2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

New 200 HP Diesel engine is coming

Jump to Latest
18K views 80 replies 28 participants last post by  Joan  
#1 ·
Fantastic news: Jeep Germany leaked a new pricelist for upcoming (2016 ??) models. The 2.0 170 HP Diesel is replaced by a 2.2 200HP Diesel.

I would like to have this thing....:crying:
 
#3 ·
200HP here in the USA is a little on the weak side , LOL you can keep it in Germany . Maybe I will drive one while I am there in Sept
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheJeepster, thaoneself and jim_87
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#4 ·
I traded a 2005 Libert with the 2.8L turbo diesel. Only 160hp and 295lb ft of torque, but when the turbo kicked in, it took off like a rocket. Keep in mind, diesels are all about the torque. Horsepower doesn't matter as much in a diesel.
 
#8 ·
My dad used to drive trucks... driving a Mack with a small 300 turbo, developing about 285 hp and 1000 pounds of torque if I remember right (before that with a 287 non-turbo), and was pulling 140 to 150 thousands pound loads north Quebec, where there are a lot of hills. We have 271hp in our jeep it it can't even pull 1/10 of that load.

That is the beauty of Diesel, even with a low HP the torque it develops cannot even come close to a gas engine.

Gas vs diesel,,, not talking about the same beast !
 
  • Like
Reactions: daytona125 and Array
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#10 ·
Since no one will buy the GC Ecodiesels here in the U.S. I'm guessing FCA won't bring the diesel Cherokee over. Too bad, I love my Ecodiesel and would have bought a diesel Cherokee for my wife if there was one. Instead I'm "stuck" with the V6. :) (I'll live!)

There are just too many misconceptions over here about diesels. Too bad really, we're all missing out. Of course EPA regulations haven't helped.

Hope I'm wrong, there has been some noise about the possibility.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#18 ·
And lets not forget they charge a disgustingly high premium for the EcoDiesel. I did the math, it'd take me 4 years just to recoup the extra cost.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#12 ·
#15 ·
That's what I also thought. Since they came out with Euro 6 in the 2.0 Renegade Diesel, I'm not sure anymore. The Renegade does not have urea injection, they built in a NOx converter instead, which is said, only to work in small cars. So, Fiat Powertrain is always good for a surprise.
 
#21 ·
Lets be honest here..unless you need to tow a house around town, whats the point? If you did need excess towing, buy a truck.
Consider your maintenance cost as well...let the turbos go and see what a shop charges for a repair.
Sorry, working next to a train station has me hating diesel, cant stand the smell
 
#23 ·
Oh good, let's get this going in a thread where it's relevant.

What's the point in your V6? Why didn't you just get the I4? Some people (me) prefer the low end torque of the Diesel engines.

Extra maintenance? You mean like NO SPARK PLUGS? That extra maintenance? I've owned turbo gassers too, so let's not mix your obvous bias against turbos with your obvious bias against diesels. Very separate issues. Modern turbos go a LONG time before needing repair anyway. I'm guessing about 3 times longer than most people keep their cars.

Myth after myth after myth!

Smell? What smell? Sniff a GC Turbo diesel sometime. I GUARANTEE you it does not smell like a diesel. Another myth! Come on and try a modern diesel some time, you might like it. I know what OLD diesel engines smelled like, modern diesels DO NOT have that smell. In fact I own a diesel tractor. It smells like a diesel. Not that I mind that either, but probably becasue I grew up around them.

The truth is diesel is another VERY VIABLE option that eveyrone should try. Some will like it, some won't, but it's a personal choice like the V6 vs. the I4. Everyone has their own needs and wants. That's why options are good.

But please stop spreading the FUD about diesel engines. Your information is apparently VERY VERY outdated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rojhan and Mudman1
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#24 ·
Physics dictates acceleration requires horsepower. No getting around it.

What is good about diesel low end torque is what little hp they do have is available without requiring 2,3, or 4 gear downshift from the transmission to tap into it. It gives the elusion of power (torque alone is not power).

Acceleration is gone by-by above 3000 rpm.



