EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

[drogers]

This is kind of what we were all expecting. It's not worth it to everyone, it's more if you prefer 4 vs 6 cylinder engines. Also I doubt your getting this on A/T tires or on Rubicon Trim with 33" Tires

Why wouldn't someone buy this engine in a Rubi? It's got more torque, and more low-end than the 3.6, all while giving a bit more range for overlanding - sounds like a win all around.

Sponsored

 

[Majestic]

I can find absolutely no advanatage to the 2.0L. It’s an addition $8 to fill up a tank of fuel on top of the $1000 upcharge, all for just a couple extra ft-lbs of torque and 1 mpg. Lame.

 

[drogers]

Please explain how an engine with slightly more torque but slightly less horsepower and the addition of turbo lag is going to "out perform" the 3.6 out of the box. Ain't happenin'.

I think most people are assuming this because literally every reviewer that drove both said the turbo 4 was faster, felt faster, and clearly had more power down low.

 

[drogers]

I can find absolutely no advanatage to the 2.0L. It’s an addition $8 to fill up a tank of fuel on top of the $1000 upcharge, all for just a couple extra ft-lbs of torque and 1 mpg. Lame.

Wow, your wrangler either has a really huge gas tank, or you're getting screwed on 91 octane. Most places I see are a $0.20 difference, which equates to about $3.60 per tank - assuming you choose to use 91 and don't just run 87 anayway.

 

[Armycop]

For me the turbo isn't even an option. Now if FCA makes the 6 speed manual turbo JL I would think about it. There will be no money savings for me with a 2-4 MPG increase. Premium costs $3.50+ a gallon here in WA.

 

[thenewrick]

Looking forward to the drag races and tuning options. The 2 doors will look pretty sweet with lowered suspension and sport tires with 400hp tune in RWD.

 

[Joe]

I can find absolutely no advanatage to the 2.0L. It’s an addition $8 to fill up a tank of fuel on top of the $1000 upcharge, all for just a couple extra ft-lbs of torque and 1 mpg. Lame.

35 lb-ft is more than a couple...13% more torque.

 

[keda69]

Wow, your wrangler either has a really huge gas tank, or you're getting screwed on 91 octane. Most places I see are a $0.20 difference, which equates to about $3.60 per tank - assuming you choose to use 91 and don't just run 87 anayway.

first of all if you just run 87 your not going to get the best performance out of the turbo, and secondly in nj 87 is only 2.77 a gallon , 91 is 3.17 a difference of 40 cents a gallon pretty significant.

 

[That One Guy]

Looking forward to the drag races and tuning options. The 2 doors will look pretty sweet with lowered suspension and sport tires with 400hp tune in RWD.

Once the Mopar Lowering Kit comes out it should be good through the twisties!

In all seriousness, if you're predominantly gonna use your wrangler for off-road or City driving, this engine is a good choice. The city mpg bump, and increase in real world usable torque, is pretty good.

 

[drogers]

first of all if you just run 87 your not going to get the best performance out of the turbo, and secondly in nj 87 is only 2.77 a gallon , 91 is 3.17 a difference of 40 cents a gallon pretty significant.

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see - I’ve got a 2.0 turbo in the driveway that’s 10 years older than this one, and it runs great on 87. Slightly better on 91 apparently, but I could never tell a difference myself.

 

[Glamisfan]

35 lb-ft is more than a couple...13% more torque.

And that’s stock versus stock . A simple tune and I’m sure it will add 30 more so you’re talking about 65 lb-ft of torque difference!!! I love me some easy turbo power!!! Sure you can do a little work to the V-6, but you’re not going to add near as much as on a turbo.

 

[keda69]

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see - I’ve got a 2.0 turbo in the driveway that’s 10 years older than this one, and it runs great on 87. Slightly better on 91 apparently, but I could never tell a difference myself.

yes im sure it runs fine , but your not getting the best performance out of it . Modern engines are designed to retard their timing to avoid knock when running lower octane fuel then they are designed to run. so your not going to get you 25 mpg, or your higher hp, and definitely not your higher torque if you dont run 91 in the turbo.

 

[JLU_rubi18!]

I ran the 3.6 in my 2012 JKU and it was a great power train over the 3.8. The 5 spd auto was the real star of the show however.

I opted to order the 2.0 turbo and I’m glad i did. I get the mindset of the 3.6 faithful. It’s a proven power plant. But let’s be honest, it’s peer engines (Chevy for example) make dramatically more power. Its a good solid motor.

But trying to downplay the significance of better MPG ( yes I understand the premium fuel cost ) but more importantly the performance advantage just makes you guys look silly. Every one wants to justify the purchase they made. But there’s no denying the 2.0s performance advantage from every review I’ve seen. I spoke to about a dozen industry people from Teraflex ( Dennis Wood) Jermey at Rock Krawler, Mel wade from Offroad evo. To a man they all said the 2.0 is insane and I was smart to order it.

 

[Armycop]

Turbo 3.6 FTW!!!!! 12.76 sec 1/4 mile...

 

[practicaltact]

So the thing about direct injection engines that you will need to periodically clean the valves of soot and carbon build up. I hope that factor is being considered for those who are thinking they will own the 2.0t for more than 30,000 miles give or take.

Sponsored