Sponsored

3.6L vs 2.0 turbo?? Pros and cons of both??

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Threads
49
Messages
4,669
Reaction score
6,265
Location
Vehicle(s)
'18 JLR 2.0
JT weighs about 500-600 lbs more than JL. Online reviews describe the 3.6 V6 as barely adequate on JT.

Turbos are notorious for giving up their efficiency benefits the moment you lay on the boost.

My guess is JT would keep the 2.0T on boost the whole time; more so with a load in the back, which would render the 2.0T’s MPG advantage a moot point.
I don't know how the economy would suffer in the JT, but wouldn't you want the motor with more torque in a truck? If the 3.6 is barely adequate and the issue is the additional weight, wouldn't more torque be the answer? Obviously the 3.0 is the current champion when it comes to torque, but the 2.0 has the highest torque output of the gas motors...

Just from reading on the JT forum and articles on the gladiator regarding towing and engine temps according to FCA reps.

I'm sure you can find the same information from a simple search.
I've done more than a simple search, and the only thing I can find that is close is this quote from 'The Drive' where they came up with their own conclusion without any supporting facts given. To me this reads like speculation, and doesn't qualify as a reason as to why there is no 2.0 JT.

"The Drive reached out to Jeep with that very question, and a spokesman told us it comes down to towing and temperature management. "The 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing," they said. While no knocks were mentioned against the smaller four-cylinder, it's easy to conclude that it simply wasn't created for the hauling capacity Jeep expects from the Gladiator."​
Sponsored

 

Punjabi New Yorker

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
306
Reaction score
376
Location
Suffolk County, NY and Punjab, India
Vehicle(s)
2012 Mahindra Thar (in India) - 2.5L Diesel, 4x4, 5 spd Manual ; 2020 JLU Rubicon (in USA) - 3.6 Gas with 8 Speed Automatic
Occupation
Family business in India and USA (dual citizen of both)
Hi all,
I am new to the JL fam. I currently am a loud and proud owner of a 2005 TJ with the 4 liter straight 6, but recently have been having issues with it (body rust as I live on the East Coast) and have ultimately decided to put it up for sale and purchase a newer Jeep. I will be outright buying this "new" Jeep, so I can only afford a 2018 or 2019, not a brand new 2020 or 2021. I know that I for sure want a Rubicon. The thing that I am stuck on is which engine to get. I have been hearing great things about the new turbo, but I really don't know what to do.

My question is: Should I get one with a 3.6L or the 2.0 Turbo? What are the pros and cons to both? My primary concern is longevity, I want to keep this Jeep for a long time and have the least possible issues with it. Which engine would be in closest comparison (I know neither one is the same at all) to the 4.0 in the TJ's?

Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated!!
I have driven both. Drove the 2.0 Liter during a test drive in India last year and then the 3.6 Pentastar here in the US this year. I liked the feeling of the 2.0 as it is a fun motor. But my experience with turbo Petrol motors in general had been very bad in India. That experience caused me to buy the 3.6 earlier this year before the Pandemic started. I like that engine a lot too even though it was not as fun. Also think it sounds better. Given my past experience, I went with the 3.6. It is more fun to drive than my 2500cc diesel Mahindra Thar in India (model year 2012 was my fathers gift to me upon acceptance to Stony Brook University in USA). the diesel Mahindra was reason why I did not get the Ecodiesel in USA as I wanted to experience a Petrol off roader. India is like Europe: majority of our cars in India are Diesels.

too bad Jeep does not give us option to choose between the turbo 4 and the Pentastar in India for the Wrangler Rubicon. It costs nearly USD 100k to get a Rubicon in India due to our local tax structure and import costs. Least they can do is allow someone to select the motor they want for that much money, lol.
 

aldo98229

Well-Known Member
First Name
Aldo
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Threads
86
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
27,682
Location
Bellingham, WA
Vehicle(s)
2023 Jeep Gladiator, 2018 Fiat 124 Spider
Occupation
Market Research
Vehicle Showcase
3
I don't know how the economy would suffer in the JT, but wouldn't you want the motor with more torque in a truck? If the 3.6 is barely adequate and the issue is the additional weight, wouldn't more torque be the answer? Obviously the 3.0 is the current champion when it comes to torque, but the 2.0 has the highest torque output of the gas motors...
The issue is, as others have already pointed out, the 2.0T produces more torque but under conditions of higher stress to the motor.

