Never thought I would have a 4cyc!

[nealwiley]

Picked up my new Rubicon yesterday, I LOVE the 2.0 turbo and I have always believed there is no replacement for displacement. Unbelievable how this jeep runs. And no more problems with the last 3.6 jeeps I have had, I hope. Cant say enough good about the 2.0!

Sponsored

 

[Headbarcode]

Picked up my new Rubicon yesterday, I LOVE the 2.0 turbo and I have always believed there is no replacement for displacement. Unbelievable how this jeep runs. And no more problems with the last 3.6 jeeps I have had, I hope. Cant say enough good about the 2.0!

Congrats on your new Rubi and welcome to the forum!

As a former truck and heavy equipment mechanic for over 30 years, the motor choice was my biggest hurdle to submitting a factory order on a 2019 JLUR. At that time, the only options were for the 2.0 and 3.6 motors. Diesel was on the horizon, but never for a moment did I consider waiting for it. Most of my life, beginning with my very first vehicle, I drove diesel powered personal cars and trucks. But no way in hell was I going to get involved with a modern diesel.

Due to a bit of ocd, and just plain having fun, I test drove over 100 different wranglers to directly compare the 2 above choices. Every 3.6 felt sluggish until higher rpms woke it up, which I'm not a fan of, and every 2.0 made the Jeep feel lighter than it actual was because of the low and mid range torque advantage. Also, a number of people here including myself believe that the advertised torque numbers are underrated. Couple that to an inline motor having less parasitic loss than a v-motor, and ones left with quite a spirited driving Jeep.

My Jeep is lifted a tad over 4" than stock and on 38x13.5's, and the 2.0 motor just seems to shrug it off and wants to run.

 

[Heimkehr]

...no way in hell was I going to get involved with a modern diesel.

Due to a bit of ocd, and just plain having fun, I test drove over 100 different wranglers to directly compare the 2 above choices. Every 3.6 felt sluggish until higher rpms woke it up, which I'm not a fan of, and every 2.0 made the Jeep feel lighter than it actual was because of the low and mid range torque advantage.

My cousin is a custom home builder, and has been going through light trucks, so to speak, since the mid-90s. The stories he tells me about the complexity of modern diesel engines, and the increasing market value of older F350s, etc. with fewer diesel emission encumbrances, are pretty sobering.

The historic advantage of diesel engines was threefold: their robustness, relative simplicity and low(er) fuel price trends. Only the first one remains, I'd say.

As for the Wrangler's powerplants: taking the advice of a friend and fellow owner, I test drove several different Jeeps with V6s to give that engine a fair chance. This included automatic and manual transmissions. I walked away distinctly unimpressed with the 3.6L, esp. given the numbers printed on the spec sheet. I too prefer not to ask my engines to work as hard as an ugly stripper, just to get me down the road.

When it came time to sign the sales order, I selected the 2.0T without ever having driven or even seen it. A real leap of faith. Having lived with the 4 cylinder for a little while now, I continue to be well-pleased with everything about the Hurricane engine. Fair credit must be shared with the superlative 850RE transmission, also.

 

[Headbarcode]

My cousin is a custom home builder, and has been going through light trucks, so to speak, since the mid-90s. The stories he tells me about the complexity of modern diesel engines, and the increasing market value of older F350s, etc. with fewer diesel emission encumbrances, are pretty sobering.

The historic advantage of diesel engines was threefold: their robustness, relative simplicity and low(er) fuel price trends. Only the first one remains, I'd say.

As for the Wrangler's powerplants: taking the advice of a friend and fellow owner, I test drove several different Jeeps with V6s to give that engine a fair chance. This included automatic and manual transmissions. I walked away distinctly unimpressed with the 3.6L, esp. given the numbers printed on the spec sheet. I too prefer not to ask my engines to work as hard as an ugly stripper, just to get me down the road.

