2.0 turbo vs Pentastar V6

[viper88]

Now one month/900 miles in on a 2019 2.0L and 4 months/3,200 miles on a 2018 3.6L. Owned lots of Jeeps and multiple 3.6L's ... but have to say that I prefer the daily driving of the 2.0L. Like the responsiveness and punch. Live in central Illinois where we've recently

had back-to-back weekends of 13" and 5" of snow. Pulled a Cadillac CTS from a ditch using the 2.0L ... no issues, no difference to the 3.6. The only thing I would change would be the sound/tone of the 4 cylinder. Looking / listening to some muffler solutions to see if that provides any remedy. Happy with the 2.0 ... Its the one I choose to drive and I'm an old school Jeep guy.

I was just wondering? Does your 2.0 have the larger 8.4" Infotainment and Alpine? I only ask this because the 2.0 turbo Rubicon and Sahara with the 8.4" and Alpine have Automatic Noise Canceling? Would you say one is better in terms of Noise Vibration Harshness? Won't make a ounce of difference once the top and doors are off but I was just curious? Thanks.

Sponsored

 

[photowiz]

it's quite a bit more than $500....

And that price will go up every year. Plus the battery is in a horrible place with a thin metal cover at the rear of the Jeep. And all of those cooling lines and power cables running to the rear of the Jeep to transfer electricity and coolant. Too much to go wrong.

 

[photowiz]

I have the 2.0. Drives better, and gets better gas mileage (just enough to offset the higher price of premium and then some).

But it does sound less refined than the 6cyl.

Performance-wise, not a huge difference between the two options, so just a matter of preference. But good luck finding a V6 on the lot to test drive.

Depends on how much more you are paying for regular unleaded over premium. Where I live, 91 is 33-38 cents more per gallon and 93 octane is 50-60 higher. I'm getting 21-22 mpg with a 3.6 over 11,000 miles burning 87 octane. I don't see a 2.0 being more economical from a financial stand point when you are starting out in the hole by $1,000. If you get 10% better mileage with a 2.0, that's 23-25 mpg. in my case. Is anyone actually getting that? I'm asking. In my case to hopefully get 10% better mileage with a 2.0 paying on the low end 33 cents a gallon for 91 over $2.00 per gallon for 87, it would cost 16% more per gallon. On the high end for 93 octane at let's say $2.55 per gallon, it would cost 27% more per gallon. That means to get 10% better mileage and more power and torque it would cost me 6-17% more per gallon at prices in my area. That doesn't count the $1,000 up front for the 2.0 and more maintenance down the road. For many that's a small price to pay. I'm happy with my 3.6. But that's why they offer us the choices.

 

[photowiz]

The 2.0 is only available with auto transmission. That eliminated the 2.0 for me.



Sorry, but I have to go with a Coke and .45 as the right way to go.

Coke and. 45acp for sure!

 

[singaporeIrish1]

I was just wondering? Does your 2.0 have the larger 8.4" Infotainment and Alpine? I only ask this because the 2.0 turbo Rubicon and Sahara with the 8.4" and Alpine have Automatic Noise Canceling? Would you say one is better in terms of Noise Vibration Harshness? Won't make a ounce of difference once the top and doors are off but I was just curious? Thanks.

Nick - I do have 8.4" and Alpine in both Jeeps. Re: noise vibration harshness ..... apologies .... I'm a bad source for that question. Worked around factories thru my career and married the daughter of an Alaskan bush pilot who loves to shoot guns as a hobby. My hearing and senses are not too sharp. Everything is quiet to me. Apologies.

 

[SouthCo]

So I'm new and just researching. I really like the new JLs and was happy to see this thread. I don't know enough about either motor so anything I ask is just for my own knowledge and not to put down one or the other. I can see the benefits of both and know a test drive would help a decision on which a person prefers. What I find odd is that the Gladiator will not have the option of the 2.0 turbo. I saw a couple of articles elsewhere that said the same thing about why this may be and below is one of the quotes:

"The Drive reached out to Jeep with that very question, and a spokesman told us it comes down to towing and temperature management. "The 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing," they said. While no knocks were mentioned against the smaller four-cylinder, it's easy to conclude that it simply wasn't created for the hauling capacity Jeep expects from the Gladiator."

http://www.thedrive.com/news/25252/...ator-wont-get-the-hybrid-four-cylinder-engine


I have done some off-roading and would think the heat from crawling at slow speeds, especially in the summer heat, could be just as taxing as towing. What do you all think about the reason given for why the Gladiator wont have the 2.0 turbo? Do any of you that have some time crawling with the 2.0 turbo have any concerns with heat?

 

[GhostDivers]

I like Pepsi more than Coke...9mm is better than .40...

Now you're opening up a can of worms!

