love the article about smaller motors with more power. If I could put one of my civic motors into my jeep that would be awsome, being a Honda fan of course.The only down fall was the MPG I got in one of those motors, pushing over 200 horsepower, didn't get a whole lot better than average ordinary jeep. I think I got about 18 to a gal. It was only a 1.6. I THINK I'LL JUST TURBO MY 350. Then I get displacement and forced induction. HAHAHA. Fun is worth the price!!!!  

ya, I kinda have a problem with the turbocharged vw in the jeep, my 75 blazer w/ a turbo'd 350 and th350 tranny gets close to 16mpg's while getting fed by a 750cfm holley and my foot, I was in high school when I built the engine and installed the turbo. it's 1200#'s heavier than the rubi and gets way better mileage.

I seriously doubt the vw would get any better milage in a jeep than the 4.0 already gets and has the same power, not to mention the rpm's the darn thing has to turn to make that much horsepower.  

Actually, you guys are making fuel use comparisons with older engine technology. Direct injection engines are different.  

In that case build one or find someone in America that has built one and let us know the real deal then.  

You know whats going to be cool... the new Ford EcoBoost engine family. I know it's not a Jeep product but if the technology bleeds over (or already has) there should be some really cool engines coming in the near future!  

the old comparison was my point, the same horses and smaller engines higher rpms, I doubt will make any gains over whats already there. how poor will that perform on the rocks?

the v8 passat is nearly as heavy as the wrangler, I haven't seen a 4 banger in one yet.

I can't wait to see how the new trends go, diesel may be on the way out, I have a hard time believing that though.

that would be a awesome engine replacement for my 2 stroke suzuki.... then I'd be stuffing d 44's under it also.  

Why will it have poor performance on the rocks? Again, you're using known four-cylinder parameters. This is a totally different animal. The supercharger will make up for the low end and the turbo and supercharger combined will provide boost at the top end. Rather than having a peaky power curve like todays naturaly aspirated four-cylinders it will have a flat power output. It will make the same lb-ft of torque at 1,000rpm as it does at 5,000rpm. It's performance is more like an electric motor. That's something no gas engine today can claim.

It will actually perform better than a 4.0L everywhere. Especially in drivability.

Actually, the '07-up Passat is available with a 2.0L direct injection turbo engine. No V-8 is available. I recommend driving one if you can. You'll be shocked at the available power. And again, it only has a turbo and direct injection. Imagine adding a supercharger on top. It weighs 3,300 pounds, about the same as an early TJ. I suspect the next generation Wrangler, like most future autos, will be much smaller than today's Wrangler.  

I'm going for the test drive. I have to see for myself. I have a 2.0 VW golf right now not too impressive even tuned well. Of course naturaly aspirated but I have to see it to belive it.  

i dont kno about that ive seen kits from across the ocean were the golf can make in excess of 650hp for close to 5 Gs... VW make good motor bases and tec  

I just drove one today and a  mbz gl350 cdi, wasn't impressed with either the turbo or the diesel even though the sticker says 215hp and 398ftlbs torque on the diesel.  

VW does make a great engine. No doubt, but the engines that make that high Horsepower is the 1.8 not the 2.0. the 1.8 come turbo. Buit for higher horse than the 2.0. Maybe they should build a 1.8 dual forced engine instead of the mild 2.0. Kinda figured the would be the case with the test drive. Once again we get back to make mpg not excitement. Just like in the early 80's with the gas crisis. Are we doomed to another 20 years with out driving excitement?