When it came time to sign the sales order, I selected the 2.0T without ever having driven or even seen it. A real leap of faith. Having lived with the 4 cylinder for a little while now, I continue to be well-pleased with everything about the Hurricane engine. Fair credit must be shared with the superlative 850RE transmission, also.

Even robustness has gone they way of the dodo bird. You'll read about the overcomplicated emissions and exhaust systems hear, but that I've seen, I'm the only one that ever mentions the downsides to the lack of sulfur in the fuel itself.

Sulfur brought the much needed lubrication and cooling qualities to the high pressure side of the fuel delivery system. Even if one were to acquire an older diesel motor, the fuel itself will drag its lifespan down to that of a gas motor. The modern "dry" diesel causes accelerated erosion of injectors, the pump internals, and even the piston rings and cylinder walls.

I once had a 1982 Mercedes 300D turbodiesel, that never saw anything more invasive to the motor than a water pump and other external wear items. I drove it to the scale of a scrap yard with 1.65 million miles on the clock. It was running like a top, with just the typical blowby you'd expect at that mileage, but the unibody was beyond rotted to the point that it was a rolling liability. Good luck getting a modern diesel anywhere near that mileage without a couple of complete rebuilds.

 

[cOtter]

Welcome aboard. I too have the 2T in my Sahara. Love it.

 

[old mike]

Yeah, the 4 cylinders that they gave me seem okay, at least as far as half an engine goes; but, I'd really like some hints on where they left those other 4 cylinders and some help on how to bolt the two halves back together.

 

[Black Jeep Convertible]

But Scotty says big cars with turbo gdi =

 

[bigbaozi]

Turbocharged direct injection was the replacement for displacement. The 2.0 is definitely the better of the two base engines. I had a hard time telling the difference between it and the eTorque version though. Not to knock the V6 too much, they both provide more than adequate performance.

 

[Sublime]

I went from a 2017 RAM 1500 Hemi to my JL 2.0T. I'm not at all disappointed with the power in the JL. It really scoots.

 

[Headbarcode]

But Scotty says big cars with turbo gdi =

Beware! That guy is a well known putz. Anyone who listens to his nonsense, knows just as little as he does.

 

[Headbarcode]

Here's a quick pic of my processing trommel. The drum alone weighs the equivalent of a 2 door Rubicon, and the 4 conveyor belts weigh the same as a 4 door Rubicon. All powered by a 4 cylinder turbo motor that only makes 187hp and 260lbft. I'd say dooptie doo in the video above should stick to his day job, which has obviously nothing to do with anything mechanical.

 

[Heimkehr]

But Scotty says big cars with turbo gdi =

"Scotty" joins Lite Brite and others in the category of uncritically popular video channels.

Like Wikipedia, YouTube's concurrent strength and weakness is that anyone can provide content without material vetting occurring beforehand.

There are some remarkably well-assembled presentations in both venues, and there's also a fair bit of time-wasting crap that shouldn't see the light of day. It does, though, and so goes the world.

 

[Reinen]

But Scotty says big cars with turbo gdi =

lol, he called it "high-test" gas. I thought the people who said that are all dead or not allowed to drive anymore. I wouldn't give much weight to his opinion on modern vehicles.

 

[Col_Sanders]

When I first saw Jeep was putting a turbo 4 banger in the JL I laughed at how dumb of an idea it was. It would have to suck, especially off road. Then I got a rental Sahara with one and was very impressed with the torque. It definitely changed my mind.

I have the 2.0 in my Rubicon and with stock gears and 37s, it does great, even on steep grades. I'm sure regearing would be even better but its not in my near future.

 

[Headbarcode]

"Scotty" joins Lite Brite and others in the category of uncritically popular video channels.

Like Wikipedia, YouTube's concurrent strength and weakness is that anyone can provide content without material vetting occurring beforehand.

There are some remarkably well-assembled presentations in both venues, and there's also felony-grade crap that shouldn't see the light of day. It does, though, and so goes the world.

Still gotta give litebrite some credit, as they typically leave the really technical info for the manufacturer, that they're visiting, to describe.

Sponsored