View Poll Results: Do you like your 3.8L?
Yes
79
52.67%
No
71
47.33%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll
Really that bad?
JK Super Freak
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 3
From: Lancaster Pa
I don't think it's all that bad an engine.
It's more quiet than the 4.0 in my XJ, and runs about the same.
It's doesn't have the pep our 4.7 GC has, but then again it doesn't use as much gas.
I think all in all it's a pretty good engine.
It's more quiet than the 4.0 in my XJ, and runs about the same.
It's doesn't have the pep our 4.7 GC has, but then again it doesn't use as much gas.
I think all in all it's a pretty good engine.
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: N.Y. transplant in glendale arizona
no i dont like but yes i can live with it. i didnt buy it to race, and has enough power in 4 lo when u need it. i would just like more around town passing power.
its not that bad but just if chrysler was to ask me that question i would say no and hope they mite put somthing better in.
i dnt know mabey i get that passing power back when i find the funds to re-gear?
its not that bad but just if chrysler was to ask me that question i would say no and hope they mite put somthing better in.
i dnt know mabey i get that passing power back when i find the funds to re-gear?
JK Jedi
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,537
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
For my two-door auto with 4.10s, it is adequate. I think the fact that I get so much better fuel economy than my 4.0L TJ got makes it more tolerable. So yes I am satisfied with it, that doesn't mean I love it or wouldn't like something better though (who wouldn't?).
If I had a loaded up Unlimited with auto and the current 3.73's I would probably be less thrilled with it.
If I had a loaded up Unlimited with auto and the current 3.73's I would probably be less thrilled with it.
Last edited by pearl-drum-man; Aug 4, 2009 at 03:10 AM.
JK Jedi
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,537
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
JK Jedi
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,215
Likes: 10
From: Georgia
The theory is that for a V6, a 60 degree bank is most efficient in terms of vibration and smoother running. I don't debate that part. I'm sure there's something to it. But all you have to do is throw up a 30 plus year old CARBURETED 3.8 Buick V6 design. That engine would run rings around this Jeep motor. Can you say GNX? I know those had the turbo and all....but even the stock ones had way more power than what we have......AND got similar mileage. They weren't the smoothest runnin engines, though. LOL
JK Jedi
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,537
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
The theory is that for a V6, a 60 degree bank is most efficient in terms of vibration and smoother running. I don't debate that part. I'm sure there's something to it. But all you have to do is throw up a 30 plus year old CARBURETED 3.8 Buick V6 design. That engine would run rings around this Jeep motor. Can you say GNX? I know those had the turbo and all....but even the stock ones had way more power than what we have......AND got similar mileage. They weren't the smoothest runnin engines, though. LOL
True about the smoothness of the 60 degree 3.8L, it's hard to tell it is running sometimes at idle. The 3.7L in our Liberty has a definitive growl, and it is bone stock.
The 3.8L Buick was a great engine, I always wanted the '89 Turbo T/A personally, it was WAY under-rated on horsepower, rumor was so as to keep the Corvette at the top of the heap for status reasons. Back in the day my parents had a 1980 (non-turbo) Buick Regal with the 3.8L, it was indeed a nice performer in a pretty heavy car.
Last edited by pearl-drum-man; Aug 4, 2009 at 04:34 AM.
JK Super Freak
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 6
From: St. Louis, MO
Personally, I'm content with it. Not happy or thrilled. Just content. My last two Jeeps (XJ and YJ) both had the 4.0 I6 which I still feel performance wise is a superior engine. You want fuel efficency, you go V. You want torque you go in-line or larger displacement.
As I commented in another thread it appears the only real reason Jeep/DC abandoned the trusty I6 was due to the fact only the Wrangler was using it. When they still made the Cherokee they could and did use the same block in multiple platforms.
Now that begs the question, if the 4.7L V8 was available at the time of design of the JK (which it was) why didn't they have that as a power plant option? I can thing of a couple reasons.
1.) Gas milage. Even with the JK's "fuel efficent" V6 it's still very thirsty. People had been avoiding Chrysler products due to a lack of economy, this might be one reason.
2.) Transmission. The factory transmission might not have been able to handle the higher torque of the larger engine. But that doesn't seem to make sense given the number of people running super chargers and factory tranny's.
