baysta
Active Member
I'm in the same boat as you, but I'm wondering if people are right and that the 3.6L v6 is the way to go for simplicity's sake when overlanding and what not.I SOOO hope that its true,believe me, I want it!
Sponsored
I'm in the same boat as you, but I'm wondering if people are right and that the 3.6L v6 is the way to go for simplicity's sake when overlanding and what not.I SOOO hope that its true,believe me, I want it!
I'm with you, and I think I've come to the conclusion that the 3.6L ESS is the best option right now for exactly that. Went and test drove another one today just to be sure. It's great, and I don't think I can go wrong with it. Worse come to worse, if in a few years the BSG or Diesel options are out and proven to be solid and reliable, it justifies selling and getting an upgradeI'm in the same boat as you, but I'm wondering if people are right and that the 3.6L v6 is the way to go for simplicity's sake when overlanding and what not.
That's the way I started to feel as well, but imagine dropping the coin on one just to find out that all these new options come out within a couple months, I hate this game, I am waiting.I'm in the same boat as you, but I'm wondering if people are right and that the 3.6L v6 is the way to go for simplicity's sake when overlanding and what not.
The 2.0 is $1000 option. Not taking the $1000 premium for the 2.0 into consideration. Fuel cost wise on a 2-door its probably close to a wash between a 3.6 running regular gas and a 2.0 running premium gas. It depends on where you live. In the Chicago area premium gas is about 10% more expensive but the 2.0 gets about 10% better gas mpg. Reports of MPG for the larger 4-door is about the same for both engines so no real benefit cost wise. The 2.0 would probably cost a little more to run due to requiring premium gas with the same MPG.Aside from the other reasons mentioned above, I also don't like the idea of having to put premium octane in the 2.0...seems to cut into any real difference in MPG efficiency.
eTorque on the 3.6 would have almost all the added complexities of the 2.0T except the turbocharger -- because of the required 48v battery, it will still have the added heater lines, the whole additional stand-alone cooling system, the dedicated computer module(s), more complex powertrain electronics, etc. (DI itself really isn't more complex than port injection -- just a higher-psi fuel pump and beefier lines feeding the in-combustion-chamber injectors).Even if the 3.6L gets eTorque, it still won't have forced induction or direct injection or the other over complicated stuff the 2.0L has. So, it will always be the most reliable and dependable powertrain option for JL.
(snip)
Nice pun!If the BSG has the battery and cooling system like the 2.0 it's a non starter for me.
Funny I had nearly the exact opposite experience. I drove similarly optioned Rubicons back to back with the 2.0L and the 3.6L. Here's some observations of mine:After test driving 5 Different jeeps from Rubicons to Saharas with 3.6 and 2.0 Turbo, I can confidently say that the 3.6 felt awkward, and misplaced in the jeep. First off, It made the entire vehicle feel heavy, stiff, and tough to manuver. Getting on the highway it took far to long to get the power I needed to successfully merge into traffic. Stop/Start with this engine was loud, rough, and laggy on take off. I have no experience with the 6 speed manual, so that might be a different story. From what I gathered on all my different examples is that the 2.0 Turbo was extremely smooth in all aspects, city and highway and effortlessly operated the engine stop/start feature. It was bearly noticeable and power was instant on take off and through the mid rpms. Zero lag from a Stop Start Situation. By the end of my drives I had not noticed that the stop start had occurred until the engine turned back on (which it did quietly). These reasons are why I personally believe the 2.0 is a better engine in this platform and the way to go unless you are holding out for a diesel. My 2019 JLUR Mojito is going to have the 2.0 and I'm extremely excited to be able to drive it everyday.
I'm not sure where you got $1500 for a battery replacement when the whole system itself is less than that. I'm guessing a replacement battery for this woudn't run more than about $200 at the most.The eTorque 48v battery is about $1500 today. I have no idea how long the 48v battery is covered for under the factory warranty? Or if it is covered under the Factory Extended FCA warranty?
From another thread here on the JLWfourm:I'm not sure where you got $1500 for a battery replacement when the whole system itself is less than that. I'm guessing a replacement battery for this woudn't run more than about $200 at the most.
Someone in another thread posted the part number. Here is the 48v battery, part #68381513AA…$1565 list price. Plus extra cost for hazardous materials shipping.I'm not sure where you got $1500 for a battery replacement when the whole system itself is less than that. I'm guessing a replacement battery for this woudn't run more than about $200 at the most.
Thanks for posting that. Maybe it's just me but doesn't it strike you as odd that the FCA only charges $1000 for the BSG on a Wrangler ($1500 on a Ram truck) but replacement for the battery is as much or more than the whole BSG system new? That just doesn't make sense to me.Someone in another thread posted the part number. Here is the 48v battery, part #68381513AA…$1565 list price. Plus extra cost for hazardous materials shipping.
https://www.getoemparts.com/oem-parts/mopar-battery-assembly-68381513aa?c=az0x