IF you were buying a new JL and all of the engines were available which one would you get? Why?

[Capt-Zoom]

Plug in hybrid. ROFL! It is an Abomination.

2.oT.....I don't do 4 bangers ...period

3.od..has yesterday to be seen.

3.6 reliable and trustworthy

5.7 hemi....preferred

Sponsored

 

[viper88]

Is anybody else blown away that the turbocharged 2.0L I4 engine is the least desirable so far in the poll? I've heard nothing but good things about this engine in reviews. Clearly this poll isn't scientific or anything but I'm starting to wonder if this has anything to do with why I heard that they're offering discounts on the 2.0L models...

I read on this forum about discounts on the 2.0 but no real proof. Do you know if FCA actually has a incentive for the 2.0? The percentage off invoice from dealers seem to be the same for both the 2.0 and 3.6?

 

[Lacroix1]

Sorry Fiat, I’m sticking to the 3.6L

 

[SecondTJ]

I read on this forum about discounts on the 2.0 but no real proof. Do you know if FCA actually has a incentive for the 2.0? The percentage off invoice from dealers seem to be the same for both the 2.0 and 3.6?

Last years 2.0 rebate was $500, plus dealers are getting additional kickback

 

[smithrd65]

3.6 first I'm not a fan of the 2.0 Turbo Ford puts their ecoboost engine in everything and charge a premium. FUEL PREMIUM
Diesels or ok but I'm not a diesel guy unless its in my truck towing fuel is just as high as the 2.0 turbo.
Hybrid Lol unless it a true electric it's a waste, I'll keep my Tesla.
I like the 3.6 engine

 

[DanW]

Pentastar. First, which is enough on its own, is the manual transmission. Also, it is just a solid engine with good power, no direct injection (easy on oil), quiet, smooth, flat torque curve, pulls all the way to redline (doesn't run out of breath), long lasting, inexpensive to maintain, and very reliable. It is simply a great engine, and that's why it has made Ward's Top 10 engines in the world multiple times, which is 4, I think. Everytime I drive my JL 3.6/manual, it puts a big smile on my face.

That said, the 2.0 and 3.0 would be outstanding choices, too. I wouldn't hesitate to own either of those, except for maybe the pricetag on the 3.0, if it ever actually shows up.

 

[DanW]

3.6l. Less complex. Had the diesel been sourced from Benz, I'd be all over it. But not a fan of anything from "Fix It Again Tony."

Actually, the 3.0 diesel comes from the same company that produces the Duramax diesel in the Chevy Colorado. It is VM Motori, in Italy. It was a joint venture between FCA and GM. IIRC, GM sold their share, but obviously still buys a lot of their engines.

I agree, though, that they are complex, and that's not what I'm wanting when exploring trails out in the middle of nowhere.

 

[TXJeepScientist]

My son in-law has the 3.0 eco diesel in his 2015 Ram. Dead motor/cooling system at 80k miles. Major drama with warranty and service department... months without his work truck... his entire ownership experience with the 3.0 was a debacle and they have fought him every step of the way. Looking forward to his court date soon.

I can’t recommend that engine to anyone.

What is the outcome?

 

[BenDiesel]

I'm a diesel guy. Have been since I bought my ram Cummins in 2011. Also owned 3 mk4 tdi Jetta. 2 of were turned. I know the previous 3.0 was hit and miss. I'm hoping jeep figures out the problems and fixes them with the gen2 version.

 

[TXJeepScientist]

After seeing a video on the previous page, I would stay the hell away from the 2.0 because cooling lines are routed to that secondary battery. And those cooling lines are the reason for the extra $$$$.

Batteries + cooling lines to the secondary battery + Texas Heat = problems to occur sooner.

My choice will have to be the 3.6 based on this new info posted.

 

[TJ2018]

Automotive advancements always add complexity. When I was young my dad didn't want power windows... "something else to break." Next was air conditioning. Then something else. There will always be reasons not to adopt new technology, nothing wrong with keeping with the status quo. But on the other hand there are those who boldly venture into the great unknown. We got a supercharged Xterra when they first came out (and boy did that thing need it!), never had a hint of problem with that engine. Heck, I'm the kind of person who downloads the latest beta testing phone software while others take a wait and see approach until the bugs get worked out. The 2.0 has additional pieces, granted. But far as I know they haven't been falling by the wayside in droves or stranding folk in the wilderness. I love the 2.0 because it's never been in a Wrangler before. And Wranglers are all about going new places and doing new things. "Could" it strand me somewhere? Maybe. But there is no evidence that it might do that more than the next Wrangler... my driving has a higher likelihood of getting me into trouble than the engine. The future of automotive technology is small displacement high output engines, I applaud the Wrangler engineers for doing something bold and different. Time will tell if my confidence is misplaced. Till then I'll enjoy the better mileage and low end torque that 2.0 brings.