I traded a 2013 Jetta Sport Wagon TDI for the TH. The TDI is one scary complicated engine. If the high pressure fuel pump goes bad it is a $8,000 to $10,000 repair bill. No, that was not a typo. The high pressure fuel pump runs at 26,000 psi, again that is not a typo. When the high pressure pump grenades it wipes the entire fuel system. Everything from the fuel tank, fuel injectors, two other fuel pumps, all the high pressure and low pressure fuel lines-everything. Ultra low sulfur diesel in the US often has poor lubricity making fuel pump life a problem. Ask VW about this one. And don't even think about miss-fueling a diesel with gas. The repair cost will total the car that is only a few years old.



Cost of ownership: typical oil change and fuel filter change is well north of $250. With a added cost of diesel fuel over gas you will never come out ahead. The TDI is the only car I have ever regretted buying for the worry it caused me. I wish I found the TDI forums before making the purchase.
 
S
#25 ·
I replaced the HPFP on my 2010 Jetta TDI at 8000 miles.
However what you are saying is not the whole story. I never paid 250 bucks for an oil change but they are a bit more expensive than gas. However it is done every 10K miles so not really bad at all. The problem is our ULSD sucks here as you said and the Bosch pump doesn't deal with it well. However like some issues here not everyone has them.
I would buy another TDI in a hearbeat and a diesel TH in one too. Oh an my Jetta got between 48 and 50mpg on the highway on long trips.not bad
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#29 ·
Our Touareg Diesel was using Urea, so does the BMW and the Mercedes. A Jetta or Golf cannot be compared to these SUVs. We'll find out soon enough what the new KL Diesel uses. Urea, btw. is not a big deal. You fill up the dedicated tank once every 10,000 miles and these days you can find urea everywhere - even at your WalMart.

And no, these new diesel engines don't smell at all anymore like your Dad's tractor:)
 
#32 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Mudman1
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#33 · (Edited)
I have owned 2 diesel trucks, a Ford and a Ram, plus a 09 Jetta TDI. I love diesels. But they are not good for very frequent short trips, which is why I sold my Ram to get the Jeep. Maintenance costs for regular stuff is more expensive than gas engines. Fuel prices have been all over the map the last 7 years. And most turbo gas engines require premium fuel and the MPGs are not that great in real life. Audi and Ford come to mind with that.

Now, if you modify the diesel engine and void the warranty, that is a whole different situation. It sucks but the EPA standards forced the engine makers to come up with quick fixes and it is slowly getting better. The DPF is not a bad design, but the extra fuel injection sequence for a REGEN causes fuel dilution and that is bad. This was the problem with my 08 F350. The UREA is great, until it freezes or the vehicle goes into limp mode because the UREA, or DEF, or AdBlue, depending on the car maker, does not have time to thaw to complete a required REGEN. But the use of DEF does eliminate the extra fuel injector sequence and therefore no more fuel dilution.

I am not a tree hugger and I hate the EPA. That said, I am all for having lower emissions if it makes sense. I still cannot figure out how an old 5.9L Cummins in a Ram 3500 4x4 could get 28 MPGs on the highway in the 90's and today's 6.7L with all the technology is lucky to get 20 MPGs. Or the old economy cars like the Cavalier or Carollas from the 90s could get 35+ MPGs on the highway and today we are no better with all the technology and more aerodynamic bodies.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1998_Jeep_Cherokee.shtml. I only get 3-4 MPGs more than a 98 Cherokee 4x4 with the 4.0L.

I have said it before, I would be in a Grand Cherokee diesel if Jeep did not decide to rake a buyer over the coals without any lube. One day I will have a competition diesel truck that I build, but it will not happen until after I become a grownup again :)

**I forgot to add, in my Jetta I averaged over 48 MPGs. And never had an issue with it. Awesome little car, even in the snow so long as it was not too deep.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#36 ·
Mudman1 said:
I am not a tree hugger and I hate the EPA. That said, I am all for having lower emissions if it makes sense. I still cannot figure out how an old 5.9L Cummins in a Ram 3500 4x4 could get 28 MPGs on the highway in the 90's and today's 6.7L with all the technology is lucky to get 20 MPGs.
Click to expand...
Follow the money trail. There is a patent for heating petrol into a vapor prior to entering the ignition chamber giving over 100mpg in your car today for very little money... Wild guess who owns it?

