cosine
Well-Known Member
when i got my jl, i went straight for the 3,6. 8 spd auto. never looked into the 2.0 because $1000 option, prem fuel, and long term maintenance and possiable issues with the turbos. is not worth it for me.
Sponsored
My Jeep is a 2019 so as far as I know, the etorque was the only 4 banger available then. You are right about the fuel. I prefer to run regular with no corn but that’s fodder for another threadCorrect me if I'm wrong, but it's that just the etorque? Why not consider the 2L without it? The fuel is a recommendation, btw. It's not a requirement (although I think it should be).
CAFE standards.Don't understand why the automatic for the 3.6 is MSRP'd at $750 more than for the 2.0.
The 3.6 was first put in the Wrangler for the 2012 model year. I don't think many would consider 8 years a legacy.The 3.6 is a legacy engine and follows the steps of the old models.
I ordered the 6. Ive had it for about a year. 13K miles. Great engine, power and torque and known reliability. The 4 is an Alpha Romeo sports car engine retuned and slightly redesigned for the Wrangler. Turning a sports car engine into a truck engine is no easy feat. Its also a new engine and lots of YouTube videos on how complicated the design into the Jeep really is. Although the engine gets great reviews I didnt even consider it for a second. Long term reliability , even short term is a guess, and I think it's just way too big of an unnecessary gamble to take on such a big purchase. My dealership service manager said that the Wrangler JL has been very reliable but the 3 repairs they did have to service were Vap leaks and a fluid leak from 3 Wranglers due to the new turbo 4. The 6 is a known, historically solid engine. That's my opinion.This has probably already been answered but are there major differences between the 2 engines, besides cost?
For what it is worth I am speaking of the 2020. 2.0 w/OUT the E-torque (Sport and Willys,..NOT the Sahara model).
Also, does the 2.0 with NO E-torque still require premium gas, or is that only needed/recommended in the Sahara version with the E torque?
Post a picture of your intake valves after 30,000 miles pleaseSo far the 2.0 has proven to be a great motor with little to no evidence to support all the nay sayers reasonings.
One of those peddle commander type products would have gotten rid of that. Having had naturally aspirated and turbo engines, the lag on the 2.0 is minuscule in my opinion. A prime example is the Giulia in Dynamic mode. A selector switch would have been nice in a Jeep. As a matter of fact, if I ever tune my 2.0 and do more off roading with it, I may even see if I can make it more sluggish at the peddle for better power control if it ends up being an issue. I know Madness has one for the Wrangler.Simple for me. Edelbrock SC will only be for the 3.6. Plus the 2.0 turbo lag coupled with the lag that comes with the auto-transmission was unbearable. It is a pet peeve of mine when you push the gas pedal and it feels as if the car is actually deciding whether or not it wants to go.
But for me. the throttle response of the 3.6 plus th eventual option of the Edelbrock SC... that settled it for me.
I could barely make out any on my twin turbo Expedition. The 2.0 sounds great in my Giulia. Not so much in the Wrangler. It’s the noise coming through the firewall that is prevalent at WOT in my opinion...and I wish I could make out some whoosh.Like you really need another response...That said, we have a 2019 Sahara with the 2.0 and E-Torque. It's my wife's and while the engine didn't matter to her, I was very concerned with the 2.0 being overly complicated, especially a few years down the road. We are about 6 months in and 6,000 miles and really could not be happier with the performance. It's got plenty of giddy-up and returns 24+ mpg. I will say, I think I like the sound of the V6 over the whirl of the turbo, but that's just a personal preference.
The 3.6 is a progression of the older engines. thats what I mean with legacy. It follows the steps of older Jeep engine in terms of simplicity and reliability while still delivering needed performance. It is also a chrysler engine that was created before FCA. It is a legacy product.CAFE standards.
The 3.6 was first put in the Wrangler for the 2012 model year. I don't think many would consider 8 years a legacy.
I think that the Alpha has the "truck motor". Between the 3.6 & 2.0 the one with higher horsepower, lower torque, and higher redline should be considered the sports car motor.I ordered the 6. Ive had it for about a year. 13K miles. Great engine, power and torque and known reliability. The 4 is an Alpha Romeo sports car engine retuned and slightly redesigned for the Wrangler. Turning a sports car engine into a truck engine is no easy feat.
I think you are getting the 2.0 confused with eTorque. Both the 3.6 & 2.0 can be had with or without eTorque.Its also a new engine and lots of YouTube videos on how complicated the design into the Jeep really is.
I concede about the definition of Legacy, but I'm not sure that concern over the other applications for the 2.0 have any validity. This is true of any motor actually. The 2.0 is also in the Stelvio (SUV). The 3.6 is a minivan motor. Hell, even the 4.0 is related to the 258, which was in the Pacer & Gremlin.The 3.6 is a progression of the older engines. thats what I mean with legacy. It follows the steps of older Jeep engine in terms of simplicity and reliability while still delivering needed performance. It is also a chrysler engine that was created before FCA. It is a legacy product.
The 2.0 is entirely a new animal. It is a product that is installed in an alpha romeo (fiat) sports sedan. It is a step towards a new direction.
Also, the fact that was on an older Jeep model (JK) makes it legacy by definition regardles of how many years has this engine been out for.