These high-stress conditions are fine in sporadic bursts; not continuously.

I am no engineer, but I always heard relying on the turbo continuously defeats the purpose of using a turbo motor.
 
Last edited:

RoadiJeff

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
540
Reaction score
728
Location
St. Louis
Vehicle(s)
2020 2.0T Recon, 2018 3.6L GC High Altitude
Man I really need to find out why my 3.6 vibrates at idle lol.

Anyway, the only downside I can think of with the 2.0 is that you have to use premium gas.
You don't HAVE to use premium fuel in it. The owners manual says you can use regular but for best performance in warm weather or when towing they recommend premium.
 
OP
OP

JEB-A-RONI

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
40
Reaction score
40
Location
Pennsylvania
Vehicle(s)
2005 Jeep Wrangler TJ
i said to myself that the next vechile will not have all the bells and whistles. infact, i was at the point that i would get a cj 7 or scrambler. however my last ride (07 grand cherokee) took a dump earlier that expected, plus some of the options was crapping out and starting to cost me in repairs. so the cj idea when out the window. i test drove a jlu sport s with a bunch of options that i didnt care for. at one point i told the sales lady to just stop yapping all the options. the jlu was nice and all except the $47k out the door price.

i sat down and looked at all the models jl and options. i then built one the way i wanted in both 2 and 4 door version. what i ended up getting was a 2 door jl sport base model with only 4 options which were 8 spd auto, hard top, a/c, and xm radio. that was it. i got lucky that a dealer 20 miles from me has one right down to the granite color. test drove it and came home with it that day. yes, its my daily driver and have taken it on a couple of road trips. so i have no regrets or second thought on the purchase.

my buddies thought i was crazy to down size and grade from my past ride. to be honest, i love it. i love the fact that i have to crank the windows or manually lock the doors. i just like the simplier thing in a jeep and not have to worry about any "options" that could crap out. its going to be a long term ownership. so the simple setup means low budget, maintenance jeep.
yeah i totally agree, the less tech the better.
 

Sponsored

JJSix

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
284
Reaction score
502
Location
Tucson AZ
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2016 Dodge Caravan
Occupation
Military
Vehicle Showcase
1
i said to myself that the next vechile will not have all the bells and whistles. infact, i was at the point that i would get a cj 7 or scrambler. however my last ride (07 grand cherokee) took a dump earlier that expected, plus some of the options was crapping out and starting to cost me in repairs. so the cj idea when out the window. i test drove a jlu sport s with a bunch of options that i didnt care for. at one point i told the sales lady to just stop yapping all the options. the jlu was nice and all except the $47k out the door price.

i sat down and looked at all the models jl and options. i then built one the way i wanted in both 2 and 4 door version. what i ended up getting was a 2 door jl sport base model with only 4 options which were 8 spd auto, hard top, a/c, and xm radio. that was it. i got lucky that a dealer 20 miles from me has one right down to the granite color. test drove it and came home with it that day. yes, its my daily driver and have taken it on a couple of road trips. so i have no regrets or second thought on the purchase.

my buddies thought i was crazy to down size and grade from my past ride. to be honest, i love it. i love the fact that i have to crank the windows or manually lock the doors. i just like the simplier thing in a jeep and not have to worry about any "options" that could crap out. its going to be a long term ownership. so the simple setup means low budget, maintenance jeep.
Kinda envious of your being able to do that and congratulate you on it. I was looking to do that for mine but with a wife that can't drive a manual and two kids in the car, convenience won out and I went with a JLUR. Absolutely love it and made the right call but way more tech than I need.
 

