOHC V6 and those who are not. No, it's not going to make its power right off idle like an old pushrod V8. That's OK! It's meant to rev, and when you rev it, you find class-competitive acceleration. If you want your torque right off idle, get the 2.0T.

@ajla "Enthusiast" can mean all sorts of things around here. Being a gear head, it don't care one bit about laughable panel gaps, soft-touch plastics, infotainment and other gadgets/fluff. To others, those are their whole entire world, and really don't care what happens (or doesn't) when they hit the gas. It's laughable though, the attitude dudes in lifted/pimped Wranglers (and Tacomas) high on Redbull and Axe body spray, passing everyone, driving like a-holes, but once they get caught at a light (they can't run) all they can do is creep away, then everyone in a Kia Soul, CUV, etc, makes it a point to blow their doors off.. I just make sure they here my V8 as I go by!

@ajla I'd like it to be as fast as - and more importantly similar power delivery to, I don't care what it does at 6000 - a mid motor half ton. I've never driven a ZR2 but the Colorado with little tires and no skid plates already isn't great and the 4Runner is an absolute dog.

@ajla The Wrangler has been uncontested for too long, so buyers just accept its flaws. The 4Runner and Tacoma have no rivals (in the minds of their buyers) so Toyota does/spends the bare minimum. V8 Wrangler swaps are a thing though. If they're leaving it stock, and or never leave the city, yeah who cares?

@ajla When you are off-road torque is important. Requiring revs just increases the odds of breaking things. Granted, most of these will never see an off-camber hill or get scratched on a tight trail. Most buyers think "Off-road" is the 1000 yards of dirt to the cottage.

@ajla Jeep does offer 4 higher torque engine options on the Unlimited for people that really want that. I'm a little surprised that *serious* off-road types would be opting for the base engine. The Wrangler's problem is that the cheapest V6T Bronco is $37K. That's $3K less than the cheapest Ecodiesel, and $5K less than the cheapest *after rebate* 4xe (with the Ford being less complex than either). Then the 392 costs GT500 money and the Ford V6 outpowers the 2.0T and V6eTorque.

@ajla _ I have yet to see a Bronco in Canada (other than the sport). I did read that they were targeting the USA market first which makes sense. Bronco's are a runaway fad in the USA. I do know a hardcore Bronco guy.(2 full-sized Bronco's, 2 original ones, a pair of 70's era F250's) I'll have to get his opinion on the new Bronco next time I see him. The Bronco has created a buzz in the off-road community here but most aren't going to drop that amount of coin on a new rig. Jeep guys will most likely remain Jeep guys. The wannabee's might jump ship to the newest shiny thing.

@Lou_BC "Lack of torque" just means torque better suited to low range driving. And to driving around in stop and go traffic in a vehicle which is notoriously prone to pitching. I won't vouch for it's reliability, but for driveability, I personally find the Pentastar, with either a manual or the ZF8, about as good as mass production engines get. I did have, and miss, an Integra R and an S2000 (eventually modified for another 500 revs...), though. And do hit the magical 16000rpm tenor C on my 636 on pretty much every trip to the store. I suppose if one suffers from rpm allergies, the Pentastar, in a heavy vehicle, may not be one's cup of tea.

@dal20402 Up high, means the power is short lived. And you'll always be fighting the trans, stomping on it to kick-down 2 or 3 gears once you let off. A manual trans would help, and the problem is systemic for the class. Every year they keep getting bigger with more payload, yet minimal power increases. If not a V8, then similarly power and power curve. And it wouldn't amount to much added fuel consumption since your foot wouldn't need to have the gas pedal buried deep in the carpet fibers all the damn time .