by "HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
Published 02/24/2017 at 15:10
by "HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
Published 02/24/2017 at 15:10
Tags: Jeep
; Rant
; BU
STARS: 4
Been doing some thinking with the Compass embargo being lifted today- The thing Jeep needs (other than way better quality control) is new small engines. The 2.4 and 1.4 are fine engines because they hit their marks in the market...but they don’t do the brand justice. The main reason is power, and not peak power, but low rev power. With Jeep the brand identity all about the outdoors, ruggedness, “best in class *snicker* capability” etc, etc Jeep needs to do more than just hit the same targets all the other guys are hitting, they need to tailor their vehicles to meet their brand needs.
The hardware mostly delivers on that promise:
Good angles
decent armor
a “low range” that should be enough.
Jeep could, and should IMO, be putting their 2 speed powertrain into EVERYTHING with the 9 speed because there would be no problem...but they don’t (for whatever reason).
I assume its costly and they probably say “well 20:1 crawl ratio is enough” and they do have a point I mean there are lots of vehicles in the past and present that get by without a dedicated reduction box...the first Land Cruiser’s come to mind.
Those first 20 series weren’t initially offered with a dedicated low range box, instead relying on a “creeper” gear in the transmission and the grunt of a huge low revving I6.
You can get away with that if you have enough low end power to pull it off. The 2.4, does not.
Its a big I4 and reasonably powerful but being naturally aspirated it just doesn’t have the grunt down low to produce enough power to take advantage of the decent crawl ratio. Examples
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
If you figure the stall speed on the TC is somewhere in the 1300-1700 rpm range and the torque multiplication factor is 2 what kind of HP numbers is that 2.4 kicking out at those speeds? 50 hp...tops. Its just not enough to move 3600 lbs up a loose hill, fighting what little power it has with the brake based TC.
So, the 3 solutions to this would be:
1. Low range, double the torque multiplication double the power output...make the most of what you got. As a bonus, it increases the rev range as well meaning torque is multiplied higher up where more torque is being made. Jeep has the ability to do it...not sure why they wont.
2. Locking differentials. If it had locking differentials it wouldn’t need to waste power fighting against the brakes to keep traction, as torque would be biased across the diff. With an open based brake system you still have to send half your torque to each side and so half your power is being absorbed by the brakes. Jeep has no way to do this practically, though it COULD add a diff lock in the rear with the 2 speed system.
3. POWER! and more of it, specifically in the low rev range, ideally peaking around 1800-3500 rpm where you would need it most. This is the easiest and most likely avenue. In fact Jeep already has this engine, the 2.0 Multi-jet II diesel
only 168 hp (@3750) but 258 lbs-ft (@1750).
The rub is that you can’t get it with the 9 speed and its 20:1 crawl ratio on account of the ZF9hp28 transmission is torque limited to 280 Nm (206 lbs-ft). Meaning no “trailhawk” with this engine.
What FCA needs to do is create a version of its 2.0 Turbo, tuned to low rpm power, peak torque would be, yeah, 206 lbs-ft, available from 1800-4000 with solid torque in the 1500 range. It wouldn’t matter if it didn’t have better peak numbers than the 2.4 it would be a better engine off road (a rough increase in 50% stall speed power) and on road, allowing the 9 speeds many overdrives to be used more resulting in real world fuel economy gains, not to mention better mid range performance.
The Trailhawk doesn’t need too much more power, its usually right there at the edge of making it with the 2.4 most times, but it does need a little something extra. Despite the fact that downsizing and turbo is no longer in vogue I think in this case, it makes a ton of sense. Given that Jeep is developing just such an engine , it gives me hope that a de-rated, torque happy version of this could be replacing the 2.4 in trailhawk models in the future. finally making them as off-road capable as they want to be.
