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

[Rodeoflyer]

Of course, if there's some tune available for 50+ hp/tq in the 2l turbo all is moot lol.

I was wondering if there would be a tune for the 2l (like Ford's 2.3l/2.7/3.5s) for an easy 50/50 hp/tq but it sounds like the 2l may be maxed out safely.

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

Of course, if there's some tune available for 50+ hp/tq in the 2l turbo all is moot lol.

I was wondering if there would be a tune for the 2l (like Ford's 2.3l/2.7/3.5s) for an easy 50/50 hp/tq but it sounds like the 2l may be maxed out safely.

2.0 piggyback: 40 WHP https://burgertuning.com/products/j...MI9OOKkbDn5QIVzCCtBh200ACiEAQYASABEgLUzPD_BwE

3.6 tune: 51 WHP https://www.livernoismotorsports.com/product/LPP621134

 

[Crusifix]

This is accurate.. https://www.motor1.com/news/276660/2019-jeep-wrangler-dyno-test-video/

Again.. IF they had offered a 2l turbo option with manual trans I would probably have one. You can implement a few things on the NA 3.6l for more hp/tq and with fuel injection, the altitude degradation isn't bad with the gearing and manual. Also, driveline loss is less with the manual and it's lighter so a comparison of the manual 3.6l in this article would be closer.

As the graphs tell.. at about 3k the 2l gets into boost and starts making more power up to 5k when they're neck and neck, then the 2l falls off. That extra kick between 3-5k is what makes people think the 2l is 'worlds better' lol or whatever they say but doesn't tell the whole story.

That is an inaccurate way to look at it. So, at 5k, when the 2.0 falls off, there is this thing that happens...it's called a shift. This magically puts it back into the power band. Why would anyone want to be above 5K for any extended time anyway? 0-60 is faster with the 2.0... 0-80 is faster... 0-100 is faster... So, where exactly does his extra RPM that the 3.6 can eek out come into play?

 

[Zandcwhite]

Flat ground at sea level and the power difference is negligible. In the mountains at elevations near or above 10k, the 2.0t pulls harder than the v8 in our 01 grand Cherokee ever did in the thin air. No need to regear on 35 to 37” tires with the turbo either. We only have 12k miles on her so far, but not a single issue yet. I’ll stay firmly in the turbo camp after having driven both and now having owned our JLU Rubicon for a year.

 

[Strommen95]

0-60 is faster with the 2.0... 0-80 is faster... 0-100 is faster... So, where exactly does his extra RPM that the 3.6 can eek out come into play?

From Car and Driver.

Unlimited Sahara 3.6

Curb weight: 4,469 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph


Unlimited Sahara 2.0 BSG

Curb weight: 4,549 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 27.7 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.6 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph

 

[Zandcwhite]

2.0 piggyback: 40 WHP https://burgertuning.com/products/j...MI9OOKkbDn5QIVzCCtBh200ACiEAQYASABEgLUzPD_BwE

3.6 tune: 51 WHP https://www.livernoismotorsports.com/product/LPP621134

Highly skeptical of the livernois tune claiming 51 horsepower without anything to back that up for a bunch of reasons. Literally every other tuner out there shows 20-30hp tops on the 3.6L. I’ve never seen an NA tune deliver 50+ hp dyno verified even on larger v8’s. Forced induction tunes across the board deliver substantially more power than NA, just by the nature of having more variables to improve, in my experience. Hell even a video of their tuned 3.6 actually out accelerating a stock 2.0t would go a long way towards credibility.

 

[Crusifix]

Not sure how much trust I would put on C&D numbers. My brother has a 3.6 Rbicon and auto. We lined up just for giggles, and I walked away from him. Plus I beat their 1/4 time in my 2014 GT500 by 1.1 full seconds and 4mph the first time I took it to the strip.

From Car and Driver.

Unlimited Sahara 3.6

Curb weight: 4,469 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph


Unlimited Sahara 2.0 BSG

Curb weight: 4,549 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 27.7 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.6 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph

 

[Rodeoflyer]

walked away on a 20 roll to 80 mph LOL.. just give it a rest. you will run out and the 3.6 will kick your fucking ass above 5.5k rpm. It's about powerband and a flat torque curve but that's not all.

camshaft profiles are what makes your powerband.. Unless you have VTEC lol

 

[CoolToys]

As an owner of both a 3.6L V6 (COOLTOYS JKU AND JLU) and 2.0L L4t (CRUTOYS JLU) with about 10,000 miles on each here is my humble opinion and not stock sea level numbers in a magazine reprinted from the factory specs.

