Nitro gets the 4.0 V6 Jeep doesn't

kjfishman · **Posted:** Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:01 pm

I wonder why the new 4.0 V is available in the Nitro but not the Liberty? For now I am keeping my CRD.

toy4everyseason · **Posted:** Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:03 pm

according to rumors it will be available in a year or two... we'll see if that holds true

LEDfoot · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:18 am

According to what I "heard" the 3.7 was picked for the liberty because of production capacity. Seems they don't have capacity to make enough 4.0s or even 3.8s but they have capacity for 3.7s to spare.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Chrysler could save some money by consolidating those 3 engines and only offer the 4.0. 3 engines ranginf from 3.7 to 4.0 with very similar characteristics and applications (minivans and small SUVs ) seems pretty pointless.

bugnout · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:32 am

Another example of the Liberty being a knock off of the Nitro. If the Nitro was a knock off of the Liberty, the Libety would be getting the 4.0.

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:21 pm

I'd prefer the 3.8 over the 3.7 or 4.0

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:29 pm

5.9 cummins.... :twisted:

...i just not sure if i want to cut in to my lib that much
hehe

Albert · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:34 pm

LEDfoot wrote:

According to what I "heard" the 3.7 was picked for the liberty because of production capacity. Seems they don't have capacity to make enough 4.0s or even 3.8s but they have capacity for 3.7s to spare.

I heard the same thing about the 3.7 having a higher production capacity.

Of course I am very familiar with the 3.7 as we all are. I have also driven the 3.8 in the JK but never anything with the 4.0 V6... I wonder what the 4.0 drives like?? Maby one of these days I'll get to drive a Nitro with the 4.0 and see what it feels like. I am curious.

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:37 pm

all of the nitro owners say it has a little more poop so to speak to it...

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:40 pm

the 4.0 is just a big 3.7. Not sure which direction (bore or stroke) but between the 4.0 Rams I've driven and the 3.7 Rams I've driven, the 4.0 is less gutless:P

Albert · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:35 pm

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

I'd prefer the 3.8 over the 3.7 or 4.0

Why is that? I am curious.

k99jk99j · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:01 am

LEDfoot wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Chrysler could save some money by consolidating those 3 engines and only offer the 4.0. 3 engines ranginf from 3.7 to 4.0 with very similar characteristics and applications (minivans and small SUVs ) seems pretty pointless.

I agree!!!! don't forget the timing belted 3.5L and the chained 2.7L. seems to me they could save alot of money choosing one 60 degree v-6 and go with it! mike

LEDfoot · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:29 am

k99jk99j wrote:

LEDfoot wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Chrysler could save some money by consolidating those 3 engines and only offer the 4.0. 3 engines ranginf from 3.7 to 4.0 with very similar characteristics and applications (minivans and small SUVs ) seems pretty pointless.

I agree!!!! don't forget the timing belted 3.5L and the chained 2.7L. seems to me they could save alot of money choosing one 60 degree v-6 and go with it! mike

Not to mention that they had to put the 3.5 in some minivans that were supposed to have either the 2.7 or the 3.2 (I don't remember) because they didn't have enough capacity to build enough of the smaller V6es. They basically had to give the 3.5 away even though they would normally have charged a premium for it.

LEDfoot · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:35 am

Albert wrote:

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

I'd prefer the 3.8 over the 3.7 or 4.0

Why is that? I am curious.

I'm curious too.
Personally, I drove a 4-door JK X with manual transmission and the 3.8.
It seemed more "sluggish" than the KK with manual transmission. I'm thinking the rubicon with the different axle ratio may make the JK feel a little peppier.

That said, I haven't been very impressed with the 4.0 units in either the xterra or the FJ-cruiser. The available engines would definitely not be a determining factor between those vehicles.

indianrefining · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:39 am

Diggerfreek wrote:

5.9 cummins.... :twisted:

...i just not sure if i want to cut in to my lib that much
hehe

The 5.9??? Good grief!!! :lol:

duckhunter71 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:48 am

LEDfoot wrote:

That said, I haven't been very impressed with the 4.0 units in either the xterra or the FJ-cruiser. The available engines would definitely not be a determining factor between those vehicles.

I've never driven an XJ, but I have test driven a couple of new Xterras and Frontiers. The V6 in those are a screamer! Maybe you are used to something faster, I'm not sure, but I was definately impressed.

Albert · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:34 pm

LEDfoot wrote:

Albert wrote:

ThunderbirdJunkie wrote:

I'd prefer the 3.8 over the 3.7 or 4.0

Why is that? I am curious.

I'm curious too.
Personally, I drove a 4-door JK X with manual transmission and the 3.8.
It seemed more "sluggish" than the KK with manual transmission. I'm thinking the rubicon with the different axle ratio may make the JK feel a little peppier.

The JK I drove (about 100 or so miles) with the 3.8 Liter A/T and was a Sahara Model and had Dana 44's with 4:10 gears in it and an aftermarket exhaust system (not sure now which one). It seemed peppy and smooth. It was mostly a highway drive and I didn't get to take it in the dirt as it was not mine.

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:11 pm

indianrefining wrote:

Diggerfreek wrote:

5.9 cummins.... :twisted:

...i just not sure if i want to cut in to my lib that much
hehe

The 5.9??? Good grief!!! :lol:

hey, at least i didn't ask for a cat 3126 on the road engine... (1.2l per cylinder = 7.2 total L) :twisted:

Toyota is trying to get cat to sell them diesel engines for the 09 or 10 tundra

Nitro gets the 4.0 V6 Jeep doesn't

Who is online