Sponsored

EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Threads
26
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,185
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
30 cents more in the tax free army base, and 45+ cents more everywhere else here, and good luck trying to stay under boost in NYC. You won't even make it to the next light accelerating that slow.
Sponsored

 

GARRIGA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alejandro
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Threads
18
Messages
704
Reaction score
441
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Durango RT
Occupation
Finance
30 cents more in the tax free army base, and 45+ cents more everywhere else here, and good luck trying to stay under boost in NYC. You won't even make it to the next light accelerating that slow.
Used to work in NYC. Never understood why anyone drove. I walked faster. Lol
 

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Threads
26
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,185
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
Used to work in NYC. Never understood why anyone drove. I walked faster. Lol
That would make sense if you lived in the borough of Manhattan, but those that drive usually live just outside of it. Nobody wants to take public transportation with the rest of the non car owning peasants.
 

Ribixcon

Active Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
May 20, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
39
Reaction score
23
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL 2 door Rubicon
About the fuel ā€œupgradesā€...
A higher octane will resist ā€œexplodingā€ when getting compressed in your cilinders a bit better then a lower octane. You want it to explode at the perfect time, initiated by your timing and spark plug.
If your engine does not compress very much, nothing (bad) happens with either fuel. The fuel air mixture does not explode prior to your sparks timing... perfect.
If you have a high compression type engine (either by design or through turbo or compressor install) there could be an issue with low octane fuel igniting prior to the perfect moment, (when your piston is still traveling ā€˜upā€™ compressing the fuel air mixture). So compression is igniting the fuel, not the spark (thatā€™s how diesel engines work, diesel octane is low 40). So thatā€™s when a higher octane fuel resist ignition during compression and waits for the spark so to say.
Putting a high octane fuel in a lower compression engine does absolutely nothing. Nothing will run better or happen differently.
Itā€™s like spraying your mufler wet while your driving in the summer to keep it cool . It wasnā€™t a problem to begin with. The preventive action is not going to make anything better.
Putting high octane gas (premium gas) in an engine that does not require is, is a waste of money.
I hope this helps to save some people some $ to buy extra upgrades for their new JL :)
 

Sponsored

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
About the fuel ā€œupgradesā€...
A higher octane will resist ā€œexplodingā€ when getting compressed in your cilinders a bit better then a lower octane. You want it to explode at the perfect time, initiated by your timing and spark plug.
If your engine does not compress very much, nothing (bad) happens with either fuel. The fuel air mixture does not explode prior to your sparks timing... perfect.
If you have a high compression type engine (either by design or through turbo or compressor install) there could be an issue with low octane fuel igniting prior to the perfect moment, (when your piston is still traveling ā€˜upā€™ compressing the fuel air mixture). So compression is igniting the fuel, not the spark (thatā€™s how diesel engines work, diesel octane is low 40). So thatā€™s when a higher octane fuel resist ignition during compression and waits for the spark so to say.
Putting a high octane fuel in a lower compression engine does absolutely nothing. Nothing will run better or happen differently.
Itā€™s like spraying your mufler wet while your driving in the summer to keep it cool . It wasnā€™t a problem to begin with. The preventive action is not going to make anything better.
Putting high octane gas (premium gas) in an engine that does not require is, is a waste of money.
I hope this helps to save some people some $ to buy extra upgrades for their new JL :)
Higher compression benefits from higher octane, as well as vehicles with advanced timing. I have to run 93 in my Mustang or risk the consequences due to the tune it is running.
 

Ribixcon

Active Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
May 20, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
39
Reaction score
23
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL 2 door Rubicon
Higher compression benefits from higher octane, as well as vehicles with advanced timing. I have to run 93 in my Mustang or risk the consequences due to the tune it is running.
I think we are in agreement here. So If your compression requires higher octane I would say a low octane is going to give bad results. High octane is not going to give ā€œbetterā€ results then expected from the engine. Just better then an incorrect low octane fuel for that engine. In other words: getting an even higher octane fuel will not make it ā€œeven betterā€. You run the engine with the fuel it requires. Higher is a waste of money, lower will give bad results.
Jeeps require regular.
 

