I'm impressed as heck with the Chrysler 3.6 VVT

I'm on a 2 week business trip and rented a brand new Dodge Grand Caravan to haul all my gear in. On the way up I thought it felt peppy even with about 500 lbs of electronic gear and other computer crap I had stuffed in it. Once I unloaded all the stuff I was pleasantly surprised just how quick it could be. Rev's to 6500 and is rated 283 SAE NET horsepower.

It can't be a light weight with all the electric doors and other luxuries that Chrysler has saddled it with. While it's not "fast" in the same league as a lot of current cars out there, I can remember some "muscle" cars from years back that I think this van could hang with if not outright spank.

Mileage was not too awful bad either. I averaged just about 23 fully loaded on interstate with a fairly heavy foot.

Still handles like a whale though

I've been eyeing a Jeep Wrangler and I guess now it will have to be a '12 or newer so I can get this engine.

I drove the Rubicon up in the Colorado mountains last week, wow, that engine really transforms the Jeep. Lots of pep now.

My sister loves her new Grand Caravan with the penta star. Also her husband works on the line at Borg Warner making parts for it.

The 300 with the 3.6L and 8 speed auto can get 31 MPG on the highway. That's impressive.

From what I can tell, the 3.6L made the Wrangler so much better that it was is the horrid 3.8L boat anchor.

The 2012 6 speed manual 2 door Wrangler goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. That's really quick for a brick.

I'll take a 2 door 6 speed Sahara in Winter Chill please:

From what I can tell, the 3.6L made the Wrangler so much better that it was is the horrid 3.8L boat anchor.

In spite of the language i understand what you're getting at, and i get tired of hearing it.

The 3.8 is a GREAT MOTOR. It makes the same power as the much-loved buick 3.8, is just as reliable if not more (i say more) and in a WAY smaller package (probably lighter too).

The only thing that unleashed all the bitching about this perfectly good motor was dodge putting it in a 5000 lb 4wd with a 4spd trans and 32" tires stock. THATS IT! And people go on and on blaming the motor when the problem is THE JEEP. You could put a similar contemporary motor thats more well-regarded like an l67 buick or the old amc 4.0 in there, and guess what? It wouldnt be ANY better, and it might even be worse!

Anyway...

Yeah the new motor seems pretty sweet. In a lot of ways its a shame it released so late, after everybody else already had a comparable motor. That pentastar v6 has been in the works basically since the MB takeover and probably because of that, got delayed all the way until now. If you read Allpar over the years you never would have guessed it would have taken until 2012. If it had come out in a reasonable time frame from when the project originated, it probably would have blown people's minds. But Nissans been selling 350hp v6s for a few years now and GM is putting their 300hp 3.6 in everything for years now.. so the thunder is lost. Thanks again MB!

New wranglers are borderline fast! Its kinda crazy!

I thought the 3.8 in the Wrangler felt very much like an older Wrangler. I guess a lot of it is that I don't really consider road manners when I'm thinking about a Jeep. If it can get me to the trail, drive the trail without breaking, and get me back home, I'm happy. I'm not interested in getting into any sort of speed competition at any point.

Takes me back to when the CJ5 went from 4 cylinders to a V6. Wow, that is a long time ago.

One thing thats kinda funny is that these stock 3.6 wranglers are as fast as a lot of the hemi swaps people have been paying big bucks for, since a lot of those people put on some pretty big tires.

But yeah caravans are pretty quick now. They've actually been fairly quick since the old 4.0/6spd combo came out but the pentastar pushes it a bit further.

We see a lot of minivans down at the rental car lot. The Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge versions do have a good amount of power. Plus, most of them come with satelite radio so I can listen to the Sinatra station while washing them! The Kia minivans also feel pretty quick.

In reply to Carro Atrezzi:

I also rented one recently. With the 8? speed trans, it was a blast to drive (relatively), and I got around 29 mpg on the trip. It was the first Chrysler product in years I was impressed with.

I owned a 07 Jeep Wrangler Sahara 4door 6spd hard top 4.10 gears with the 3.8. I LOVED the Jeep, it did eveything I ever asked of it. But the motor did not have enough power for that vehicle. It didn't have enough power with the stock tires, and when I put 33" on it, that only made it worse. (I knew that was going to happen). What always bugged me about the Jeep motor was that it was a V6 that made 205 hp. Really? 205 was the best Jeep could do? Ford and Chevy both have 300+ hp V6's. Not to mention that Ford recently put the Ecoboost in the F150, so you have a 4door truck that weighs more than a 4 door Jeep, but gets better gas mileage. Huh?

On the flip side, my mom has a 10 Jeep Wrangler bare bones, 2door, soft top, 6spd, stock everything, and it is night and day difference. The motor fits that Jeep perfectly. Its got enough power, and doesn't feel sluggish. But just the weight difference between the two is the main reason for that.

