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

[2nd 392]

My 3.6L made it about 75K miles before going Tango Uniform via cracked head or block. The cheapest POS anything I have ever owned made it past that--i have nothing good to say about the 3.6L.

Jeep’s drivetrain options sold me a Bronco and an 05 4R that at the time offered a V8. Not much of a V8 (260 HP 330 Lb Ft) but better than what Jeep offered in 05, I drove it until 21 when Jeep offered a V8 …
but was waiting for the diesel to replace it when the V8 rumors started…. Here we go again, but now it’s becoming … If you want power you must go electrified. Any doubt see 25 GC 4cyl or 4Xe only…. It’s highly unlikely there will be a 26 Final Final Final Last Call 392. Especially with Durango and it’s V8’s being discontinued.

unless they do Last Last Last Call Durangos in 26 too.

Sponsored

 

[CarbonSteel]

Why do you still post on this forum if you've switched to a Bronco? Genuine curiosity.

I own 2 other Jeeps and I have shared lots of information and helped many while I did own the Wrangler and even past that--so for the most part, I help out where I can.

If it had not been such a POS, I would still own it, but a cracked head/block at 75K on top of the other issues I experienced was where I cut my losses.

 

[Mountainwalk]

As of right now I'm talking to a dealer in Alabama about buying a brand new 2-door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon X. 3.6/Auto. I'm in Indiana. Looked at all of the info on the 2025's. No 3.6/Auto available. Will it be...who knows. Basically no change between 2024 to 2025 besides a loss of paint colors. The one I'm considering is High Velocity Yellow. Payment will be stupid high. But, there are hardly in 2-door's out there in Rubicon X trim. Coast to coast border to border. Only one I found close to me and only one, is white. Just not a color I care for. I really miss my 2-door.

I agree. 2 doors are awesome.

 

[2nd 392]

LOL - One thing is for sure, it will run circles around any Jeep and get better MPG while doing it.

 

[Jsmeltz]

I built a 2021 Sahara and got the 2.0 and it blew a head gasket in less than 15K miles not to mention that premium gas is recommended. On top of that, it took the dealer 12 weeks to make the repair and when it was done, every cover was snotted up with silicone. I currently have a Willys in production with the V6 which has been refined and proven over the years since it's inception and glitches it had been ironed out over the years. Liked the peppyness of the I4, but never again for me. Glad I have a 24 locked in with the 6 and Extreme tire package..

 

[Gangplank]

100 years old is "new technology" right?
Amazing Innovations: Turbochargers | DrivingLine

Actually turbo technology has only been successful in cars since the late 70’s - 80’s so about 40 -50 years.

 

[siggy]

LOL - and Jeep is not? I managed 75K out of my 3.6L...complete POS. Time will tell with the Ford, but thus far it has been fine. One thing is for sure, it will run circles around any Jeep and get better MPG while doing it.

Your 2.7 will run circles around a 392? I know you’ve been hittin that blue kool aide pretty hard but you’ve now entered full keg stand status.

 

[roaniecowpony]

Actually turbo technology has only been successful in cars since the late 70’s - 80’s so about 40 -50 years.

More or less true, if you discount the success of the Corvair, Olds and 911 Turbo. There's a difference between technology and engineering application. My statement was that the technology was 100 years old.

In high school in the early 70s, my brother and I used to hang around Ak Miller's garage. We built a 2.0L Pinto with a Weber 45 DCOE on wishbone manifold I made in shop class, feeding into a Garrett TO4 running 32 psi boost putting out an estimated ~400hp. It ran 12s at well over 110mph...until it didn't. That was really quick on the street in that time. It was a fun sleeper. It would eat big block Chevys and Mopars for breakfast in stoplight grand prix and leave 911s in the dust. Those days were a lot of fun. Hell, now you need a sub 10 second car to beat a electric ecology car.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Your 2.7 will run circles around a 392? I know you’ve been hittin that blue kool aide pretty hard but you’ve now entered full keg stand status.

But we were not talking about a 392 were we? I edited the post because (as you pointed out) I left out 1 word.

With that said, the MPG part would definitely apply to a 392.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Nope, it is correct after I added the 1 word I left out.

 

[Terrymo]

Why do you still post on this forum if you've switched to a Bronco? Genuine curiosity.

@CarbonSteel contributes so much we can overlook the fact he now owns a Bronco

 

[siggy]

But we were not talking about a 392 were we? I edited the post because (as you pointed out) I left out 1 word.

With that said, the MPG part would definitely apply to a 392.

