Jeep Garage  - Jeep Forum banner

test drive v6

11K views 62 replies 25 participants last post by  Technosavant 
#1 ·
I currently have 2004 Overland 4.7HO and I love it. But I am very into the "new" Overland... Can not decide on the motor yet. Was not able to take it for a ride( dealer is keeping it in the showromm only) but I did test drive Limited with V6. It was bit slow from the line. I am not sure if something was not right with the transmission or this is the way they ride. I was not racing it but I had to push the pedal over half way down to make it move and keep up with the trafic. It was shifting at 3,500-3,800RPM's and was working hard. When driving with 60mph and pushing down for passing it was down shifting and reving with same high rpm's. I drive my 4.7 with same style without pushing over 3,000rpm. Was there something wrong with the Jeep? If you don't pay attention on the engine rev's the ride was perfect and soft. Steering was little hard on moving the wheel but it was fine for me. I will take the 5.7 for a ride next time to compare. Maybe if the 3.6 has the 8 speed trany will be different story. What do you think?
 
#3 ·
The V-6 engine is a spinner, not a grunter. That means in those instances where you're flogging it for more power for passing, it has to kick down and build revs.

I've put 4000 miles on my V-6 Overland, including a drive through the Appalachians. Yes, when you need more power you need to get on the throttle. It isn't so overpowered that a breath on the accelerator will result in stump pulling torque and power. It's engineered for smoothness, which means you need more pedal for more power; it keeps things from being jerky from a stop. I've been in vehicles with aggressive throttle calibration; they sure feel powerful but they are hard to drive smoothly, especially in poor weather.

IMO, the behavior of the V-6 is exactly what I expected. If you want a more torquey engine, there's always the Hemi, but keep in mind that they were pretty conservative with that throttle calibration too- it doesn't feel that much more powerful off the line.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Techno is spot on here...

I just moved from a 2007 GC Limited with the Hemi to an Overland with the V6. I did a little review:
http://www.jeepgarage.org/showthread.php?t=14222

In general, the V6 is not designed for the power hungry. Yes, I think a new transmission with a lower first gear will give you a bit more pick-up at the get go, but the V6 does have some get up and go... when you ask for it. And, the current transmission is tried and true! It's part of the reason I went with the V6.

I suggest test driving both, and then choose in regard to your individual needs (and desires! :)).
 
#5 ·
Thank you all for the replays. I will be testing the hemi this weekend but since I do not tow or go off road alot I may take the V6. What is your MPG with the 3.6 when you push it little harder? With my short test drive on it I got 17.2mpg on a two lane blvd. with several traffic lights. To compare I am getting average 14.5~15mpg on my '04 Overland with 4.7HO with mostly short trips with traffic lights. This summer when i was in Europe I drove my frend's 2003 Jeep GC Limited with 3.0 diesel. It was better than the 3.6 from the line and was getting in the city average of 19mpg converted from l/km. By the way most jeeps there were diesel!
Wish they make it like the new BMW X5 with 3.5 diesel and 8 speed trany.
 
#7 ·
Diesels tend to be pretty torquey since they're usually very undersquare (more stroke than bore in the engine- they just don't spin very fast, but dang if they don't have some twist, and that torque is what you feel off the line).

I got about 21.5mpg on that 2000 mile trip. Not bad for a green engine and running a pretty constant 80+mph. I expect things will settle in to about 23mpg or so highway. In town, I think I'm probably getting about 16-17 or so. More or less right in line with the EPA estimate.
 
#6 ·
The V6 and 5spd is an excellent combo, IMHO. I just test drove a base Laredo 4x4 V6 last weekend and it was a LOT more than the typical around-the-block dealer ride. A friend's friend manages a dealership and they use the 2011 Laredo as a shuttle or loaner or whatnot, and it had over 1200 miles on the odometer when I got into it. It was very well-used inside, scuffs here and there but it wore the usage well, if you know what I mean.

The acceleration off the line with the 3.6 is certainly not V8 punchy but rolls on steadily all the way to redline; it's linear like a German powerplant and I like it. In comparison, the Hemi I tried a few weeks didn't exactly launch that enthusiastically either. I think they programmed the throttle to open slowly off-idle whether or not you floor the accelerator or press into it. One thing I tried off the line was very slightly throttling up while holding the brake and then launching...it made a big difference. I wouldn't do that often as it is extra wear&tear on a transmission.

Before the dealer manager and I went on our 44 mile test ride (we even went into a field, no mud though), I reset the fuel economy and trip meter readings. We slugged through some construction-zone crawl, hit the interstate for a bit (the avg MPG was at 25+ MPG and climbing on the interstate after ~10miles) and then went into a farm field trail. We hit a few curves, railroad tracks and some nasty cratered roads before venturing back home.

