Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks (Non GMC but very helpful to me, and thanks)
| Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #120943] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 11:28  |
idrob
Messages: 645
Registered: January 2005
Location: Central Idaho
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I had asked a question of the group about the suitability of the Jeep Pentastar V6 for towing. I got many thoughtful responses and very much appreciate them all.
Yesterday I went to my Jeep Dealer and learned more, plus test drove both the V6 and V8 versions. For what it is worth, this is what I found.
1. They are very willing to let me bring my trailer down and take it for a test tow with the V6.
2. The 5.7 L V8 is a newer design, first available in the mid 2000's. I had thought it was one of the old ones just updated. But no, it, like the V6 is a "modern" engine.
3. The test ride (not tow) with the V6 was nice, but it had to downshift a lot to get the RPM's up to go into the power range (opinion of course, but that is what it felt like). Shift points when floored were 6000 RPM.
4. The 5.7 L V8 positively lunged when floored. The burst of power was quite incredible. Without a doubt it would be a very nice engine to have.
I now feel, with all of your advice and help, that the V6 would do the job, have a good long life, and I would probably be happy enough with it. But once I drove the V8 I saw that it would simply be an effortless engine to tow with here in the mountains of the West. I think the V6 would work harder towing, and probably not have any better gas milage than the V8. With 4 cylinder deactivation on the V8, the highway milage should be close to the V6, solo.
I have not made the purchase yet, but when I do the V8 will probably get the nod.
And, once again, my thanks for all of your input. It was most helpful to me. This is a wonderful group to belong to, and I hope that the fact that the question was a bit "off topic" vs. GMC motorhomes was OK.
Rob Allen
former owner of '76 x-PB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #120978 is a reply to message #120943] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 17:51  |
Gary Worobec
Messages: 867
Registered: May 2005
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have the Hemi 5.7 in my Jeep Grand Cherokee (2005) . It passes everything
except gas stations. The "drops down to 4 cylinder" feature is a myth.
Mileage is pretty bad. I would think 10 to 12 when towing. Best I've had on
the highway not towing is 17. Other than that it is excellent at stop
lights and did have to put a starter in it at 90,000 miles.
Thanks
Gary and Joanne Worobec
1973 GMC Glacier
Anza, CA
----- Origina Message -----
From: "Rob Allen" <profmail@wildblue.net>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks
>
>
> I had asked a question of the group about the suitability of the Jeep
> Pentastar V6 for towing. I got many thoughtful responses and very much
> appreciate them all.
>
> Yesterday I went to my Jeep Dealer and learned more, plus test drove both
> the V6 and V8 versions. For what it is worth, this is what I found.
>
> 1. They are very willing to let me bring my trailer down and take it for
> a test tow with the V6.
>
> 2. The 5.7 L V8 is a newer design, first available in the mid 2000's. I
> had thought it was one of the old ones just updated. But no, it, like the
> V6 is a "modern" engine.
>
> 3. The test ride (not tow) with the V6 was nice, but it had to downshift
> a lot to get the RPM's up to go into the power range (opinion of course,
> but that is what it felt like). Shift points when floored were 6000 RPM.
>
> 4. The 5.7 L V8 positively lunged when floored. The burst of power was
> quite incredible. Without a doubt it would be a very nice engine to have.
>
> I now feel, with all of your advice and help, that the V6 would do the
> job, have a good long life, and I would probably be happy enough with it.
> But once I drove the V8 I saw that it would simply be an effortless engine
> to tow with here in the mountains of the West. I think the V6 would work
> harder towing, and probably not have any better gas milage than the V8.
> With 4 cylinder deactivation on the V8, the highway milage should be close
> to the V6, solo.
>
> I have not made the purchase yet, but when I do the V8 will probably get
> the nod.
>
> And, once again, my thanks for all of your input. It was most helpful to
> me. This is a wonderful group to belong to, and I hope that the fact that
> the question was a bit "off topic" vs. GMC motorhomes was OK.
