Turbo on every rubicon on dealer lot

[ormandj]

I bought my Rubi back in October, but I noticed that one of the local dealers had both at least half of the lot covered with turbos, then on order, via their website showing what's being delivered soon a crapload of additional turbos. In my mind, there's no way in hell that the demand for those little four bangers is that high. If you ask me it's not the dealers, I suspect the demand for the 3.6 is still very high since it's a long well-proven engine, and thus I believe it's FCA pushing the turbos on the dealers. My guess is it has to do with FCA meeting EPA numbers or at a very minimum allowing a tax reduction or some sort of kickback if they get so many sold with the turbo.

The dealerships around me and in CO when I visited and test drove Jeeps all said the same thing. The die hard Jeep people who came and bought right when the model launched typically asked for the v6. Almost everyone after who test drove both bought the 2T. Reasons why were generally the power was better/ESS was better, the only complaints were it didn't sound as good.

Not everyone is a die hard "if it ain't broken" person. The 2L has significantly better mid-range which is what matters on-road and anybody who drives both and isn't stuck in the "too new" mentality is going to notice. Most buyers of these things aren't on this forum either. We have very strange sampling bias here, so all the comments you read represent a skewed perspective of a certain type of buyer, which I would argue is a small minority.

As a side note, as it often comes up on these discussions, I was just at a high volume service center for Jeep and asked how many 2.0 issues they had seen so far. None. Only one v6 issue, sounded like a minor issue though. Just one dealership, but it's not like 2.0s are grenading everyday. People need to relax on the reliability stuff until these things have been on the road a while. 50k/100k miles on a bunch of them and then we can see what the situation looks like.

They are both great engines so far, and time will tell on the 2.0 long-term reliability. Same for the Pentastar and whatever changes it has received. We shouldn't rush to pass judgement until there is actual data, though.

Sponsored

 

[LincolnSixAlpha]

The dealerships around me and in CO when I visited and test drove Jeeps all said the same thing. The die hard Jeep people who came and bought right when the model launched typically asked for the v6. Almost everyone after who test drove both bought the 2T. Reasons why were generally the power was better/ESS was better, the only complaints were it didn't sound as good.

Not everyone is a die hard "if it ain't broken" person. The 2L has significantly better mid-range which is what matters on-road and anybody who drives both and isn't stuck in the "too new" mentality is going to notice. Most buyers of these things aren't on this forum either. We have very strange sampling bias here, so all the comments you read represent a skewed perspective of a certain type of buyer, which I would argue is a small minority.

As a side note, as it often comes up on these discussions, I was just at a high volume service center for Jeep and asked how many 2.0 issues they had seen so far. None. Only one v6 issue, sounded like a minor issue though. Just one dealership, but it's not like 2.0s are grenading everyday. People need to relax on the reliability stuff until these things have been on the road a while. 50k/100k miles on a bunch of them and then we can see what the situation looks like.

They are both great engines so far, and time will tell on the 2.0 long-term reliability. Same for the Pentastar and whatever changes it has received. We shouldn't rush to pass judgement until there is actual data, though.

All good point's, and I particularly agree with you regarding populous of this forum. I suspect that in fact there's a very SMALL percentage of JL buyers who actually visit this forum, at all, if ever. Therefore you must certainly take everything with a grain of salt when reading and digesting information here.

 

[Jebiruph]

How are you 2.0 owners planning on dealing with the carbon build up on your intake valves from the PCV system?

 

[viper88]

Funny, all these posts and I didn't read anything about NVH (noise/vibration/harshness). I guess it all comes down to what you are accustomed to driving. We were given a 2.0 Sahara for the day before deciding to purchase. The only reason we were given it was it was the most "loaded" Sahara my dealer had on the lot at the time. The engine seemed more than capable of propelling the jeep down the road...but the NVH (for us) was unacceptable. The backstory....We have not purchased a 4-cyl car in almost 25 years. The majority of my cars have been V8's, most not for the power, but for the weight and smoothness of the powertrain. If you are accustomed to the drone of a 4-cyl engine, it is probably something that you do not even notice.

This is only my opinion. NVH wise the 2.0 is not as smooth or quiet as the 3.6. FCA must think so also. Some 2.0 Turbo engines are equipped with Active Noise Canceling to help manage NVH. The ANC is only available on 2.0 engines with the larger Infotainment screen and Alpine. That means ANC is only available with Sahara and Rubicon models. The 3.6 does not require the electronic Active Noise Canceling to combat NVH. Do you recall if the 2.0 Sahara you drove had the larger infotainment screen with Alpine?