Then we add Ethanol which further reduces mph, and now I'm off topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mudman1
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#37 · (Edited)
Hopefully for those wanting a cherokee diesel, they do better than the grand cherokee, I looked for comparison thinking diesels can tow a house down the street

Heres GC comparison all 4x4 models
............... mpg // towing // 0 to 60 // Cost for engine
3.6 penstar 17/25 // 6200lb // 7.8 sec // zero- base
3.0 diesel 21/28 // 7200lb // 7.7 sec // $4500
5.7 liter 14/20 // 7200lb // 6.5 sec // $3195

So, for $4500 you can tow 1000 more lbs /avg mpg =21 vs 19 on the penster
you decide...is it really worth it?
 
#38 ·
So would we Toy. :crying: We have the same as you.

Our 3.0 litre turbo diesel Grand Cherokee doesn't have a urea tank so I doubt whether this one will (if they release this engine into Aust.) I hope so because I think this new diesel will go down very well over here. Australian's LOVE their diesel engines.

However, the biggest thing that FCA could do for our market would be to drop this into the Trailhawk and then, they would be kicking some goals with the KL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Softsand
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#39 ·
SJetc said:
However, the biggest thing that FCA could do for our market would be to drop this into the Trailhawk and then, they would be kicking some goals with the KL.
Click to expand...
I agree I would have bought a fully optioned TH had it come in a Diesel, It didn't so I bought the Limited instead and am extremely happy with its performance and fuel economy so far. :)

Diesel Trailhawks would do very well if released in Australia.
 
#40 ·
That would have been our first choice as well Condo but had to take the Limited instead. Very happy with it though.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#41 ·
  • Like
Reactions: PeteB
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#48 ·
The only problem with that process is that it is currently very expensive to make Diesel as it uses a lot of electricity. However, I fully support the research - hopefully the production price will drop!

ITM, what FCA can do in terms of fuel consumption is:

Step 1:
Bring the current Diesel to N. America (even better get the new Alfa Romeo derived one)

Step 2:
Partner with either a supplier or another auto manufacturer who has successfully mastered hybrid technology and start to offer it in the Cherokee (and the GC). I can only imagine the smile on my face :grin: if I could get the city MPG closer to the highway MPG.

Step 3:
Invest in some cutting edge alternative fuel research - they are really behind the 8-ball there!
 
#42 ·
But it's a pity that others are building much better engines than Fiat-Chrysler.

Porsche Macan S: 3.0l, 250kw (340hp), 460Nm (339 ft lb), 26 mpg
Porsche Macan S Diesel: 3.0l, 190kw (258hp), 580Nm (428 ft lb), 38 mpg
BMW X5 35i: 3,0l, 225kw (306hp), 400Nm (295 ft lb), 27,6 mpg
...
...

less size, more power, better mpg ....

When do we get this from FCA?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#43 ·
Funny that I was doing some random research on mpg and realized a lot of the higher priced cars have pretty good mileage and the lower end cars, with descent HP, have average mpg. I think it gets down to engineering and material costs. Pay more, get more? Also note the torque on both petrol engines are way up there. Of course diesel always puts out more torque.

Maybe this engine in a Cherokee...

https://www.alfaromeousa.com/en_us/techdata-4c
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#52 ·
And we are paying $2-6,000 USD more for a diesel than petrol engines, so that part for us is mostly a wash.
@PeteB - And they can make all of 47 gallons daily! That's what, enough for 5-8 cars? ;)
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#53 ·
Also petrol (diesel) it's shipper than Gasoline
For example in Spain (lower than many EU countries)
Diesel 1,18
Gas 1,42

With Diesel you can make extra miles for low cost. So if you really use the car more than 20,000 km it compensate the difference. :)


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
 
2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums
posts
551K
members
50K
Since
2013
A forum community dedicated to Jeep Cherokee owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, lift kits, 4 wheel drive, modifications, reviews, warranty, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
2014+ Jeep Cherokee General Discussion Electronics, Audio, and Lighting Engine and Technical Discussion Wheels, Tires, Brakes, and Suspension New Member Introductions