JL JOURNAL : The Inner Workings - JL Wrangler Gears vs Dynatrac ProRock 44

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
Now I have to wonder if FCA will still warrantee it after 37s go on???

Sadly, I think you know the answer to this one.

Just curious why switch to an air locker? And are you planning on selling the front axle skid plate?

I’d venture to say previous experience with e-locker failures.

This ^^^^

I like the idea of the e-locker and it would have been nice to keep the factory switch but past experience has taught us that we'll just break ours sooner than later.

Dam, the more I see on of the PR44, I wish I could afford one. They look like just whas t I'd need for my JLUR and the kinda wheeling I do. Another great educational video.

Thank you, we're so glad you found it to be educational. :)
 

BillArnett

New member
Yep. Entire rebuild. You'd have to have the correct ID of the bearing to press fit the pinion and the matching race would have to have the exact OD to press fit in the axle housing. And that would totally fuck up preload/backlash/pattern.

What a fucking joke just to keep the eco-terrorists happy. I'm sure AOC and BillArnett would approve of it though.

Actually, I'm with you on this one. And the FAD. The microscopic efficiency improvement isn't worth it on a vehicle intended for heavy off-road use. But remember, most Wranglers hardly ever leave the pavement let alone tackle the Rubicon trail. It would have made sense to have the stronger parts on the Rubicon models if not for all Wranglers. But that probably would increase costs :-(
 

RMC2

Member
The areas that could be improved were for sure. But there are many things on the JL that had to be done due to the new EPA rules. Do them or don't have a Wrangler at all. Sucks when the government doesn't care what people want, they just want to set regulations that require things customers don't want. I'll stop before I go into my full on rant.

Sent via....

Not to get you back on the soapbox Scott, well maybe. I have been wondering how some brands are going to manage their CAFE standards while getting rid of most of their cars for SUVs?

If only Jeep loving engineers could have had their way on every decision instead of the bean counters and politicians.
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
Not to get you back on the soapbox Scott, well maybe. I have been wondering how some brands are going to manage their CAFE standards while getting rid of most of their cars for SUVs?

If only Jeep loving engineers could have had their way on every decision instead of the bean counters and politicians.
CAFE although important isn't the really big deal. CAFE is just a fine if you failed to meet it. In theory you could add the cost of the fine into the vehicle pricing essentially making the customer pay for it. Not current practice but long term I could see OEMs basically adding in a "gas guzzler" tax into vehicle price.

The big issue is the Greenhouse Gas rules. If you don't meet those rules you cannot sell vehicles. There is no buying your way out. So it's meet it or stop selling. Now the one caveat to GHG rules is the target is based in the footprint of the vehicle (wheelbase x track). So the bigger the vehicle the higher the target. Large SUVs and Trucks have a much larger footprint and therefore higher targets. For example a RAM 1500 is actually better for GHG than say a Fiat 500. The opposite is true for CAFE. You can meet GHG targets with only selling large vehicles as long as you make them fuel efficient for their size.

Oh the joys of automotive. :)

Sent via....
 

RMC2

Member
CAFE although important isn't the really big deal. CAFE is just a fine if you failed to meet it. In theory you could add the cost of the fine into the vehicle pricing essentially making the customer pay for it. Not current practice but long term I could see OEMs basically adding in a "gas guzzler" tax into vehicle price.

The big issue is the Greenhouse Gas rules. If you don't meet those rules you cannot sell vehicles. There is no buying your way out. So it's meet it or stop selling. Now the one caveat to GHG rules is the target is based in the footprint of the vehicle (wheelbase x track). So the bigger the vehicle the higher the target. Large SUVs and Trucks have a much larger footprint and therefore higher targets. For example a RAM 1500 is actually better for GHG than say a Fiat 500. The opposite is true for CAFE. You can meet GHG targets with only selling large vehicles as long as you make them fuel efficient for their size.

Oh the joys of automotive. :)

Sent via....

Thanks for answering my off topic question. That makes sense now, not that I agree with the why it has to be that way. My wife loves her giant 16 Impala, but it is going away in the new SUV wave. It may have been more due to simple marketing though.

I ask smart people my stupid questions so I can be smarter.
 

BillArnett

New member
...big issue is the Greenhouse Gas rules. If you don't meet those rules you cannot sell vehicles. There is no buying your way out. So it's meet it or stop selling. Now the one caveat to GHG rules is the target is based in the footprint of the vehicle (wheelbase x track)...

Is that why the JL is wider than the JK???
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
Is that why the JL is wider than the JK???
The JL is wider and longer but that was done for other reasons

Length - added 1.4" to front end to make room for the longer 8 speed. Added 1" to back seat for more passenger room. The 2 door only got the front end add.

Width - went wider because we increased the steering angle so needed more track width.

The Wrangler already has the tires pushed out to far corners of the vehicle for approach and departure angles so don't want to do to much. Making the vehicle bigger adds weight which hurts you for fuel economy and GHG which negates any footprint improvements many times. Places you will see it are on new vehicle designs where the body is same size but tires are pushed out closer to edges.


Sent via....
 

BillArnett

New member
The JL is wider and longer but that was done for other reasons

Length - added 1.4" to front end to make room for the longer 8 speed. Added 1" to back seat for more passenger room. The 2 door only got the front end add.

Width - went wider because we increased the steering angle so needed more track width.

The Wrangler already has the tires pushed out to far corners of the vehicle for approach and departure angles so don't want to do to much. Making the vehicle bigger adds weight which hurts you for fuel economy and GHG which negates any footprint improvements many times. Places you will see it are on new vehicle designs where the body is same size but tires are pushed out closer to edges.


Sent via....

Thanks. That actually makes more sense. The extra size is a small price to pay for the 8-speed :)
 

Cozdude

Guy with a Red 2-Door
CAFE although important isn't the really big deal. CAFE is just a fine if you failed to meet it. In theory you could add the cost of the fine into the vehicle pricing essentially making the customer pay for it. Not current practice but long term I could see OEMs basically adding in a "gas guzzler" tax into vehicle price.

The big issue is the Greenhouse Gas rules. If you don't meet those rules you cannot sell vehicles. There is no buying your way out. So it's meet it or stop selling. Now the one caveat to GHG rules is the target is based in the footprint of the vehicle (wheelbase x track). So the bigger the vehicle the higher the target. Large SUVs and Trucks have a much larger footprint and therefore higher targets. For example a RAM 1500 is actually better for GHG than say a Fiat 500. The opposite is true for CAFE. You can meet GHG targets with only selling large vehicles as long as you make them fuel efficient for their size.

Oh the joys of automotive. :)

Sent via....

Gm has a “gas guzzle” tax on some of the performance models of the Camaro and the corvette. I saw on a ZL1 Camaro a gas guzzler tax of 2200$!!
 

Top