 

[Stingrey]

Automotive advancements always add complexity. When I was young my dad didn't want power windows... "something else to break." Next was air conditioning. Then something else. There will always be reasons not to adopt new technology, nothing wrong with keeping with the status quo. But on the other hand there are those who boldly venture into the great unknown. We got a supercharged Xterra when they first came out (and boy did that thing need it!), never had a hint of problem with that engine. Heck, I'm the kind of person who downloads the latest beta testing phone software while others take a wait and see approach until the bugs get worked out. The 2.0 has additional pieces, granted. But far as I know they haven't been falling by the wayside in droves or stranding folk in the wilderness. I love the 2.0 because it's never been in a Wrangler before. And Wranglers are all about going new places and doing new things. "Could" it strand me somewhere? Maybe. But there is no evidence that it might do that more than the next Wrangler... my driving has a higher likelihood of getting me into trouble than the engine. The future of automotive technology is small displacement high output engines, I applaud the Wrangler engineers for doing something bold and different. Time will tell if my confidence is misplaced. Till then I'll enjoy the better mileage and low end torque that 2.0 brings.

I agree with what you have written...but (there's always a but )
For me to consider the current 2.0 as an advancement it would have to be a better engine than the other options, overall, which it just isn't. (for me)
Yes it gets better fuel economy but not enough to offset the $0.12/litre premium fuel price difference where I live. Based on my driving the fuel difference alone would cost me at least an extra $600/yr. This is a low estimate based on our current fuel prices which are low right now and guaranteed to climb back up about 30% higher in the next few months.

Also, if we all stick to he Mopar maintenance schedule, the 2.0 requires considerably more effort in time and cost, than the 3.6.

I do think that small displacement turbo engines are excellent and very reliable.
Our RR Evoque has one (basically an ecoboost). In this application it's probably worth it, besides, there were no other engine options.
It's not overtuned, at just 240HP/250Torque and it easily gets 8.0l/100km (~30mpg US) hwy in a 1725KG (3800lb) vehicle.

I noticed, on Fuelly.com, the 2.0 JL/U is not really getting a lot better fuel economy than I, or the 3.6 in general, albeit there's a small sample size.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

[jayvis]

Has the 3.6L Pentastar V6 been an outstandingly reliable engine? If you base it on past forum posts about it, probably not. All vehicles from all makes have an assortment of drivetrain issues over the years and those issues are always magnified on these forums. After owning 4 Jeeps, I chose the latest technology, especially after multiple test drive comparisons between the two. And for all you hard core off-roaders who are concerned about the additional cooling lines, you are in the minority among Wrangler owners. The vast majority of Wrangler owners never crawl over boulders on the Rubicon trail with their $50k vehicles, subjecting their drivetrains to untypical stress. We should all be thankful for the engine choices Jeep currently has and pick the one that will serve their vehicle's use.

 

[SecondTJ]

I noticed, on Fuelly.com, the 2.0 JL/U is not really getting a lot better fuel economy than I, or the 3.6 in general, albeit there's a small sample size.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

Yes much smaller sample size, but it's the opposite. The 3.6 is getting about 10% better MPG than the 2.0

3.6: Based on data from 90 vehicles, 2,207 fuel-ups and 586,028 miles of driving, the 2018 Jeep Wrangler JL gets a combined Avg MPG of 17.98 with a 0.13 MPG margin of error

2.0 Based on data from 17 vehicles, 349 fuel-ups and 78,706 miles of driving, the 2018 Jeep Wrangler JL gets a combined Avg MPG of 16.39 with a 0.31 MPG margin of error.

 

[IronScott]

Yes much smaller sample size, but it's the opposite. The 3.6 is getting about 10% better MPG than the 2.0

3.6: Based on data from 90 vehicles, 2,207 fuel-ups and 586,028 miles of driving, the 2018 Jeep Wrangler JL gets a combined Avg MPG of 17.98 with a 0.13 MPG margin of error

2.0 Based on data from 17 vehicles, 349 fuel-ups and 78,706 miles of driving, the 2018 Jeep Wrangler JL gets a combined Avg MPG of 16.39 with a 0.31 MPG margin of error.

These stats are always a bit misleading because the turbo engines are often driven harder because of the “fun factor.” That being said, I think the MPG improvement in the real world of the 2.0 over the 3.6 will not exist unless a person is really easy on the throttle.

This is an almost identical scenario of the F-150 turbo vs the traditional V8. Plenty of examples of the turbo trucks getting crappy mileage while the ole standby V8 shines (relatively speaking).

I kind of wish I had ordered a 3.6 (for reliability) but so far am happy with the 2.0. It has a good kick, even with oversized tires. I’m only on the first tank, so the mileage calc is crap, considering all the idling at delivery and getting things set.

Didn’t drive a 3.6 but this 2.0 really goes nicely when merging into high speed traffic and passing. Very impressed.

Sponsored