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
02/24/2017 at 15:16, STARS: 0
DIESEL
"itschrome" (itschrome)
02/24/2017 at 15:19, STARS: 0
You’re wrong but were so close to being right. What they need is a transmission that can handle the diesel. Or rather a better diesel and a stronger trans to go with it. But ultimately what does it matter, no compass will ever get used where the config they will be offering wont be enough for it.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 15:19, STARS: 0
Likely not in the cards in the us, would be cool though
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 15:22, STARS: 1
The larger zf9hp48 in the Cherokee can handle it, but it’s not used for whatever reason (probably to big, is significantly heavier). You would be surprised though at how many people take the trail rated thing seriously though...people use them
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
02/24/2017 at 15:24, STARS: 0
I like the Compass because it’s the first good looking Fiat Jeep. My only experience with the 2.4 Tigershark was in the Fiat 500X that my wife thought was very cute but she rejected as soon as she drove a Subaru Impreza (which we bought). At least in the 500X it has a noticeably rough idle for a modern car, especially one that’s not intentionally making noise because it’s something sporty. Not sure if that experience is unique to the 500X or that’s just how the engine is. I don’t care enough about the vehicles equipped with it to go find out.
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
02/24/2017 at 15:26, STARS: 0
I doubt that they’re particularly interested in off-road chops, but they’ll end up using the JL turbo 2.0 in everything since they spent over $3.50 developing it.
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
02/24/2017 at 15:28, STARS: 0
Yeah it’ll never happen in the US. I just noticed the theme of your post was a lack of torque and I thought DIESELLLLL
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 15:31, STARS: 0
i hope they do, more torque is just what jeep needs, and sans huge lazy engines and diesels, turbo is the way to go.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
02/24/2017 at 15:36, STARS: 0
I’m sure that the improved components you’re suggesting would tip the price to another category. I’ve never shopped Jeeps, but I’m sure that sales and Jeep would much rather point you to the marginally less expensive yet significantly more profitable and capable Wrangler.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 15:37, STARS: 1
Well they are making a 2.oT, might as well just have it slot in there for a mid cycle refresh, could be cheaper than keeping both engines around.
"FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com" (alphaass)
02/24/2017 at 16:21, STARS: 1
I don’t know if I agree with using the 2.0T exactly, but they need to get rid of the 2.4 ASAP. It’s a terrible engine. Test driving a Renegade with one pretty much killed any desire I had to buy the car. It was easily the worst thing about the entire vehicle and that was just a test drive on roads.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 16:24, STARS: 1
Yeah the world engine was always rough an unrefined, if powerful on paper. I think a 2.0 turbo with a heavy focus on low rev power and linear repsonse would be perfect for this thing.
"nermal" (nermal)
02/24/2017 at 16:37, STARS: 0
They have a diesel / manual / 4x4 option in most of the smaller Jeeps in Europe. Not sure why it isn’t offered in the US, as I think they would sell well.
The Trailhawk models all fit into the “rough dirt road” level of off roading. Anybody needing more than that (or just to look like they need more than that) is going to buy a Wrangler anyways.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 0
Yeah, I think the diesel would be cost prohibitive to bring here, but it would be a neat engine for us.
The trouble is there is no middle ground for capability vehicles anymore. There is legit off roader, and forrest service road. 90% of my offroading miles could be done in a renegade, 9% needs something more, and only 1% requires the hard core stuff like lockers and such. However, that 9% locks out a lot of really cool places. Something in the marketplace that could pick up that 9% and still get better mileage would be pretty great. That space is only occupied by the KL cherokee right now...which you can’t lift and looks terrible.
"nermal" (nermal)
02/24/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 1
Wouldn’t a Tacoma / Frontier or 4-Runner slot in between the little Jeeps and the Wrangler?
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 16:49, STARS: 0
I consider them on par with the wrangler
"Carbon Fiber Sasquatch" (turbopumpkin)
02/24/2017 at 17:25, STARS: 0
Isn’t their only 2.0T engine the alfa engine? If they started shoving that in the Jeeps, it would be hard to say no
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 17:29, STARS: 1
There is a new Hurricane engine going in the wrangler. Supposedly 2.0T with 300 hp. A detuned version of that would go nicely in a compass. Could you imagine a 300 hp 6 speed mini grand cherokee SRT?
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
02/24/2017 at 18:01, STARS: 0
What about using the eFlite, complete with short van gearing, with a NA 4-cylinder of some sort?
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
02/24/2017 at 18:03, STARS: 0
eFlite?
"Carbon Fiber Sasquatch" (turbopumpkin)
02/24/2017 at 18:24, STARS: 0
I can only imagine it in my driveway lol. It would sell like crazy
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
02/24/2017 at 18:41, STARS: 0
The dual motor electrically variable transmission from the Pacifica Hybrid. You want low-end, smoothly-applied torque... that’ll almost certainly give it to you, especially if that 2-speed transfer case is somehow added to it.