>
>
> --
> Rob Allen
> former owner of '76 x-PB
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #120998 is a reply to message #120943] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 20:04 |
Tim Conway
Messages: 412
Registered: September 2005
Location: Long Island, New York
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Rob Allen wrote:
> And, once again, my thanks for all of your input. It was most
> helpful to me. This is a wonderful group to belong to, and I hope
> that the fact that the question was a bit "off topic" vs. GMC
> motorhomes was OK.
I found it very interesting and informative, and principles of power
-- mileage -- trade offs -- towing -- et al, are on topic for GMCers.
Tim Conway
LI NY 78 PB
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121030 is a reply to message #120943] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 22:41 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob--I'll probably still be the lone ranger on this, but you have to get used to how newer small displacement engines operate with 5,6 or 8 speed transmissions. Although they may shift more often and rev higher, there is nothing wrong with that. Many of us are used to low speed torquers that don't downshift and lug quite well, but in my opinion that's all old school. I think the hemi will not be as reliable nor will it have any decent resale, although that may not be important.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
|
| Re: Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121034 is a reply to message #120943] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 23:35 |
Chr$
Messages: 2690
Registered: January 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
FWIW, the 4.0 OHC V6 In my 2001 Explorer with a 5 Speed Auto is quite a surprise, and outperforms a lot of V8 trucks, and tows very well. I get 15MPG on average, but a lot of you know how I drive... 
At 107K miles, It still runs like new, and all I have had issues with is the tranny, (and replaced the t-stat housing last month) but then towing a boat at 85 MPH in 115 Degree heat every two weeks will do that. 
-Chr$: Perpetual SmartAss
Scottsdale, AZ
77 Ex-Kingsley 455 SOLD!
2010 Nomad 24 Ft TT 390W PV W/MPPT, EV4010 and custom cargo door.
Photosite: Chrisc GMC:"It has Begun" TT: "The Other Woman"
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121035 is a reply to message #121034] |
Wed, 06 April 2011 05:55 |
k2gkk
Messages: 4452
Registered: November 2009
Karma: -8
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Our 2002 Explorer with same engine is a slug,
in my opinion. It gets about 13-14 mpg around
town and, if nursed at about 65, sometimes gets
to 18 on the highway. It will automatically
downshift out of overdrive 5th on just about
any grade other than the most gradual. And that
is with 3.73:1 axle ratios.
I wish we had bought the 4.6 V-8.
I can't believe that ANY V-8 would be so puny!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ D C "Mac" Macdonald ~ ~~
~ ~ Amateur Radio - K2GKK ~ ~
~ ~ USAF and FAA, Retired ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Oklahoma City, OK ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ "The Money Pit" ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ex-Palm Beach, 76 ~ ~ ~
~ www.gmcmhphotos.com/okclb ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
----------------------------------------
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> From: cchoffataz@yahoo.com
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:35:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks
>
>
>
> FWIW, the 4.0 OHC V6 In my 2001 Explorer with a 5 Speed Auto is quite a surprise, and outperforms a lot of V8 trucks, and tows very well. I get 15MPG on average, but a lot of you know how I drive... :roll:
>
> At 107K miles, It still runs like new, and all I have had issues with is the tranny, (and replaced the t-stat housing last month) but then towing a boat at 85 MPH in 115 Degree heat every two weeks will do that. :lol:
> --
> -Chr$: Perpetual SmartAss
> 77 Ex-Kingsley 455, Power Drive, 3:21 FD, Quadra bag. The Engineer's Motorhome
> Scottsdale, AZ
>
> Photosite: Chrisc "It has Begun"
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121037 is a reply to message #121035] |
Wed, 06 April 2011 06:32 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mac,
I reckon your Explorer was built on a Monday morning or Friday after lunch,
Chris's was a Wednesday build! ;-)
Disclaimer: this email is a feeble attempt at a bit of humor and is not
meant to denigrate, deprecate, besmirch, befoul, run down, etc. the Ford
Motor Company or the United Auto Workers.
Double ;-)
Regards,
Rob M.
USAussie - Downunder
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121061 is a reply to message #121035] |
Wed, 06 April 2011 11:21 |
idrob
Messages: 645
Registered: January 2005
Location: Central Idaho
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| k2gkk wrote on Wed, 06 April 2011 03:55 |
Our 2002 Explorer with same engine is a slug,
in my opinion.
