2.0-liter four-cylinder engine

[REW48]

So had some bad luck the other day while on my way to place my order for a 22 wrangler. Basically someone ran a red light and hit my car and totaled it which put me in a bad spot since I was on my way to order a 22. Now I dont have a car and probably cant wait for a 22 to be built but the dealership I was ordering from actually has a rubicon recon edition thats close to my specs I wanted but I am pretty sure all recon editions have the 2.0 in it. So my question is for the people who own one or have ridden in one how does it feel? I had 2018 Rubicon in the 3.6 and I am a little afraid the 2.0 is going to feel very under powered. Thanks

Got 2018 Wrangler Unlimited with the 2.0 etorque and it is fast for 2.0 liter. No turbo lag with the etorque.

Sponsored

 

[Heimkehr]

My wife in her 2.0L, me in my car that is speced 0-60 in 7.1 seconds; Side by side at a red light. She taunts me to race… I lol. No way a Jeep is gonna beat me…

We launched. I spun the tires a little and pull slightly ahead.
Then she blows by me and is about 2-Dr Jeep length ahead of me by the time we hit 60.!

I’m a bit floored and she grins from ear to ear.

I'll have to find the article's link, but IIRC the 2.0T in factory stock configuration is rated for a 0-60 time of 6.9 seconds.

Provided your wife can put the hammer down as quickly as you can, you were floored the moment she floored it.

 

[longfiredragon]

I am just throwing one more thing out there. People keep saying they are worried about the reliability of the 2.0T because it's new. The 2.0T is not new, it's going into it's 4th year in the Wrangler and has been being manufactured since 2016. (I know there are variations but that's 6 years in production for the base engine) Not really the definition of new, and I haven't found bad write ups on it. The technology, turbocharger, oil squirting under the pistons, etc. not new either.

 

[mwilk012]

I am just throwing one more thing out there. People keep saying they are worried about the reliability of the 2.0T because it's new. The 2.0T is not new, it's going into it's 4th year in the Wrangler and has been being manufactured since 2016. (I know there are variations but that's 6 years in production for the base engine) Not really the definition of new, and I haven't found bad write ups on it. The technology, turbocharger, oil squirting under the pistons, etc. not new either.

thats new for an engine my dude.

 

[Roostre]

thats new for an engine my dude.

2.0L turbos are such a basic recipe that even Fiat can’t F@$& it up!

 

[TrailSnail]

When I was shopping for my current rig, I didn't know I was getting behind the wheel of a 4-banger when I took the Trail Snail for a test drive. I made a remark to the salesman about how good I thought the 3.6L felt in the JL, and when he replied "actually, this one is a 2.0 4-cylinder" I was like

Me: Holy damn shit!!

 

[Killed by Death]

2.0L turbos are such a basic recipe that even Fiat can’t F@$& it up!

Fiat could F@$& up a wet dream

 

[longfiredragon]

For me, 6 years in production is not new for an engine. There is no definition for how long an engine is considered new after it is introduced as new. I guess people can look at it how they want, but 6 years in production is not new to me at all.

To get technical one definition of new is " not existing before, made, introduced, or discovered recently or for the first time" So, the 2.0T doesn't fit in this definition.

Maybe we should re-term it, like "fairly new" or somewhat new to the Wrangler lineup" personally I could live with these def. But for me calling anything new that has been manufactured for 6 years is simple not new.

 

[Twojayhawks]

Like you, I'm older and had the same prejudices. Also, I was a subscriber to the "there's no replacement for displacement" line of reasoning and thought that a 2.0L just simply couldn't hold up to a 3.6L when it came to performance.

Test driving both was a real eye opener for me.

I'm older too and when I hear "there's no replacement for displacement" it's like nails on a chalk board. I insist technology absolutely is a replacement for displacement.

 

[AnnDee4444]

i just got out of a FCA small turbo engine in a jeep and in under 62k miles - at separate times along the way - i went thru transmission replacement, an turbo replacement, an engine replacement, and when i got rid of it...the turbo was leaking oil like crazy. All i ever used it for was commuting and the snow storms in 4X4 and it failed miserably, drove sluggish, and required premium to even have some real chutzpah.

I bet it didn't share the engine or transmission with the Wrangler.

the RPM range requires a device to try to mimic a manual in its shifting to get to the torque heavy RPM range

You mean an automatic transmission with a +/- gear selector? That has probably come in every new automatic vehicle for the past 10 years... including the Wrangler.

 

[RoadiJeff]

Technically, the 2.0L is 29 lbs heavier

I question the accuracy of that chart. For instance, it shows that the JL Sahara and the JLU Sahara both weigh the same. Not unless the rear doors on the JLU are filled with helium.

 

[AnnDee4444]

I question the accuracy of that chart. For instance, it shows that the JL Sahara and the JLU Sahara both weigh the same. Not unless the rear doors on the JLU are filled with helium.

The Sahara isn't available as a 2-door in the United States.

 

[RoadiJeff]

The Sahara isn't available as a 2-door in the United States.

Does a 2-dr Sahara overseas weigh the same as a 4-dr Sahara in the US? That's what the chart shows. I say no.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Does a 2-dr Sahara overseas weigh the same as a 4-dr Sahara in the US? That's what the chart shows. I say no.

I'm fairly certain this came from a USDM document. There is no reason for them to include something that doesn't exist. It's just like how there is no 2-door 3.0 listed.

Technically, the 2.0L is 29 lbs heavier

I can't believe that the manual transmission Sport 3.6 is heavier than the automatic Sport 3.6. The manual wouldn't even get the eTorque battery... Also somehow changing to a Sahara adds 239 pounds for the automatic and only 67 pounds for the manual? Something is definitely not quite right here...

 

[west tex]

I'm older too and when I hear "there's no replacement for displacement" it's like nails on a chalk board. I insist technology absolutely is a replacement for displacement.

Yeah, it's a worn out phrase that no longer applies. I'm sold on the 2.0T.

Sponsored