stylett9

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Threads
19
Messages
287
Reaction score
368
Location
Idaho
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
I bought the 2.0 Turbo because I wanted the better fuel efficiency. I would add that a lot of opinions in here about turbo's not being reliable solutions long term is, are simply opinions. I think back in the 80's and 90's, this assumption held some merit. However I feel modern motors with turbo's have vastly improved in reliability as they become more and more depended on from manufacturers to produce better mileage and EPA ratings. I did not find any compelling evidence to avoid the turbo's as a long term ownership reason other then someone's "feeling", no offense to anyone.
 

Punjabi New Yorker

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
306
Reaction score
376
Location
Suffolk County, NY and Punjab, India
Vehicle(s)
2012 Mahindra Thar (in India) - 2.5L Diesel, 4x4, 5 spd Manual ; 2020 JLU Rubicon (in USA) - 3.6 Gas with 8 Speed Automatic
Occupation
Family business in India and USA (dual citizen of both)
I bought the 2.0 Turbo because I wanted the better fuel efficiency. I would add that a lot of opinions in here about turbo's not being reliable solutions long term is, are simply opinions. I think back in the 80's and 90's, this assumption held some merit. However I feel modern motors with turbo's have vastly improved in reliability as they become more and more depended on from manufacturers to produce better mileage and EPA ratings. I did not find any compelling evidence to avoid the turbo's as a long term ownership reason other then someone's "feeling", no offense to anyone.
I hope you are correct as I like the way turbo Petrol motors drive. My last turbo petrol car in India had an Isuzu engine in it. The Turbo had to be rebuilt twice without me doing anything bad. It was however more fun to drive versus a Diesel for sure.

In 2009 My father had bought a used Twin Turbo 2007 BMW 3 series in a Manual Transmission that was very sensitive. Within two years, the Turbo gave him issues. Since the car was an import into India, the parts were very hard for him to find. He sold the car to his mechanic friend for a fraction of what he bought. Replaced it with a brand new Diesel 5 Series that he still has. He also had same experience as me: the Turbo Petrol was a lot more fun to drive versus a Diesel but the issues were too much.

I am going to wait a couple of years and see reliability reviews of this 2 Litre turbo motor. If good, I will probably trade in my 3.6 Pentastar.
 

emptyminded42

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
304
Reaction score
366
Location
Cleveland, OH
Vehicle(s)
Hellayella JLU Sport S 6MT, Forester XT
Occupation
Engineer
I'm not an automotive engineer but I'm an aerospace systems engineer so complexity vs. reliability vs. cost vs. performance and weight vs. size is what I do. I'll offer my thoughts, however much they're worth.

Being always on boost also means increased overall stress on the cylinders. Increased pressure at low RPMs are known to mess lifters, rods, etc. too.

I've heard the supercharged engines (positive displacement ones) often make less top end power than what the same engine can with turbos because the engine is at its limit in the down low with the supercharger. Turbos and centrifugals have that pronounced non-linear boost curve that brings the boost in the higher rpms where the engine can make use of it. Or there abouts.
Stress, yes, but every modern engine manufacturer will design their components to handle it. There has been a huge leap forward in terms of stress analysis, materials science, and manufacturing technology since turbos were slapped onto everything without much accommodation. The 1980's era logic where manufacturers tended to just slap low-compression pistons in the same engine long block to add a turbo or supercharger to. Maybe adjust the cams, too. And that's about it.

Modern 4-cylinder turbocharged engines are designed with the turbocharger in mind from the very beginning. Metallurgy, engine tuning, heck, even the air flow sensors have seen huge improvements in capabilities since the 80s. That was 40 years ago. Think of how much computation power is available in that iPhone in your hand vs. how massive even the simple calculators were back then. Engine control systems to eliminate/avoid preignition under boost are ubiquitous and effective, even on naturally aspirated engines.

The issue is, as others have already pointed out, the 2.0T produces more torque but under conditions of higher stress to the motor.

