[Incognito]

This is this big question for me.

I prefer manual transmissions and love the Limited's Brown/Grey interior option over the Trailhawk's Black.

Any Rene I buy will get lifted, real off road tires, tube bumpers, rock sliders and skid plates.
The only advantage the TH has over a non-TH here is that the skid plates already come with it. So that's one item less to buy for choosing a TH.


Fiat of Canada has released technical info on the 500L which the Renegade is based on.
If the 1.4Turbo / C635 gear ratios are the same for both vehicles the Rene's six-speed gears are as follows:

1st: 4.154
2nd: 2.118
3rd: 1.365
4th: 0.978
5th: 0.756
6th: 0.622
Reverse: 4.000
Axle Ratio: 4.438 ( the 500L has a 3.83 axle ratio )

That gives the 6-speed Rene's a 18.435 final drive ratio in 1st gear.

It's not bad, combine this with the 1.4 turbo's ability to be tweaked and the HP/Torque side of the question seems to be even with no clear winner.

-------------------------------------------

So, with all that said;
How much of an advantage do you think the rest of the Trailhawk system has over the 6-speed 4x4s?

I'm having a hard time justifying the extra $2,700 TH option loaded down with a lot of stuff I really don't want.
All that just to, maybe get a better 4X4 in some areas, but not others.

 

[Indiana Jones]

The Trailhawk has a lower final gear ratio for "rock mode". Plus the way the 1.4T sheds H.P. When it starts getting hot and it's hesitations and uneven power delivery I wouldn't want it to go off-road.

 

[fmunk]

In addition to crawl ratio, the 1.4T's power band is not good enough for off-roading.

 

[nate70115]

I would say it depends on what kind of off roading you will be doing. I prefer automatic transmission for more intense 4 wheel driving. I can concentrate more on driving and only using two pedals vs 3 three pedals and a stick shift. On a Trail Hawk once you lock it into 4 LOW or rock mode (I am not sure that an option for non Trail Hawks) or controlled decent, you can't go very fast anyway. I think the trail hawk only comes with a 2.4L and automatic (could be wrong). I would worry more about the size of the 1.4L engine. I am sure its fine for dirt roads and light duty, but if you think will realistically be doing much more than that, I would go for the 2.4L engine, it still gets decent gas mileage on the highway. It all comes down to what you will really be doing with your vehicle. I checked and a Latitude with a 2.4L and 4 wheel drive is about the same price as a Trail Hawk. One disclaimer, I just bought a Trail Hawk and paid for some of the options. Did i initially want to pay for those extra options, **** NO, but now that I have a key less entry and key less start with remote start and automatic climate control, IT'S THE BOMB. I love walking up to my TH and having the door automatically unlock and just pressing a button to start the engine and never have to us a key to do it.

 

[Rammer]

I would think that the 1.4T w/6 speed would perform poorly after adding a bunch of weight and larger tires off road and on road. Slow speed combined with climbing hills and obstacles off road would be tough. The auto has a torque converter to make up for the lack of a real low range, where the stick you be slipping the clutch.

 

[raz-0]

Also the turbo means an air to air intercooler. Going slow while revving to hit boost means heat soak. Staying off boost means poor torque.

 

[Willy]

do it right, get the Hawk

 

[fmunk]

Also the turbo means an air to air intercooler. Going slow while revving to hit boost means heat soak. Staying off boost means poor torque.

That and lack of skid plates. Take a non-TH, add up all the things that could make it off-road worthy and you're likely going to spend more than the cost of a TH.

 

[fmunk]

I would say it depends on what kind of off roading you will be doing. I prefer automatic transmission for more intense 4 wheel driving. I can concentrate more on driving and only using two pedals vs 3 three pedals and a stick shift. On a Trail Hawk once you lock it into 4 LOW or rock mode (I am not sure that an option for non Trail Hawks) or controlled decent, you can't go very fast anyway. I think the trail hawk only comes with a 2.4L and automatic (could be wrong). I would worry more about the size of the 1.4L engine. I am sure its fine for dirt roads and light duty, but if you think will realistically be doing much more than that, I would go for the 2.4L engine, it still gets decent gas mileage on the highway. It all comes down to what you will really be doing with your vehicle. I checked and a Latitude with a 2.4L and 4 wheel drive is about the same price as a Trail Hawk. One disclaimer, I just bought a Trail Hawk and paid for some of the options. Did i initially want to pay for those extra options, **** NO, but now that I have a key less entry and key less start with remote start and automatic climate control, IT'S THE BOMB. I love walking up to my TH and having the door automatically unlock and just pressing a button to start the engine and never have to us a key to do it.