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
I think we are in agreement here. So If your compression requires higher octane I would say a low octane is going to give bad results. High octane is not going to give ā€œbetterā€ results then expected from the engine. Just better then an incorrect low octane fuel for that engine. In other words: getting an even higher octane fuel will not make it ā€œeven betterā€. You run the engine with the fuel it requires. Higher is a waste of money, lower will give bad results.
Jeeps require regular.
Pentastar Jeeps require regular, the 2.0 requires 91 (unless you are willing to risk it). We do agree that higher octane has no performance benefit in and of itself, but allows more timing and higher compression ratios that produce more power, without detonation/preignition.
 

Ribixcon

Active Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
May 20, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
39
Reaction score
23
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL 2 door Rubicon
Pentastar Jeeps require regular, the 2.0 requires 91 (unless you are willing to risk it). We do agree that higher octane has no performance benefit in and of itself, but allows more timing and higher compression ratios that produce more power, without detonation/preignition.
 

Ribixcon

Active Member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
May 20, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
39
Reaction score
23
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL 2 door Rubicon
Totally agree.
 

Sponsored

GARRIGA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alejandro
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Threads
18
Messages
704
Reaction score
441
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Durango RT
Occupation
Finance
My FJ ran on 87 but ran better on 93. More felt power. Better mpg. Donā€™t know what the compression was. Just know what I saw and noticed.
 

Drock

Member
First Name
Derek
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Location
Saugerties NY
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Mangum
Why would the manual for the JL turbo mention that the engine will meet satisfactory fuel economy and performance on 87 octane? If they truly believe that lower than 91 octane will damage the engine than that note should have been omitted all together.
 

Alex D

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
13
Reaction score
17
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2015 Jeep Wrangler Willy's Wheeler, tank, half doors
Here is where my "BS meter" pegs the scale! All this hubbub about the 2.0 having better fuel economy is facade and marketing BS because economically the TCO cost of the 2.0 will never pencil. In our area premium gas is consistently 70 to 80 cents MORE expensive than regular. Take the extra cost of the engine plus the need for premium fuel vs the V6 and you will never have an economic return on this investment.

Consider if I4 turbo could on average swing 4 mpg better fuel economy than the V6 using our fuel prices right now:
At 15,000 mls/yr the V6 fuel cost at 20mpg with regular at $2.68/gal. is $2,010 per year --- At the same distance for the I4 Turbo with 24 mpg requiring premium fuel @ $3.28/gal the fuel cost is $2,050 per year.
 
Last edited:

Majestic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
780
Reaction score
715
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
2013 JKUR, 2019 JLUR
Here is where my "BS meter" pegs the scale! All this hubbub about the 2.0 having better fuel economy is facade and marketing BS because economically the TCO cost of the 2.0 will never pencil. In our area premium gas is consistently 70 to 80 cents MORE expensive than regular. Take the extra cost of the engine plus the need for premium fuel vs the V6 and you will never have an economic return on this investment.
Agreed.
I can think of no business case for the 2.0L whatsoever. It would make more sense to put the mild hybrid system on the 87 octane V6 (if they could guarantee it wouldnā€™t catch fire)
 

rodhotter

Well-Known Member
First Name
bernie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
109
Reaction score
25
Location
pennsylvania USA
Vehicle(s)
2008 chevy colorado 2001 audi TT 225Q
most all engines today use regular fuel, but its usually mentioned higher octane premium gives better performance + a bit better mpg's. you gotta keep your foot under control to limit boost + the xtra fueling that goes with it especially if you floor it!!! ECU tuning of the boost etc comes into play as well. a good point is the bottom line $$$$ like diesels xtra fuel cost + upkeep a good simpler naturally aspirated engine can be the best choice overall with only giving up some low end torque, your $$$ your choice but more complicated turbo engines can be more problematic + costly for sure!!!
Sponsored

 
 



Top