These high-stress conditions are fine in sporadic bursts; not continuously.

I am no engineer, but I always heard relying on the turbo continuously defeats the purpose of using a turbo motor.
If it's not acceptable continuously they wouldn't rate it for towing or put it in an application where it would run low/medium boost levels nearly continuously. Higher stress doesn't matter if it was designed with adequate material strength.

Using a turbocharger's boost in a turbocharged engine doesn't defeat the purpose. Staying out of boost all the time defeats its purpose - you never, ever use its potential. It's like never revving up a DOHC engine above 3,000 RPM because you're worried about your bearings or something. They're designed to use the boost and they're designed to control the level of boost to protect the engine from excessive torque.

I might have a V6 but it's because that was the only engine offered with the manual transmission. If I could have chosen the 2.0T as well, it would be a tough call. I'd have to drive both, but I think the extra torque from the 2.0T above ~1,500 RPM would be very, very useful. I find the V6 torque lacking and have to downshift more than I thought I would. But, I still like the drivetrain overall.

I don't think a high-technology V6 like the new Pentastar is any more or less complex than a well-designed turbocharged I4. You get an extra 2 cylinders, an extra head and pair of cams, as well as the oil systems and chains, guides, and tensioners to worry about with the V6 over the I4. The I4 might have a turbo but those are pretty well understood at this point being an extremely widespread presence on modern cars from subcompact through midsize. It's honestly probably a wash.
 

aldo98229

Well-Known Member
First Name
Aldo
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Threads
86
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
27,682
Location
Bellingham, WA
Vehicle(s)
2023 Jeep Gladiator, 2018 Fiat 124 Spider
Occupation
Market Research
Vehicle Showcase
3
Yet...the 2.0T is not offered on JT. So something in the little turbo must not hold up.

It is true that engines can be designed to handle high stresses. But not when cost-cutting is a major factor. After all, this is FCA. They would make engines out of recycled wax if it gave them one extra penny in profits.
 

Sponsored

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Threads
49
Messages
4,669
Reaction score
6,265
Location
Vehicle(s)
'18 JLR 2.0
Does anyone who actually owns a 2.0 have any complaints or engine failures related to the 2.0? I don't really count the first 500 miles, as assembly & manufacturing defects happen to all motors. BSG/eTorque isn't 2.0 specific anymore, just wondering if there are actually any issues besides speculation.
 

Placebo

Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
15
Reaction score
29
Location
Bay Area
Vehicle(s)
Something with 4 wheels
I’ve driven the pentastar in different FCA vehicles and I have a 2.3L eco boost mustang. NA is going to be more reliable because it has less parts and heat compared to a FI engine. That being said, modern day turbos are way more reliable than what they used to make.

If you want an NA motor, buy the pentastar. It might be getting replaced by FCA’s new gas 3.0L turbo inline 6 (rumored for 2022/2023 model year). If I had the money to buy a Rubicon right now, I’d probably try and go 2.0 for the extra power to compensate for the extra weight when modded. I’m honestly just waiting for the new engine though. A gas 3.0L inline 6 is going to be a monster and will not have to work as hard as a 2.0L turbo 4 to move a 4500lb box.
 

ODDs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
630
Reaction score
1,176
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2019 Hella Yella Sahara
I test drove the V6 and liked the way it sounded, but ended up going with the 2.0T eTorque because it felt like a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too engine. We've got 15k zero-trouble miles on it. Love the torque and how it keeps on pulling even at high elevations and up long grades. However, our gas mileage in stop and go Phoenix traffic is not that impressive.