 

[TXPearl]

Depends on how much more you are paying for regular unleaded over premium. Where I live, 91 is 33-38 cents more per gallon and 93 octane is 50-60 higher. I'm getting 21-22 mpg with a 3.6 over 11,000 miles burning 87 octane. I don't see a 2.0 being more economical from a financial stand point when you are starting out in the hole by $1,000. If you get 10% better mileage with a 2.0, that's 23-25 mpg. in my case. Is anyone actually getting that? I'm asking. In my case to hopefully get 10% better mileage with a 2.0 paying on the low end 33 cents a gallon for 91 over $2.00 per gallon for 87, it would cost 16% more per gallon. On the high end for 93 octane at let's say $2.55 per gallon, it would cost 27% more per gallon. That means to get 10% better mileage and more power and torque it would cost me 6-17% more per gallon at prices in my area. That doesn't count the $1,000 up front for the 2.0 and more maintenance down the road. For many that's a small price to pay. I'm happy with my 3.6. But that's why they offer us the choices.

Valid points. For me, it was less about the economics (over the life of the vehicle, the cost difference isn't that material in the relative sense), and more about driving preference. Most of my driving is city/urban, where the 2.0 gains most of its advantage (in both MPG and drivability [my style]).

Seems the only valid apples/apples comparison of MPG is the EPA ratings which shows the 2.0 at 10% better overall (20% better in city but <5% highway). Interestingly, they also show the annual fuel cost of each.....6 cyl is $300 less. (their fuel cost assumptions mirror yours, so premium is a bigger jump).

My prior Jeep (a 2014 JK with the pstar 6 cyl.) got basically the city MPG estimates. So far with my 2019 2.0, I'm also right at the EPA city MPG. The 8-speed auto tranny is also a big improvement in the JL, regardless of which motor is used.

 

[SecondTJ]

So I'm new and just researching. I really like the new JLs and was happy to see this thread. I don't know enough about either motor so anything I ask is just for my own knowledge and not to put down one or the other. I can see the benefits of both and know a test drive would help a decision on which a person prefers. What I find odd is that the Gladiator will not have the option of the 2.0 turbo. I saw a couple of articles elsewhere that said the same thing about why this may be and below is one of the quotes:

"The Drive reached out to Jeep with that very question, and a spokesman told us it comes down to towing and temperature management. "The 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing," they said. While no knocks were mentioned against the smaller four-cylinder, it's easy to conclude that it simply wasn't created for the hauling capacity Jeep expects from the Gladiator."

http://www.thedrive.com/news/25252/...ator-wont-get-the-hybrid-four-cylinder-engine


I have done some off-roading and would think the heat from crawling at slow speeds, especially in the summer heat, could be just as taxing as towing. What do you all think about the reason given for why the Gladiator wont have the 2.0 turbo? Do any of you that have some time crawling with the 2.0 turbo have any concerns with heat?

The chief engineer said the same thing during product launch

Pete Milosavlevski, chief engineer for the Jeep truck program...

"For cooling reasons, [the 2.0-liter] had some limitations with trailering capacity," Milosavlevski told me. "It's a high-output engine. It gets very hot. So with our towing capacity that we wanted to hit, we felt it was important to stick with the 3.6 Pentastar."

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-sh...5880/jeep-gladiator-pickup-diesel-tow-rating/

 

[zhengokusa]

I live in Atlanta as well. Had my 2.0 rubi just 900 miles. Average 19.5 mile per gallon which is pretty good. 2.0 is a little bit quieter I think.

 

[Majestic]

The battery on the 2.0 lit on fire at the Toledo plant not 1 month after they started production just sitting in a parking lot. Lithium batteries seem to always randomly catch fire for no reason. I drove both, they both feel the same, FCA sucks at introducing new technology and I've owned at least 3 other 3.6's and they work fine. $1000 upcharge and premium gas requirement pretty much added up to a no go for me. I can't find one positive attribute to the 2.0L at all.

 

[Warpath]

Sold my 18' JL 3.6l for a 19' Turbo, and I love it. 0 regrets. You'll read many opinions, you just need to drive both and find the one that fits your driving style and puts a shit eating grin on your face. In the end, your still a Wrangler owner and cool in my eyes no matter what you pick. Don't get caught up in the pissing match.

 

[RedWranger]

Having my 2019 JLRU with the 2.0T...I have to say I love it. I test drove the 3.6L and I can’t remember much about it but what I do remember with the 2.0, when I test drive it (and what sold me) was its pick up. It’s a peppy engine! Now that I own it...I am glad to chose the 2.0T. It is responsive and from a stop or on the highway, it speeds up quickly. Also, I think the auto start/stop is more responsive since (I assume) the batteries and electric motor seems to help (but I could be biased towards my engine).

 

[Majestic]

I drove both back to back (my JK and the JL). Everything else was an improvement but engine performance and ride quality was pretty much the same. I didn’t realize it was a 2.0L until we got back to the dealership.
I think people see what they want to see.

 

[ads75]

The battery on the 2.0 lit on fire at the Toledo plant not 1 month after they started production just sitting in a parking lot. Lithium batteries seem to always randomly catch fire for no reason. I drove both, they both feel the same, FCA sucks at introducing new technology and I've owned at least 3 other 3.6's and they work fine. $1000 upcharge and premium gas requirement pretty much added up to a no go for me. I can't find one positive attribute to the 2.0L at all.

I would not make a judgement on one example alone catching on fire. There are tens of thousands of them out there. Guess what, I have also seen several pics of the 3.6's burned out as well, but I don't know the circumstances about them either.

Sponsored