New to wrangler: choose 2.0 or 3.6 for reliability and smooth operation?

[John VonJeep]

If you are buying a vehicle for sound maybe your priorities are a little skewed

I mean, with the 392, I sorta get it.

Sponsored

 

[grimmjeeper]

If you are buying a vehicle for sound maybe your priorities are a little skewed

Personally, I want a quiet off road vehicle so I can hear the spotter and nature. That and I listen for the crunch of skid plates and sliders hitting so I know what my Jeep is doing.

But a hot rod without a healthy V8 that you can hear just isn't really a hot rod.

 

[yokramer]

I mean, with the 392, I sorta get it.

Yea but imagine the mods you can do to a better Jeep for the difference in cost.

 

[yokramer]

Personally, I want a quiet off road vehicle so I can hear the spotter and nature. That and I listen for the crunch of skid plates and sliders hitting so I know what my Jeep is doing.

But a hot rod without a healthy V8 that you can hear just isn't really a hot rod.

Yea but I wouldnt buy a specific hot rod cause it sounded good, thats easy to change later buy the best bones you can for what you can afford then modify to fit your needs.

 

[John VonJeep]

Yea but imagine the mods you can do to a better Jeep for the difference in cost.

This is true. The nice thing is, I’ve been doing this long enough that I have a very, very good idea of what I want/need for my purposes. The turbo 4 is a fun little experiment this go-round, but all the rest of the mods I’m going are tried and true and designed for my specific use case.

 

[AlgUSF]

So you're looking for reliability and smooth operation? I'd probably pick a different vehicle, Jeep Wranglers aren't very reliable nor do they drive very well. You may want to checkout the Toyota LandCruiser 1958.

 

[ForgottenTaco]

Get which ever you feel is the best. But make sure you only use amsoil and 93 octane

 

[kah.mun.rah]

One more vote for V6 with eTorque

 

[Brad Hearing]

Need help. Would one choose the 2.0 or the 3.6 for reliability and smooth operation

I dont know what anyone else has said but I do know marketing and I know that the word "pentastar" is a description of the Chrysler logo.

ok. so Chrysler isn't a good brand you say BUT they took the time to name the engine after their own emblem. Think about that for a moment.

Also think about that engine being used in multiple models of their lineup.

OK. With that in your brain, go on youtube and look up how a turbo literally anything works. It does so by overloading an engine that is too small to handle the vehicle its in.


Ill stop there.

 

[ForgottenTaco]

The penstar is used in the mini van. Do you really want a mini van engine in an awesome jeep?

 

[alphawolff]

Need help. Would one choose the 2.0 or the 3.6 for reliability and smooth operation

Dealer tech here.

2.0: Better power output, more complex. Significantly higher labor costs in the event repairs are needed. Still relatively new. Coolant leaks galore, failed oil coolers, turbo failure at higher mileage.

3.6: Less complex, any shop can work on it without issue. All issues are well known at this point. OFA leaks, head gaskets, rocker arms.

Both have roughly equivalent reliability. Personally I would suggest the 3.6L purely due to ease of reparability. The 2.0L also sounds like shit, so there's that. The 2.0 also get *horrendous* MPG with normal driving. Like ~13-15 on average with mixed use. The 3.6 isn't much better in the MPG department, but it's around ~15-17 on average.

 

[TheBirdie72]

The penstar is used in the mini van. Do you really want a mini van engine in an awesome jeep?

The 2.0 is used in lawnmowers and sewing machines, apparently. So what? I still like it in my little two door!

 

[CarbonSteel]

 

[Steph1]

Actually, the 2.0 is going to accommodate larger tires better than the V6 due to its having significantly more torque.

Probably, but not blindingly more torque to neglect a regear.

 

[sunset]

Dealer tech here.

2.0: Better power output, more complex. Significantly higher labor costs in the event repairs are needed. Still relatively new. Coolant leaks galore, failed oil coolers, turbo failure at higher mileage.

3.6: Less complex, any shop can work on it without issue. All issues are well known at this point. OFA leaks, head gaskets, rocker arms.

Both have roughly equivalent reliability. Personally I would suggest the 3.6L purely due to ease of reparability. The 2.0L also sounds like shit, so there's that. The 2.0 also get *horrendous* MPG with normal driving. Like ~13-15 on average with mixed use. The 3.6 isn't much better in the MPG department, but it's around ~15-17 on average.

While this is off-topic, as a dealer tech what would you offer to say about the 392?

Sponsored