The base Laredo 4x4 handled all the bumps and ruts very well, remaining stable and quiet. In fact, the V6 is so quiet that the lack of visceral sound may make one think the vehicle is really slow; it isn't for what it is. I tried two 0-60 runs and we were just a tic over 8 seconds on both attempts. It's faster than my 2006 5.4L Ford XLT 4x4 Expedition for comparison. The transmission never felt slow or lazy and it readily kicked down when throttling up for passing.

Now for the interesting part. When we got home the computer was indicating an overall trip fuel economy average of 23.1MPG over that 44 mile run with a mix of mashed throttle and ~20 light-footed highway miles. Given that a vehicle computer has a propensity to overestimate by 5%-10% from actaul MPG, I was really impressed as I was expecting something pathetic like 14 MPG.

Unless you need the towing or that 1sec less acceleration time to 60mph, I don't see a need for the Hemi. Want....sure....need...no.
 
#9 ·
The Mercedes transmission is only mated to the 3.6L. The only reason why they're still using it is contract agreements. They have to buy a certain amount of them, and this has been going on for years.
 
#10 ·
Hello,

I have the Overland with the V6 and recently towed my 4,500 lb. Airstream trailer down to Cape Cod. I have the brake controller and a Reese WD setup for the trailer. Yes, you know the trailer is back there, but I can say that the setup is fine for this driver. Averaged 14.7 mpg on the trip which was about 260 miles round trip with about 60 miles rolling around the Cape (like city driving). Pulling unto the highway you did need to mash the accelerator and it took a bit, but was a steady progressive that I am comfortable with. In my various renditions of RVs, I have had the truck camper, several class Cs and two different Class As, so my expectations are a bit different than yours might be. Also, as I only pull this trailer and a snowmobile/ATV trailer less than 25 % of the time, I find the other times that the V6 is very adequate. I agree with one summation in that the Hemi motor is different and seems to be quicker off of the line.... but not a fan of that over the last few years unlike my 19 year old who has loved all of our various Hemi equipped trucks and Jeeps. Rover
 
#13 ·
I ordered the hemi and test drove both.....the V6 is a fine motor and for most users will perfectly fit their needs.
 
#14 ·
I drove both and was extremely impressed by the Pentastar. It is way more capable than the piglike V6 from my prior '06 Touareg.

All that said, the cromagnon in me just had to have the Hemi. Err, I mean, high altitude, deep snow, towing needs, and the ass-o-dyno-meter required the 5.7L.

YMMV. Literally.
 
#16 · (Edited)
Sadly, I think that will be the case for me too. I wanted to save the money both in the initial outlay, fuel costs and additional costs of things like Magnaflow exhaust. Standard of comparison was 2008 Hemi WK. Test drive was just to compare the two engines in the WK2 before ordering and included accelerating up a steepish hill, 45-65 throttle roll ons, etc.

The six was the first test ride, and really seemed pretty reasonable compared to the 08 Hemi (330HP) although it was pretty busy and frequently down shifting to meet thottle/grade/speed demands. I was not calling for WOT but generally in the 60-75% throttle demand range. Slow and steadyish.

Then, unfortunately, I test drove the 5.7 with the improved, (compared to '08), HP and torque. Effortless acceleration, reserve power and overall far more smile worthy in this heavy vehicle.

When it comes time to write the check(s), the test ride will have been an expensive one for me.
 
#18 ·
What's really sad is that these 10 year old parts bin Mercedes 5-speeds are choking the hell out of both GC engines. The gear ratios in 1st, 2ond, and 3rd are similar to the old 1980's 3 speed automatics. Chrysler/Jeep better get on the ball because the word is starting to spread.
I agree with Walterhudson regarding the old technology. I love my 2004 Overland even is 10years old model but for something re-designed with tag 2011 model should be more like 2011 when comes to powertrain. All other technologies are up to date but I am planning on driving it more often then looking "my pictures" on the nav screen. I even think that the new 3.6 motor is some sort of outdated. For example new Audi Q7 comes with 3.0 turbo with 272hp, 8speed transmission, gets 16/22mpg, has gross weght 7,000lb (vs 6,500lb on the Jeep), can tow 5,500lb (on the 3.0T!). This vehicle moves better than the Jeep, has 3rd row, has full time all wheel drive - quattro system and starting MSRP is $45,700 with invoice $42,500. Again Jeep is #1 in my short list but I think Germans are making cars that are trully 2011.
 
#19 ·
For example new Audi Q7 comes with 3.0 turbo with 272hp, 8speed transmission, gets 16/22mpg, has gross weght 7,000lb (vs 6,500lb on the Jeep), can tow 5,500lb (on the 3.0T!). This vehicle moves better than the Jeep, has 3rd row, has full time all wheel drive - quattro system and starting MSRP is $45,700 with invoice $42,500.
And how much does it cost when outfitted similarly to a Grand Cherokee Overland? I wouldn't be surprised if it's over $5K more expensive. I did price a Lexus RX alongside an Overland- to get one with the same features, you're at $47500 and climbing awfully fast.
 