I'm also curious to why Jeep doesn't offer motor options anymore, V6 that's it. The TJ had a 4cyl and a 6cyl option. And the CJ's had the Iron Duke 4cyl, the 6cyl, and the 8cyl. Granted Jeep probably wouldn't sell a lot of Hemi Wranglers, but at least give people the option.

I would have a 4door Jeep again in a heartbeat, but it will be a few years as one of the reasons I sold mine was to get rid of my car payment. Man was it hard to mod something when you were still making payments on it.

Every time I drive a car with the 3.6 I'm very impressed. I want to see that motor dropped into something light and small.

I got around 29 mpg on the trip.

Holy crap! I hope thats a repeatable number.. my interest is piqued..

What always bugged me about the Jeep motor was that it was a V6 that made 205 hp. Really? 205 was the best Jeep could do? Ford and Chevy both have 300+ hp V6's.

Jeep didnt build that motor.. but it DOES make the same power as the OHV 90* v6s that ford and GM had. I agree it was a POOR choice for that vehicle. IMO dodge should have stuck the ~260hp 4.0L v6 in there from the get go if they werent going to offer a v8. Honestly the 300hp 4.7 would have been a friggin great engine for the jeep, too..

I'm also curious to why Jeep doesn't offer motor options anymore, V6 that's it. The TJ had a 4cyl and a 6cyl option.

Probably because noone bought the 4cyl.. To this day i have never seen a 2.4L TJ in person, and the older 2.5 is probably even more of a black sheep than the 3.8. Jeep should have offered a more powerful motor, but if they had done the 4.0 i dont think there would have been any need for 2 or more engine options. I think the 3.6 is proving that idea out right now.

Vigo said: Probably because noone bought the 4cyl.. To this day i have never seen a 2.4L TJ in person, and the older 2.5 is probably even more of a black sheep than the 3.8. Jeep should have offered a more powerful motor, but if they had done the 4.0 i dont think there would have been any need for 2 or more engine options. I think the 3.6 is proving that idea out right now.

Actually...I had a 97 TJ with the 4cyl. There are actually lots of the 4cyls around. Towards the end of the TJ years I think the number of 4cyls hit a sharp decline and most of the last ones were 6cyls. In fact from 2001 on there seemed to be a lot less 4 bangers around. But early on there were 4cyl TJs everywhere. I remember the first 5-10 I looked at were 4 cyls.

And just because I'm a pic whore...my 97 TJ with 4" suspension lift and 33"s. It was the only vehicle I've had that got better mileage around town than on the interstate. I couldn't pull itself down the highway at any type of speed. But it could crawl over anything you put in front of it. Dang it now I miss my Jeep.

my buddy had a JK with the 3.6. He averaged about 20, but he drives like a wack-job. I've owned lots of Jeeps and I always got 14 mpg, 4 cylinders (L-head, carbed, or injected 2.5), 6 cylinders (4.0, 4.2), V8 (360 carbed, 5.2 F.I., 5.9 carbed, 5.9 F.I.) and I always got 14. So a 30% improvement, along with what feels like a 100% jump in HP is a win in my book.

We just bought a new Grand Caravan with the Pentastar (At $17.2k plus taxes, how could I justify used?!) What a fantastic powertrain. I love the auto as well (6 speed): the combo offers smooth power, loves to rev, and the transmission is quick to downshift.

DrBoost wrote: my buddy had a JK with the 3.6. He averaged about 20, but he drives like a wack-job. I've owned lots of Jeeps and I always got 14 mpg, 4 cylinders (L-head, carbed, or injected 2.5), 6 cylinders (4.0, 4.2), V8 (360 carbed, 5.2 F.I., 5.9 carbed, 5.9 F.I.) and I always got 14. So a 30% improvement, along with what feels like a 100% jump in HP is a win in my book.

Dont forget it would do wicked pegleg burnouts.

octavious wrote: Granted Jeep probably wouldn't sell a lot of Hemi Wranglers, but at least give people the option.

I for one would dig deep to pay for one.

Actually...I had a 97 TJ with the 4cyl. There are actually lots of the 4cyls around. Towards the end of the TJ years I think the number of 4cyls hit a sharp decline and most of the last ones were 6cyls. In fact from 2001 on there seemed to be a lot less 4 bangers around. But early on there were 4cyl TJs everywhere. I remember the first 5-10 I looked at were 4 cyls

Well, keep in mind i said 2.4 TJ.. later ones. Ive seen tons of 2.5 wranglers and honestly before you go adding weight onto them they are ok by me. I have a particular interest in 2.4 TJs because of their boost-ability, but i have never seen one in person. Over on turbo-mopar we had a guy drop in briefly who turbod a 2.5 wrangler on mild tires (31s i think) and ran a 14.9 1/4 with low boost and no intercooler.