PavementWarrior
Well-Known Member
to reality for a difference in reliability. oh look this cranked up 4 cylinder is 50 less pounds! it will run forever!to you.
Sponsored
to reality for a difference in reliability. oh look this cranked up 4 cylinder is 50 less pounds! it will run forever!to you.
I wasn't addressing reliability in my post, and from the looks of it, neither were you:to reality for a difference in reliability. oh look this cranked up 4 cylinder is 50 less pounds! it will run forever!
But since you're going to change your argument I might as well go along with it. Oh look this naturally aspirated V6 is 50 more pounds! it will run forever!differnce the weight of engine is a non factor...
a small high compression turbo is obviously less reliable, and that was what was being talked about. the 6 is not same as the JK they jacked up the compression ratio on it too. In summer on the blend they use out here its a ping machine.I wasn't addressing reliability in my post, and from the looks of it, neither were you:
But since you're going to change your argument I might as well go along with it. Oh look this high compression V6 is 50 more pounds! it will run forever!
And don't forget the overwhelming evidence provided for this classic: 6 N/A is not gonna last, not much to talk about.
Again... 310 ft-lbs.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.
A little off topic but......Why do you disable the start/stop when you have the eTorque? I get it if you had the non-eTorque 3.6 due to the high probability of having starting and electrical issues due to the very small auxiliary battery. But the eTorque system start/stop is very smooth and seamless. It doesn't have the same electrical issues which are so prevalent with the non-eTorque system.I have a 2020 Sahara JLU with the 3.6 e-torque. I have had if for about almost 8 months and put about 6500 miles on it, including a 1000-mile weekend roadtrip. I have absolutely no issues with it. It idles quietly, no problems with ESS -- though I do disable it pretty frequently, it accelerates smoothly, and runs very comfortably around town or out on the highway at 75+ mph. It feels like it has plenty of power, and I have never felt like the car that watches everyone else accelerate away from them.
User name checks out...differnce the weight of engine is a non factor...
I was agreeing with everything right up to the 6BT over v8. Inline motors are always better and simpler by design, versus v-blocks. Far fewer parts and points of inevitable failure, less internal parasitic loss of output, and the overall layout is integrally stronger and easier to accomplish. Those are some of the main reasons why the passenger automotive industry is starting to follow suit with what the heavy industries have been doing for years. Fewer cylinders and inline layouts.User name checks out...
We could all argue about why one is better than the other but this post shows why there will never be a clear winner: we are all using different criteria for what better means. I have seen lighter vehicles pass through mud that mildly heavier vehicles get stuck in. On the flip side I have witnessed (in Afghanistan) heavier vehicles pass through a fast moving water crossing and a mildly lighter vehicle get washed down river.
Since I live in the muddy Southeast, weight is absolutely a factor for off roading. I considered it when picking my engine. It will also be a factor when choosing wheels, tires, winch cable type (synthetic instead of steel), etc. Every few pounds makes a difference. The Great Smoky Mountains are a lot of fun but don’t have enough altitude to challenge a NA engine so the turbo wouldn’t make a difference here.
I also chose the V6 for the same reason some chose the Cummins straight six over whatever Ford is calling their latest V8 diesel. The Cummins is less complex and has fewer moving parts, therefore it has a lower failure rate if both are made to the same quality. It also means less parts a manufacturer has to make/store/ship for repairs. This translates to less parts I may have to rely on FCA to continue to manufacture and not put on backorder due to potential future economic issues.
I have been through FCA’s Lemon Law process. It isn’t fun but I did buy another Jeep. Every extra part means another chance of failure as EVERYTHING eventually wears out. I don’t know if the V6 has fewer parts than the turbo, though a suspect it does. I do know it is less complex and with FCA’s track record on quality, less complex means less likely to leave me stranded.
Anyway, this was MY criteria when choosing. Whatever yours was or is, good for you, enjoy. If one motor was objectively better than all the others, FCA would only make that engine. Variety is awesome.
Speaking of variety, I am off to the Great Smoky Mountain Jeep Invasion today. Last year saw 5000+ Jeeps. Hope to see ya’ll there.
Inline diesels and NA in-line motors I agree with you completely. The complexity comes in when you combine the 2.0 powertrain: high RPM gas 4-cylinder, a turbo, and an ETorque battery. That is more complex process to produce power than a NA 6-cylinder. If I am mistaken, I will need someone to break it down further for me.I was agreeing with everything right up to the 6BT over v8. Inline motors are always better and simpler by design, versus v-blocks. Far fewer parts and points of inevitable failure, less internal parasitic loss of output, and the overall layout is integrally stronger and easier to accomplish. Those are some of the main reasons why the passenger automotive industry is starting to follow suit with what the heavy industries have been doing for years. Fewer cylinders and inline layouts.
There's nothing at all complex about turbos, and like what was both stated and ignored pages ago, there's nothing inherently unreliable about a turbocharged motor that was designed and built with boost in mind. There's far more complexity in the timing of a v-motor.
Inline diesels and NA in-line motors I agree with you completely. The complexity comes in when you combine the 2.0 powertrain: high RPM gas 4-cylinder, a turbo, and an ETorque battery. That is more complex process to produce power than a NA 6-cylinder. If I am mistaken, I will need someone to break it down further for me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jeep start off with e-torque in the 4 cylinder and now it's completely flipped and the turbos don't have the e-torque and V6 does for year 2021?Inline diesels and NA in-line motors I agree with you completely. The complexity comes in when you combine the 2.0 powertrain: high RPM gas 4-cylinder, a turbo, and an ETorque battery. That is more complex process to produce power than a NA 6-cylinder. If I am mistaken, I will need someone to break it down further for me.
Yes they did. And to be honest I can't understand that decision.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jeep start off with e-torque in the 4 cylinder and now it's completely flipped and the turbos don't have the e-torque and V6 does for year 2021?
I didn’t know that. Glad I got what I got. ThanksCorrect me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jeep start off with e-torque in the 4 cylinder and now it's completely flipped and the turbos don't have the e-torque and V6 does for year 2021?