ormandj
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2018
- Threads
- 31
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 420
- Location
- San Antonio, TX USA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 JLUR X 4xe
Ok, I'll bite. I have a 2018 Audi TT RS, I've put over 20,000 miles on it. Turbocharged I5 (not a typo) 2.5 liter, with ~450 crank HP. Drive it hard, all the time, there's a road course near me I drive full out at. I can't even count the number of brakes I've been through, nor tires. Not a single issue. Barely burns any oil. This engine is far more complex, it's direct and port injected, and running significantly more power than anything you'd see in the 2L in the Jeep. It's being driven _far_ harder than anything or anybody would do with a Jeep. I just change the oil every 3000 miles since I'm on an 'extreme usage' pattern, and swap consumables as I need to. Just having less displacement and a turbocharger doesn't suddenly make everything terrible.New to this forum, not a Wrangler owner (yet, hopefully next year) and maybe my opinion won't matter, but I agree with some saying that a 2.0T should't be in a Wrangler. I own a 2016 VW GTI with a 2.0T and already had an issue with a coolant leak coming from a cracked water pump and a gasoline line going to the high pressure fuel pump at 34k miles... luckily I'm still under warranty and didn't pay a dime. Don't get me wrong, great engine and it's great for my GTI application, but they are vastly complicated and over-engineered. I had an old 2002 Audi with a 1.8T... and it had nothing but problems at about 110k miles. Had to replace the fuel pump, the coolant reservoir, water pump cracked, an intercooler, a bunch of rusted out lines and parts... I was fixing it monthly. Luckily I'm a YouTube Certified Tech so I do most jobs in my cars.
My point is, 2.0T for off-road I wouldn't trust, esp since you need instant torque in a lot of situations and again, reliability is compromised when having a more complicated engine. We all know Chrysler and VW have been some of the most unreliable car companies for years and have improved in the last few years, but I'd still be careful.
I know the 2.0T has e-Torque, just more over-complication down the road. Same with ESS, it's unnecessary imo, just more parts waiting to go bad (at least you can turn it off). That tech is fairly new, I'd like to see those cars at 100k with ESS.
I'll go with the Pentastar and 8-speed auto to be safe.
There's a lot of "it's so complex!" or "I wouldn't trust it!" here, and none if it makes any sense. All modern engines are extremely complex, but the ECUs are also insanely good. They can compensate for just about anything to keep the engine healthy. We need to move beyond the "it's new, it must be bad" mentality. Turbochargers have been around a really long time, the turbo issues of the 90s and early 00s are long-since eradicated. Lag, maintenance issues, failures, etc - these are solved problems. You're going to be hard pressed not to find 4 cylinder turbo vehicles soon, until the EVs take over completely. Less cylinders, less friction, more efficiency. More complete combustion, higher compression via forced induction and other such methods, less emissions, etc.
Let's stop spit-balling failures that aren't happening. We'll know in the next 20/50/100k miles on these engines what reality looks like, but having four cylinders and a turbo isn't reason for concern. FCA QA/QC, on the other hand, we'll see. That doesn't just apply to the 2.0.
Sponsored