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
to reality for a difference in reliability. oh look this cranked up 4 cylinder is 50 less pounds! it will run forever!
I wasn't addressing reliability in my post, and from the looks of it, neither were you:
differnce the weight of engine is a non factor...
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!
 
Last edited:

PavementWarrior

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Threads
35
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
1,870
Location
CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 2 door JL
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.
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.

Jeep needs to head in the direction of reliability. small displacements turbos is about jacking mpg ratings.

The problem with either engine you will encounter is the terrible electrical and small battery dying on ess.
 

jeepsity

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Ron
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
19
Reaction score
7
Location
tappen
Vehicle(s)
2018 jl 2003 tj
The smart choice for our JL s would have been the chevy 5.3 probably better fuel economy with 35 plus, tires and better power and reliability . Jeep used the iron duke 4 around 1981, and the 2.8 v6 in 95 ,both crappy engines. Why not the LS ? lol
 

IdahoJOAT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Threads
37
Messages
865
Reaction score
1,001
Location
Caldwell, ID
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLURe Tuscadero, Black '05 Silverado
Vehicle Showcase
2
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.
Again... 310 ft-lbs.
 

Sponsored

limeade

Well-Known Member
First Name
Guy
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Threads
30
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
2,777
Location
Reno, NV
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR
Vehicle Showcase
1
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.
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.
 

Shaved Ice

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
331
Reaction score
1,086
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
differnce the weight of engine is a non factor...
User name checks out...:like:

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.
 
Last edited:

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,782
Reaction score
17,829
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
User name checks out...:like:

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.
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.
 

Deleted member 53226

Guest
For me the choice was very simple and had nothing to do with power, weight complexity, etc.

Any direct injection like the 2.0 WILL develop severe oil/carbon deposit accumulation on the backside of its intake valves over time and mileage. The problem will not rear its ugly head until well outside most factory warranty periods. It will require a physical tear down and cleaning of the valves. Since I plan to keep my Jeep for as long as I can and over 100,000 miles, I chose the port injected V6.

Not a knock on the 2.0. It seems a great engine with good reliability so far. I just know the above problem will develop. If anyone wonders why I'm so sure, I have a Mustang Ecoboost with the turbo 4. A fabulous and reliable engine that puts out 335hp and 310 ft tq. I have catch can on it and regularly pull about a tablespoon or two of oil out of it every few thousand miles. All that goes to the intake valves without the catch can.

Now, you might say, just put a catch can on the 2.0 then. Yes, you can do that. But it will void your warranty. You can choose to fight with Chrysler all you want, but if anything catastrophic occurs in the engine that could even be close to related to that modification, they will deny the claim. And the can is too much trouble to remove every time you get a service.

So I won't by another direct injected engine again unless they somehow come up with a cure for that.
 

Sponsored

Shaved Ice

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
331
Reaction score
1,086
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
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.
 
Last edited:

Crusifix

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Threads
20
Messages
739
Reaction score
1,299
Location
West Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLU Rubicon 2.0T Hurricane
This isn't a high rpm engine

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.
 

YYCSahara

Well-Known Member
First Name
BDLL
Joined
May 3, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
234
Reaction score
185
Location
Calgary AB Canada
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara 2.0T
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?
 

Deleted member 53226

Guest
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?
Yes they did. And to be honest I can't understand that decision.

If I recall, a big complaint about the current V6 with the start/stop feature (and no etorque) was the start/stop wasn't all that smooth. The turbo 4 with the start/stop and e-torque had no such complaints. So why would Jeep remove that tech and likely make the 4 more choppy on the stop/start? I do expect the 2021 turbo 4 owners to start noticing that in the coming months and you'll see the complaint on this forum I expect.

And on the flip side, if the etorque was not very good tech, why then push it hard on the V6? Its odd decision making.
 

Shaved Ice

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
331
Reaction score
1,086
Location
Knoxville, Tennessee
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
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. Thanks
Sponsored

 
 



Top