However, if I were in the market now for Wrangler, and if I planned to keep it a long time, I might be tempted to wait for the inline 6. That seems like a true upgrade from either engine available now. But I wouldn't want it in its first year of production, so that could be a several year wait.
 

brain

Well-Known Member
First Name
brian
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Threads
10
Messages
156
Reaction score
295
Location
Milton, Georgia
Website
www.unsinkablebriancork.com
Vehicle(s)
2020 Wrangler JT (Gladiator) Mojave | Gobi
Occupation
Business and Executive Coach
Vehicle Showcase
1
Hi all,
I am new to the JL fam. I currently am a loud and proud owner of a 2005 TJ with the 4 liter straight 6, but recently have been having issues with it (body rust as I live on the East Coast) and have ultimately decided to put it up for sale and purchase a newer Jeep. I will be outright buying this "new" Jeep, so I can only afford a 2018 or 2019, not a brand new 2020 or 2021. I know that I for sure want a Rubicon. The thing that I am stuck on is which engine to get. I have been hearing great things about the new turbo, but I really don't know what to do.

My question is: Should I get one with a 3.6L or the 2.0 Turbo? What are the pros and cons to both? My primary concern is longevity, I want to keep this Jeep for a long time and have the least possible issues with it. Which engine would be in closest comparison (I know neither one is the same at all) to the 4.0 in the TJ's?

Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated!!
I've had fifteen Wranglers including seven JKs (2DR and 4DR). I've also had a 2019 JL Rubicon 4DR and a 2019 JL Rubicon 2DR - both 3.6. I'm currently driving a 2020 JL Rubicon 2DR 2.0 Turbo. I'm really impressed with the acceleration and even more so when it comes to scaling steep hills and rough terrain. Very impressed.
 

emptyminded42

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
304
Reaction score
366
Location
Cleveland, OH
Vehicle(s)
Hellayella JLU Sport S 6MT, Forester XT
Occupation
Engineer
Yet...the 2.0T is not offered on JT. So something in the little turbo must not hold up.

It is true that engines can be designed to handle high stresses. But not when cost-cutting is a major factor. After all, this is FCA. They would make engines out of recycled wax if it gave them one extra penny in profits.
Maybe because it's several hundred pounds heavier, rated for higher towing weights off the bat, and in-actual-fact a truck, not an SUV. It also may not have had adequate time to test the drivetrain and/or truck buyers would refuse a 2.0T but Wrangler owners might be more comfortable with it. There's all sorts of legitimate reasons why the Gladiator doesn't have the 2.0 but the Wranglers do. Different vehicle, different market, different buyer, different usage.

And every manufacturer would sell a kidney to save a buck in manufacturing costs. Yet somehow modern turbos are just fine (assuming your Focus RS got the Focus head gasket and not the Mustang one).

I’ve driven the pentastar in different FCA vehicles and I have a 2.3L eco boost mustang. NA is going to be more reliable because it has less parts and heat compared to a FI engine. That being said, modern day turbos are way more reliable than what they used to make.

If you want an NA motor, buy the pentastar. It might be getting replaced by FCA’s new gas 3.0L turbo inline 6 (rumored for 2022/2023 model year). If I had the money to buy a Rubicon right now, I’d probably try and go 2.0 for the extra power to compensate for the extra weight when modded. I’m honestly just waiting for the new engine though. A gas 3.0L inline 6 is going to be a monster and will not have to work as hard as a 2.0L turbo 4 to move a 4500lb box.
Again, fewer part count isn't definite when you're talking I4 turbo vs. V6. Recall double the heads, double the valvetrains, double the exhausts, and all the timing components. A turbo is really not complex. Controlling it via ECU might be, but mechanically they are quite simple.

A nice inline 6 would be sweet, but slapping turbos on that reminds me of the oh-so-wonderful twin turbo E90 BMWs that were.... not exactly the worlds most reliable and trouble-free engines of all time. Reverting to single turbo along with other tweaks made them much, much more reliable.

I guess my point is there's no inherent problem with a I4 turbo vs. V6 - it all comes down to design and manufacturing. If FCA can make their V6 reliable, no reason they couldn't also make a bulletproof I4 turbo. It's a global engine and the Alfa Romeo Giulia seems plenty reliable with the 2.0T. The TTV6 Quadrifoglio is a whole different ballgame.
Sponsored

 
 



Top