All are automatics and 4WD, not AWD. The purists can have the manual, my left knee is bad from carrying too much chem warfare gear around the middle east and I save the stress for racing road cars. The slush boxes crawl great and give me the option to use the Wranglers in traffic somewhat comfortably.

The V6 at sea level drives nicer. It is a very smooth motor and we haven't had an issue with either of them.

The 2.0t (JLU only) at altitude, i.e. passing on the grades uphill in Tahoe or Yosemite, kills it. The 3.6L V6 would downshift as low as fourth some times and still barely hit 60 mph. The 2.0t L4 will remain in 8th unless you really hammer it and then it drops to 7th, and if you don't watch it you are doing 80+, uphill at 6500 feet.

The turbo keeps nearly 100% of the power at altitude, the normally aspirated V-6 loses about half I would guess. It is a very different driving experience on road in the mountains.

The 2.0t at highway speeds will average 3-4mpg better, but it requires premium so actual fuel cost per mile is about the same here in California.

The 2.0t has an annoying electric fan which is quite loud at times. It is 89 here right now and the fan was running near full speed in traffic coming back to the COOLTOYS studio from Costco just now.

I am now used to the auto-start-stop feature on the 2.0t. They say it saves fuel and when the A/C is off I believe it. With A/C on it doesn't stay off long enough to convince me.

The 2.0t is an L4 so it is a little buzzy and not as smooth as the V6. It reminds me of my buddies old CJ so I am fine with it.

To the real jeep stuff....

At the beach, they both run in the sand just fine. There is a bit of turbo lag with the 2.0t and the V6 has a little more Torque. Once you get over 3000 RPM the 2.0t takes it in the sand. Crawling the Mammoth volcano trail they felt about the same.

The bottom line...

If you are not going to crawl your Jeep and rarely head to high altitudes, don't spend the extra on the 2.0t. I don't think it is worth it. I spend about 30% of my time in the Tahoe region so the next one will either be the new turbo-diesel or another 2.0t.

Also if you are not going serious off roading, get the new AWD instead of 4WD option. It makes the Wrangler much more civilized in partly icy parking lots in the winter. Being a true 4WD hitting a hard patch can make it hop uncomfortably.

Best of luck and when you get it, of course show us what you bought!

 

[_olllllllo_]

Honestly this is a sensitive topic for some. I would search “2.0 3.6 JLWranglerforum” on google and you’ll have plenty of opinions to read from. Personally I don’t think you’ll go wrong with either choice. Test drive each and see what you enjoy.

The search feature if it just searched titles only would probably have over 50 unique threads on this exact topic. I love the South Park gif and it is so apropos!

Edit: Just took a screen shot of the latest forum topics

 

[Crusifix]

walked away on a 20 roll to 80 mph LOL.. just give it a rest. you will run out and the 3.6 will kick your fucking ass above 5.5k rpm. It's about powerband and a flat torque curve but that's not all.

camshaft profiles are what makes your powerband.. Unless you have VTEC lol

You are special. Why do I need to be above 5.5K smartass? It isn't like the 3.6 is making 100 more hp from 6K to redline. You don't know anything about what you are talking about. It is a jeep,. Again, in what usable scenario do I need to be above 5.5K? Why don't you argue with the diesel guys. They can't even reach 5.5K. . Why are you comparing camshaft profiles for two completely different engines. You don't seem to understand the first thing about how an engine works. Please go away. You are coming off as an asshat.

 

[_olllllllo_]

You are special. Why do I need to be above 5.5K smartass? It isn't like the 3.6 is making 100 more hp from 6K to redline. You don't know anything about what you are talking about. It is a jeep,. Again, in what usable scenario do I need to be above 5.5K? Why don't you argue with the diesel guys. They can't even reach 5.5K. . Why are you comparing camshaft profiles for two completely different engines. You don't seem to understand the first thing about how an engine works. Please go away. You are coming off as an asshat.

Thank you to both of you for adding a bit of humor and levity into my work day. Kudos to Crusifix for using asshat in a sentence.

 

[nostatic]

The search feature if it just searched titles only would probably have over 50 unique threads on this exact topic. I love the South Park gif and it is so apropos!

Edit: Just took a screen shot of the latest forum topics

only 5940 results - come on people, we can hit 6K if we really try!

 

[Rodeoflyer]

Eat a huge dick. Diesel?? Lol.

 

[Crusifix]

Eat a huge dick. Diesel?? Lol.

You are really showing your ignorance as it concerns the mechanics of how an engine works. Please stop now.

Sponsored