Saying that, I would not hesitate to buy either engine. I feel the 2.0 has a enough benefits to justify the premium even though it is slightly less refined in terms of NVH. The added torque is nice as is the extended driving range on a tank of gas. Anyone living at high altitude will appreciate the forced induction of the 2.0 turbo. The 2.0 launches without noticeable lag from a stand still with the assist of the eToque system. It 2.0 does have turbo lag when the eTorque system is out of play like from a 4-5 mile slow roll. The 2.0 is not as responsive or linear as the larger 3.6 in that circumstance. I don't like the idea of forcing customers into a Rubicon or Sahara with the Infotainment Package for the electronic NVH though. To be honest, I don't think most Wrangler buyers care as much about NVH. The luxury or quietness goes out the window once the top and doors are off. lol.

 

[cbrenthus]

Just jumping in to confirm that on Jeeps website, my zip code shows 154 Rubicon Turbo 2.0s within 150 miles, but only 14 3.6s! That's pretty crazy, and yes, I'm planning on the 3.6. The extra MPGs of the turbo are not enough to cover the extra money for premium from what I've seen. Bottom line, I'll pay more for gas every 1000 miles with the turbo than I would the 3.6.

 

[HealthRebel]

Have to laugh at a mini cooper being classified as "fast".

Yeah! You haven't seen me drive!

 

[HealthRebel]

If lawyers are involved (and they DEFINITELY proof read manuals like that before print) then it means what it says. ***NOTE: I'm not claiming that FCA would deny a warranty claim based on not running 91 octane....I'm saying there is a loophole there that *COULD* be used to deny a claim...if one were stupid enough to admit to running less than the recommended octane.***

Did your Mini have a catastrophic engine failure that you warrantied? No? Then you don't actually know, do you?

I respectfully disagree. The recommendation is 87. For optimal performance, it is 91. Curious... have 10 of your family and friends read it and tell me their interpretation. I am not trying to prove that you are wrong! You're just (cautiously) reading too much into it and assuming it states something else. But hey... just my opinion.

 

[SecondTJ]

How are you 2.0 owners planning on dealing with the carbon build up on your intake valves from the PCV system?

Yep, often overlooked

 

[ormandj]

Yep, often overlooked

I don't think so, it's brought up along with all the other reliability related comments on every thread in which the 2.0 is mentioned. Still hasn't been an issue for anyone, but it gets brought up along with all the other supposed failure-bombs on timers waiting to go off. Please see my earlier comment on this thread.

 

[jaldeborgh]

The small displacement turbo’s exist because of the EPA requirements. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but these engines, generically, while impressive to use have had teething pains. The MINI Cooper S engine with it’s death rattle as an example, has put some people off taking the plunge. I speak from first hand experience. Repairing an out of warranty engine with internal problems is big money. BTW the MINI motor won many awards before the significant timing chain problem began to show itself after several years. Frankly, BMW didn’t own up to the design flaw and that’s a big reason I’ve stopped buying their products, having owned at least 10 BMW’s and MINI cars over the past 20 years.

All that said, I’m sure the 2.0T is a fine motor, if I lived in Denver it would be my first choice. At sea level, I’ll take the V6. As they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Slow and steady wins the race, I guess that makes me a conservative.

 

[jaldeborgh]

People familiar with contracts will tell you it means exactly what it says....but feel free to have a differing opinion. Provided you don't ever have a problem, it won't ever be an issue. If you do...then you'll have the ethical dilemma of telling your dealer and FCA the truth about what you've been using for fuel or lying about it. Not my business or my call. Good luck with it regardless.

It seems to me the more basic question is why would someone pay a premium for the 2.0T only to try and save a few bucks by running the wrong gas??? This make zero sense. There is a reason FCA recommends a given octane for each of their engines, it's not done without considerable forethought and with a keen awareness that consumers want to buy the least costly fuel. The designers understand the value/concept of running costs in the purchase decision process. It always amazes me why some folks think the specifications don't apply to them, somehow the laws of physics are different or they are somehow smarter than the combined wisdom of thousands of engineers along with 100+ years of automotive engine design experience.

 

[drdriller]

Do you think FCA would offer the 2.0 turbo if the EPA did not require more efficient engines? Makes you wonder

 

[Sean L]

Do you think FCA would offer the 2.0 turbo if the EPA did not require more efficient engines? Makes you wonder

Yeah! Lets go back to the day of 10MPG V8 CJ-5s with 120 Hp!

 

[SecondTJ]

I don't think so, it's brought up along with all the other reliability related comments on every thread in which the 2.0 is mentioned. Still hasn't been an issue for anyone, but it gets brought up along with all the other supposed failure-bombs on timers waiting to go off. Please see my earlier comment on this thread.

It's absolutely a well known issue with direct injection. The 2.0 JL is too new to start seeing carbon related issues pop up yet

 

[Majestic]

I respectfully disagree. The recommendation is 87. For optimal performance, it is 91. Curious... have 10 of your family and friends read it and tell me their interpretation. I am not trying to prove that you are wrong! You're just (cautiously) reading too much into it and assuming it states something else. But hey... just my opinion.

If you get engine problems, just top it off with premium before taking it in for warranty work, then tell them that’s what you always used.

Sponsored