I wish we had bought the 4.6 V-8.
I can't believe that ANY V-8 would be so puny!
|
Well, there was at least one that was useless, the V8 put in the Olds Cutless (Gutless) of the early 1980's. I think it had 105 hp and would hardly move. Ditto to the V6 that GM put out in the mid 80's for the S 10's. A more worthless engine I have never driven! Anything built today is so vastly superior to some of those engines that it is not funny. It is one reason I was concerned that the 5.7 L hemi now used as the V8 in the Jeeps was an old design engine, but I found out it is not. The 318 V8 I had in one Jeep was no big prize either, just a bit better than the old 4 L 6 inline they used for years. That 6 was a bulletproof engine, but not all that great a tow rig.
Rob Allen
former owner of '76 x-PB
|
|
|
|
| Re: Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121093 is a reply to message #120943] |
Wed, 06 April 2011 14:55 |
Chr$
Messages: 2690
Registered: January 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My explorer is the sport trac pickup model, which is probably lighter than the 4dr wagon due to less glass, and the bed is made out of FRP. I got better mileage before we switched to oxygenated fuel here. I can pass a lot of other trucks at a stoplight while pulling my boat. Yours probably is a dud.
I had a 93 S10 Blazer 4.3 and it was a Dud. My buddy had the same year and his was a screamer. Prolly truth in that monday morning thing, but these 4.0 engines were made in Cologne Germany, and the tranny in France. (I have never gotten an automatic in a rental in France, what the heck do the french know about AT's anyway?)
-Chr$: Perpetual SmartAss
Scottsdale, AZ
77 Ex-Kingsley 455 SOLD!
2010 Nomad 24 Ft TT 390W PV W/MPPT, EV4010 and custom cargo door.
Photosite: Chrisc GMC:"It has Begun" TT: "The Other Woman"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Follow up on Jeep engine choice, and thanks [message #121181 is a reply to message #121061] |
Thu, 07 April 2011 07:20 |
Richard Denney
Messages: 920
Registered: April 2010
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Rob Allen <profmail@wildblue.net> wrote:
> The 318 V8 I had in one Jeep was no big prize either, just a bit better
> than the old 4 L 6 inline they used for years. That 6 was a bulletproof
> engine, but not all that great a tow rig.
>
I owned a '94 Grant Cherokee with the 318 and a '90 Cherokee Laredo with the
old AMC six. Both were reliable. Neither was particularly efficient. It's
difficult, though, to get good gas mileage when averaging 1.4 miles/hour
driving down Pritchett Canyon Road in Utah. I found the picture I made on
one of those trips backing the '90 down the Rock Pile on that road, using
the winch. Good times.
I also owned a '70 Cutlass and my family also had a '75 Gutless. Unleaded
fuel and other emissions controls were not kind to those old-school
Oldsmobile small-blocks, and the '70 predated that enough to go like a
rocket (stopping and turning? that was another story). The 305 corporate GM
engine in the 80's was so hamstrung it's a wonder it ran at all.
Transitioning to computer-controlled engines with electronic port injection
sure opened up a lot of design possibilities, but it took a long time for
those designs to really take advantage of the technology. The 3.5-liter V6
in the '09 Ford Flex I just bought runs surprisingly well considering the
vehicle weighs 4600 pounds, and gets between 22 and 23 mpg on my 150-mile
round trip commute to Baltimore. And the 3.5-liter V6 in my '95 Toyota T100
will pull quite a heavy trailer with no real difficult, even with its manual
transmission. But uphill in overdrive? No. And the relatively wide spacing
of those five gears means it doesn't do as well at the pump as the Flex,
either, despite being lighter and having a similar shape. Adding the
computer-controlled transmission to the computer-controlled engine really
helps keep the engine running at its best efficiency under any given loading
circumstances.
As long as the engine is designed for high torque loads, that is.
Accelerating and climbing with more weight still means more force applied to
the bearings at a given RPM.
Rick "thinking a smaller engine in the GMC [obligatory GMC content] would
need to be coupled to a transmission with more speeds and better management"
Denney
--
'73 230 "Jaws"
Northern Virginia
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Sep 29 23:30:08 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06202 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