#20 ·
Prices mentioned are "starting". When you add different options will get close to $60K.This is why Overland is #1 in my list. But Q7 is larger 7 passenger vehicle that looks really nice. We had to test it because wife likes it. My point was that they are able to make this thing move with 3.0T motor. Turbo and the trany make big difference.
 
#21 · (Edited)
On my test drives, both the Hemi and Pentastar were a let down off the line. Compared to my WJ 4.7HO with 3.73 gearing (and much less weight), both versions felt a major step backwards. Once up and going, the hemi had plenty of power, the V6 was adequate but not special. Sadly, the Grand isn't the SUV stop light terror it used to be.
 
#25 ·
Gearing kills this generation Grand Cherokee and the last generation with the 3.7L V6.
 
#31 ·
Best thing would be some 3.73:1 or 4.11:1 gears in the axles with a corresponding recalibration of the speedometer and of course a hit in fuel economy.
 
#30 ·
I'd say IF you are interested in a V8 vehicle it would be wise to get one soon. With the fuel economy / emission laws coming it's going to be near impossible to sell V8s with ratings of 13/19 MPG and meet the federal mandates.

This is the second golden age of muscle cars. We are reliving 1970 all over again. 1972 will be here before you know it.
 
#32 ·
Is it that bad? I have the 3.7L WK and while its no performer, its not terrible, relatively speaking. And some people tend to praise the 5spd auto. I think its the W5A580 that is the weak link in the combo. The shifts are slow compared to the 545RFE. I think the 545RFE is one of the best. Too bad they dont start using the 68RFE for the hemi, probably overkill though.
 
#34 · (Edited)
Not having DI on the Pentastar may actually be considered an advantage over DI. The DI can be a disadvantage if you plan on keeping a vehicle a long time: carbon buildup on intake valves. The DI design precludes any fuel running through the intake valves, i.e. the fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber at 1600+ psi just like fueling a diesel engine

Because fuel never runs through the intake valves on a DI system, over time the top side of the intake valves build up carbon deposits that affects air flow which affects power/performance. If the deposits get too high it begins to affect the complete closing of the intake valves. No matter what fuel or additive you run in a DI engine, it will never run through the intake valves and never clean off that carbon buildup; only head removal and physical cleaning ensures carbon cleaning 100%. That makes the Pentastar a better, lower-maintenance engine tens of thousands of miles down the road than a DI engine, IMHO.
 
#35 ·
On my test drives, both the Hemi and Pentastar were a let down off the line. Compared to my WJ 4.7HO with 3.73 gearing (and much less weight), both versions felt a major step backwards. Once up and going, the hemi had plenty of power, the V6 was adequate but not special. Sadly, the Grand isn't the SUV stop light terror it used to be.
+1

I did drive the Hemi yesterday and is a lot closer to my '04 4.7HO. I am not talking on racing kids with noise Honda's on the trafic lights, but 3.6 for new powertrain could be better. Even the "original" ML350 runs better compared to the Pentastar. Penta + turbo and 8speed trany will be ideal combo to make me trade my 39,000 miles 04' Overland with NO payments that I love a lot.
 
#45 ·
Who cares if the ecoboost V6 does make it into the exploder. V8's sound so much better and have so much more power waiting to be released than a already ragged out V6 boosted to the max.
 
#52 ·
Now you want to strip the turbos which wasn't even part of the debate lol

Ok, lets talk about the 35 which depending on the car can put down 263hp/249tq-283hp/251tq while mated to a 6 speed transmission when the pentastar put down once again depending on the car 290/260tq-305hp/269tq when only mated to a 5 speed transmission. Given the same car, odds are is that the two engines would make the same car just as quick while giving out the same about of gas mileage. However, if you want to also throw in the Duratec 37, then the pentastar would be out matched again.
 
#55 ·
Are we talking engine vs. engine or not? Yeah, IF you run an equivalently sized and equivalently modern engine with twin turbos, it's going to outperform the naturally aspirated competitor.

But comparing a forced induction engine to an aspro and using that power difference to claim that one is somehow more advanced than the other, you are using one single metric that isn't even comparable and letting it stand in for ALL features. Weight of the engine, cost of the engine, longevity (neither has been around long enough for longevity to be properly measured), those all come into play.
 
#56 ·
The engineers I hung around with when at GM always said that trucks were engineered to go 200,000 miles before a major overhaul was required. Usually, engines meant for trucks were heavier duty (5 main bearings rather than 3 mains in the V8s, for example). Today with longer powertrain warranties and shared platform components, I'm certain the design goal is 150,000 miles across the board...minimum.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top