You literally said any Jeep. And on the topic of going off track, the OP was asking about two Jeep motors, which in turn you introduced the Ferd. Not sure how else I should’ve read your comment since the thread was off track already. But nice of you to clarify your Bronco is still slower than a 392

 

[CarbonSteel]

TDI still has the problem. It's all because of direct injection. As for advanced the 2.0 turbo sounds just as bad as the Iron Duke... maybe the Iron Duke was a head of its time, at least for industrial sound.

What is TDI? Are we talking about diesels? GDI has improved dramatically--you do not see the stories of people having to have their valves walnut blasted like you did 10 years ago. Shocking that you think the Iron Duke can be compared to the 2.0T in any semblance of manner other than it being an inline 4-cylinder ICE engine.

As for oiling issues.... most are from over torque of filter. Plastics can be good and is proof the updates are an advancement whether you like it or not.

No, it is not. Mine leaked at 50K and I was meticulous at tightening it. It is 100% due to the design. The o-rings under the cooler are not supported, they harden and leak OR the plastic housing warps just enough to cause it to leak. WIth 5 bolts spread across such a wide area, it is not a good design. I agree that plastics can be good when used in the correct application. An oil filter/oil cooler housing is not one of them.

All ICE engines are based on 1900s engines. As for Ford... get a Bronco or put 2.0 vs 3.6 comparison to rest.

I agree about the ICE engines, but from 1900 until now, we cannot count the improvements. I do have a Bronco and was not comparing the 2.0T to a 3.6L, but the 2.0T wins.

Fuel milage is going to be different when comparing apples to oranges. IMO an 22.5MPG average, out of a 3.6L with 4.10 gears and 33s, with lousy aerodynamics is awesome.

Maybe running downhill from the Rocky Mountains. The best I ever saw in my 3.6L when it was new was 20-21MPG and that was on flat land with no load and no headwind. To say that it averages 22.5MPG means that it is getting far above that which very questionable.

Younger crowd think turbos are the best... I've ran down a few Subaru STI goung up hill to give them a wake up. Yes the road is normally a 9MPG run, while maintaining speed of 65MPH.

Not sure what you are trying to say here...

I have yet to add NOS boost... just haven't seen the need yet. Even with a burst of run downs I can still break 22MPG on my trip keeping up with traffic.

LOL - go ahead and add NOS to your 3.6L, fairly certain the next post would be something on the lines of "epic failure".

You make this v6 a dinosaur.... proving it's still capable. And why would a company still make them.... only one thing people want them as much as enjoy them.

It works--but there is nothing advanced about it--which, you never did say what makes it an "advanced engine".

 

[CarbonSteel]

You literally said any Jeep. And on the topic of going off track, the OP was asking about two Jeep motors, which in turn you introduced the Ferd. Not sure how else I should’ve read your comment since the thread was off track already. But nice of you to clarify your Bronco is still slower than a 392

Yes; I know--get the torches and pitchforks out because I literally left out 1 word and I was not responding to the OP so there's that.

 

[TheBrandon]

LOL - and Jeep is not? I managed 75K out of my 3.6L...complete POS. Time will tell with the Ford, but thus far it has been fine. One thing is for sure, it will run circles around any 3.6L Jeep and get better MPG while doing it.

Edited because I left out the bolded part.

My experience is my 24 2 door Badlands with a 2.7 and Ford Performance tune (sport mode unlocked) is just a ridiculous fat hog comparing to my '19 2 door 2.0L Rubicon with eTorque and its not even close. My Bronco doesn't build boost worth a shit, doesn't hold boost worth a shit and has an unacceptable delay when starting imo.

For city driving for stop and go traffic Jeep easily takes this especially from the dig. Obviously neither are a racer but needing quick power to the ground to move in and out of rush hour traffic, my Bronco is pretty bad to me. Maybe this is the insane throttle delay or the weight comparing. Maybe I have a boost leak or it's the etorque on my Jeep hitting from the dig. Either way, having had a pentastar on my JK, the 2.0 etorque was only option on my Rubicon when I ordered. Turns out it's been my favorite engine. It wasn't available on the '24 so I grabbed the Bronco to mix it up a bit and specifically choose the 2.7. It was disappointing. Grabbed the FPT. Disappointing, unlocked Sport Mode. Disappointing driving the Jeep and Bronco back to back. Enough where I even ran 0-60 like a weirdo in these.

Sound though.... 2.7 for days lol. Jeep is just more fun for me though they're both good.

How's the 2.0L compare to the 2.0L with etorque? Any dynos out on this anyone has seen?

I've been keeping an eye on the '25 to see if they made any changes to increase performance.

Sponsored