Anyone have buyer's remorse for ordering the 3.6 instead of the 2.0 Turbo.

[Lightsped]

Went with V-6. Manual was a requirement, so it made this choice very easy.... Not really interested in anything that will overcomplicate the Jeep. Mine will have roll up windows, cloth top, etc.....

Drove a 2.0 a couple hundred miles (rental) and was pleased with mpg, but not with the sound of the motor. Sound is objective though. Both should be good motors.

Sponsored

 

[timn1984]

There are many discussions regarding this topic. It really comes down to preference. I prefer a 3.6 over 2.0 because I thought the 2.0 was choppy/jumpy when test driving. I love my 3.6. It’s smoother and Has great pickup on the hi way When the need for passing a truck is imminent. I’ll leave it there..... I’m sure the storm is coming!!!

 

[631_Islander]

I went back and forth on engine type. I felt performance on paper was about the same but the feel was different than I am used to. I will miss the extra gas mileage of the 2.0, but not the windup hard working sound of the Turbo.

Having experienced both, I would have had no regrets regardless of what I choose. I went with the Pentastar due to established reliability but would have also been ok with the Turbo 4.

 

[TheRaven]

There was never any question for me...I knew I needed the V6 from the start. I would have never even looked at the 2.0 if it weren't for the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a V6 on the lot to test drive. That being the case, I bought the V6 without ever even driving it because I was that sure that it was the right choice. For me it's V6 or no Wrangler.

 

[SirMagnus89]

The 3.6 is a great engine and i have no issues with it at all. It pulls great for a Wrangler. It is smooth and it doesnt drone. The exhaust tone is nice as well as the induction sound.

If they offer a Manual with the 2.0T however, i would have ordered one.

 

[dgoodhue]

I went into purchasing my Jeep thinking I was going buy a 2.0T. I own 4 cars, 3 of the 4 have turbo on them and the one that does not is a 4 cylinder and its my winter beater. The 2.0T is cheaper, more torque, slightly better MPG and I like turbo's, so it seem like it would be a winner. I am mechanically incline so I was not worried about the complexity of turbo.

I was interested in ordering a 80th JLU and the two 80th they had on the dealer lot had 3.6etorque engine. I test drove the 3.6 1st and then 2.0T. The 3.6etorque sounded better, was quieter, and seemed more refined. My girlfriend made the 2.0T sound noisy and like crap when she drove it. The seem to accelerate similar at WOT and I barely noticed the additional torque and responsiveness of the 2.0T. I would have been fine with 2.0T if we never drove the 3.6. I wanted to save money and get the 2.0T, but I just preferred the 3.6etorque as did my girlfriend. It took about 10 seconds to decide after we discussed it. The price tag was already $50k, what is another $1500 for something I plan to keep 10+ years.

It is an unknown how that holds up long term for reliability for the 2.0T or the etorque. No regrets yet.

 

[NBB]

4 cyl with turbo or not - it’s a Japanese econobox motor. No matter what you do, the fewer power impulses per rev will always be noticeable. V6 minimum, IMO, haven’t owned a 4 cyl since I was a student.

The only reason a larger motor gets worse mileage is because the gas pedal goes down further, so to speak. The physics of energy required to move air and mass are exactly the same and the various motor efficiencies are not very different.

 

[jludave]

No regrets with the 3.6 in my '20.

I do want to mention that dealerships around here seem to be ordering vehicles for inventory with the 2.0.

 

[631_Islander]

No regrets with the 3.6 in my '20.

I do want to mention that dealerships around here seem to be ordering vehicles for inventory with the 2.0.

The 2.0 is probably more profitable for FCA. Hence the reason for pushing it.

 

[Strommen95]

There will be a day in the future when 3.6 JLs are very valuable relative to other JLs. Similar to how I6 TJs are much more valuable than the I4 ones. This won't be because the 2.0 is bad or anything like that but because traditional V6s are being phased out. Wranglers are old school, nostalgic vehicles for many people and V6s will be longed for when they're gone. Not to mention Port Injection inherently will be more favorable long term regardless over Direct Injection.

 

[WilhelmSR]

Nope,
3.6 = Manual Tans

 

[Reseg]

I've had JLs with both. I have zero concerns or complaints with my current 3.6, and my only minor annoyance with my 2.0 was the crazy cooling fan noise they all have when it's warm out.

The 3.6 has proven itself to go hundreds of thousands of miles, has very consistent torque with a longer power band and higher redline, and is the current Wards 10 Best Engines. The 2.0 is showing NO concerning weaknesses or fail points, has better MPGs, and more peaky torque you can feel when it's in its power band.

The 2.0 still does have to prove itself, but has been doing awesome. Still, not enough have hit 60, 80, and 100k miles+++ yet and sometimes common things can start popping up (from experience) especially with turbos and direct injection. I'm not worried personally, but something to note if really analyzing pros and cons.

Jeep has a reason to push the 2.0 and that's for their fleet MPG average, to not incur penalties and for good press PR.

 

[nU7OuxIx]

I still go back and forth between the 3.6L and diesel. In this particular instance with the 2.0 and 3.6, according to fueleconomy.gov, you get 2 extra MPG's with the smaller engine. Does that really make that much of a difference? So maybe you get 40 extra miles per tank (~2 gallons)...It's really your choice, but I wouldn't feel bad about getting the larger engine.

 

[TheRaven]

The 2.0 is probably more profitable for FCA. Hence the reason for pushing it.

It's a CAFE thing. FCA needs to make up for Hellcat'ing and 392'ing every frikin vehicle they make. Dealers are only able to order the V6 for sold olders. All stock orders are 2.0 only. So if you find a V6 on a lot, it's a cancelled buyer order.

The engine choices on the Wrangler make no sense. The engines are far too similar, it's really dumb.

The 2.0 still does have to prove itself, but has been doing awesome. Still, not enough have hit 60, 80, and 100k miles+++ yet and sometimes common things can start popping up (from experience) especially with turbos and direct injection. I'm not worried personally, but something to note if really analyzing pros and cons.

It is absolutely inevitable that the 2.0l will be more failure-prone than the V6. It's a simple matter of physics. However the obvious question then becomes - with all the problems that the JL's have, will a more problematic engine even be noticed? It may not be. Furthermore, owners are going to find very quickly when these JLs get up there in mileage that owning one without a warranty isn't really going to be financially feasible...and as long as you have a warranty and a good dealer, then a more problematic engine may not really matter.

 

[four low]

The 2.0 is probably more profitable for FCA. Hence the reason for pushing it.

There's a shortage of V6s, so they are being reserved for the vehicle lines that only have them, the Ram for one.
Contract dispute with an " outsourced" engine supplier.
" Jeep could lose $100 Million because of Canadian Supplier"

Sponsored