On that keyless entry... here's something to think about: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/high-tech-car-theft-with-a-17-device

 

[Incognito]

In addition to crawl ratio, the 1.4T's power band is not good enough for off-roading.

Do you have the graph that shows the two engine's power? I've never seen it.


To everyone else, it seems pretty unanimous so far that the TH is a better choice.

Keep the posts rolling.

 

[Indiana Jones]

Do you have the graph that shows the two engine's power? I've never seen it.


To everyone else, it seems pretty unanimous so far that the TH is a better choice.

Keep the posts rolling.

I don't have any graphs our experience with the 2.4, but I have driven the 1.4T with 54K under my belt in the Abarth and it is an engine I would definitely not want for going off road.

 

[fmunk]

Do you have the graph that shows the two engine's power? I've never seen it.


To everyone else, it seems pretty unanimous so far that the TH is a better choice.

Keep the posts rolling.

All of the reviews I've read so far describe the 1.4T as being peaky. And strained for the Renegade's weight until boost and momentum builds up. Really not the power characteristics one would want for off-roading—which is a broad power band. Unless a diesel, which is inherently torquey, a small displacement turbocharged gasoline engine is not going to provide the torque band that is preferred for off-roading. There is a reason Jeep did not deem the 1.4T fit for the Trailhawk.

 

[raz-0]

Do you have the graph that shows the two engine's power? I've never seen it.


To everyone else, it seems pretty unanimous so far that the TH is a better choice.

Keep the posts rolling.

It's a small turbo boosting to 21psi to make its power. It's going to be anemic until boost hits at 2200-2600 rpm (at best), give you a kick in the pants, and probably taper off by 5-6k.

It's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.

 

[Bionic]

The Trailhawk would be much better in the boonies, with the 20:1 "low range" first gear that's just not available in a manual. I'd love to thrash that turbo engine on dry pavement though.

 

[bwbike]

The 2.4L doesn't really come alive until it hits around 3,000 rpm either.

But if the 2.4L was mated to the manual transmission with a 4:1 real transfer case . . .

 

[MJAB]

It's a small turbo boosting to 21psi to make its power. It's going to be anemic until boost hits at 2200-2600 rpm (at best), give you a kick in the pants, and probably taper off by 5-6k.

It's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.

As for all turbocharged engines preformances are based on turbine installed, how it is tuned, throttleresponse tuning, ....
In off road usually You look to low end torque and engine response.

Maximum torque for NAFTA version should be 184 ft lbs @ 2500 rpm and maximum power 160 HP @ 5500 rpm.
In Europe the same engine with similar performances is avaible with 9 speed automatic, but there is also another version of the gasoline 1.4 turbo with around 138 HP @ 5000 rpm and maximum torque of 230 Nm (= 170 lb ft) @ 1750 rpm.
1750 rpm are maximum torque rpm of the diesel turbocharged engines, but they have higher torque (320 Nm (= 236 lb ft) for 1.6 diesel and 350 Nm (= 258 lb ft) for 2.0 diesel).

 

[Incognito]

I'm really surprised how no one has defended the 1.4T option.

Anyone dare to pick up the sword?

 

[raypla]

The 2.4L doesn't really come alive until it hits around 3,000 rpm either.

True in my wife's Patriot I noticed the same thing, once you get it to 3500+ rpm's it really pulls. This is best achieved in the manual mode of the 6 speed, boy is that fun.
>

 

[ManEater666]

True in my wife's Patriot I noticed the same thing, once you get it to 3500+ rpm's it really pulls. This is best achieved in the manual mode of the 6 speed, boy is that fun.
>

So i am glad to have the 140HP 4x4 2.0 Multijet Diesel engine with 6-Speed manual ... you have enough Torque at 1.500 rpm to get through Offroad Terrain ... you sure do not need the 9-Speed automatic of the Trailhawk ...

 

[hrminer92]

So i am glad to have the 140HP 4x4 2.0 Multijet Diesel engine with 6-Speed manual ... you have enough Torque at 1.500 rpm to get through Offroad Terrain ... you sure do not need the 9-Speed automatic of the Trailhawk ...

I wish FCA would sell them or any of the other diesel powered Jeeps that they sell everywhere but the US.