3.) It was supposed to come with one but a marketing rep/manager decided against it at the 11th hour. This last one seems to make the most sense to me. Anyone who's popped the hood on a JK has got to notice how much empty space there is under the hood. Something unheard of in modern car design. I have a sneaking feeling they intended to offer the V8 at one point but backed out at the last minute resulting in plenty of room for a Hemi swap.
As I commented in another thread it appears the only real reason Jeep/DC abandoned the trusty I6 was due to the fact only the Wrangler was using it. When they still made the Cherokee they could and did use the same block in multiple platforms.
Now that begs the question, if the 4.7L V8 was available at the time of design of the JK (which it was) why didn't they have that as a power plant option? I can thing of a couple reasons.
1.) Gas milage. Even with the JK's "fuel efficent" V6 it's still very thirsty. People had been avoiding Chrysler products due to a lack of economy, this might be one reason.
2.) Transmission. The factory transmission might not have been able to handle the higher torque of the larger engine. But that doesn't seem to make sense given the number of people running super chargers and factory tranny's.
3.) It was supposed to come with one but a marketing rep/manager decided against it at the 11th hour. This last one seems to make the most sense to me. Anyone who's popped the hood on a JK has got to notice how much empty space there is under the hood. Something unheard of in modern car design. I have a sneaking feeling they intended to offer the V8 at one point but backed out at the last minute resulting in plenty of room for a Hemi swap.
JK Newbie
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 53
Likes: 1
I would like to have more torque for a 4 door 4x4. The 5.7 Hemi should be an option. They have it in other Jeeps (Commander) so why not ours?
I clicked Yes but it's really Meh. It's not bad but it isn't that great either. For a six it is kind of puny considering the six Chevy has in the Camaro can produce nearly 300 HP and even the one in the Mustang is more powerful.
I think the engine should be slightly louder. It's a Jeep not a Camry, let's hear the it make some noise. If I can't hear what the engine is doing how do I know that it isn't falling apart?
JK Jedi
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,215
Likes: 10
From: Georgia
I think this is a great analogy. 
Personally, I'm content with it. Not happy or thrilled. Just content. My last two Jeeps (XJ and YJ) both had the 4.0 I6 which I still feel performance wise is a superior engine. You want fuel efficency, you go V. You want torque you go in-line or larger displacement.
As I commented in another thread it appears the only real reason Jeep/DC abandoned the trusty I6 was due to the fact only the Wrangler was using it. When they still made the Cherokee they could and did use the same block in multiple platforms.
Now that begs the question, if the 4.7L V8 was available at the time of design of the JK (which it was) why didn't they have that as a power plant option? I can thing of a couple reasons.
1.) Gas milage. Even with the JK's "fuel efficent" V6 it's still very thirsty. People had been avoiding Chrysler products due to a lack of economy, this might be one reason.
2.) Transmission. The factory transmission might not have been able to handle the higher torque of the larger engine. But that doesn't seem to make sense given the number of people running super chargers and factory tranny's.
3.) It was supposed to come with one but a marketing rep/manager decided against it at the 11th hour. This last one seems to make the most sense to me. Anyone who's popped the hood on a JK has got to notice how much empty space there is under the hood. Something unheard of in modern car design. I have a sneaking feeling they intended to offer the V8 at one point but backed out at the last minute resulting in plenty of room for a Hemi swap.
As I commented in another thread it appears the only real reason Jeep/DC abandoned the trusty I6 was due to the fact only the Wrangler was using it. When they still made the Cherokee they could and did use the same block in multiple platforms.
Now that begs the question, if the 4.7L V8 was available at the time of design of the JK (which it was) why didn't they have that as a power plant option? I can thing of a couple reasons.
1.) Gas milage. Even with the JK's "fuel efficent" V6 it's still very thirsty. People had been avoiding Chrysler products due to a lack of economy, this might be one reason.
2.) Transmission. The factory transmission might not have been able to handle the higher torque of the larger engine. But that doesn't seem to make sense given the number of people running super chargers and factory tranny's.
3.) It was supposed to come with one but a marketing rep/manager decided against it at the 11th hour. This last one seems to make the most sense to me. Anyone who's popped the hood on a JK has got to notice how much empty space there is under the hood. Something unheard of in modern car design. I have a sneaking feeling they intended to offer the V8 at one point but backed out at the last minute resulting in plenty of room for a Hemi swap.