2.0 or 3.6? Canceling diesel build

[brican]

I have the 2.0 turbo and love it. More power than I really need most of the time.

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

Torque is power. HP is not even real, it's a derived measure of power (tq) over a distance. Same as wattage is power multplied by current in electrical applications.

I disagree, and so does Wikipedia, Car & Driver, Motor Trend. Physics defines torque's relationship to power. And wattage (power) is current multiplied by voltage.

The diesel isn't part of this conversation. And the 3.6's power output is not remotely peaky, as I have explained to you in the past.

I formally request to make the diesel a part of this conversation. In my opinion the primary reason the diesel 3.0 exists is for towing. I believe this is due to the way it produces torque. Since neither the 2.0 or 3.6 torque curves are anywhere near the 3.0, I can guess that the closer one is better suited for towing.

Since you'll probably ignore this again, I'll state it for others that are interested: You can't have a flat torque curve without a peaky power curve. It's literally defined by the formula for horsepower: (Torque x RPM) / 5252 = Horsepower. Note the red mountain-like peak below, yet the blue vast desert-like flatness of the torque plain.

I don't define physics, I only point out physics problems.

...

 

[TheRaven]

I disagree, and so does Wikipedia, Car & Driver, Motor Trend. Physics defines torque's relationship to power. And wattage (power) is current multiplied by voltage.

We've been over this already...those outlets do not agree with you. Power is TQ. Horsepower is a derived measure created to make comparison between different types of powerplants easier. It really is a pretty useless measure on its own for anything outside of bench racing. Twenty years ago I would use the (now obsolete) example of the 900hp Supra vs the 500hp Z06. The Z06 rips apart the Supra...why? It's more powerful.

I formally request to make the diesel a part of this conversation. In my opinion the primary reason the diesel 3.0 exists is for towing. I believe this is due to the way it produces torque. Since neither the 2.0 or 3.6 torque curves are anywhere near the 3.0, I can guess that the closer one is better suited for towing.

Reasonable request, but it's not our place.

Since you'll probably ignore this again, I'll state it for others that are interested: You can't have a flat torque curve without a peaky power curve. It's literally defined by the formula for horsepower: (Torque x RPM) / 5252 = Horsepower. Note the red mountain-like peak below, yet the blue vast desert-like flatness of the torque plain.

Pay attention dude. TORQUE IS POWER. Neither of the Wrangler's engines have peaky HP curves.

THESE are peaky hp curves:

"Peaky" is meant to be a negative attribute when it comes to dyno graphs, and the 3.6's HP curve is not bad at all. So if that's the way you define "peaky", then i'll take a "peaky" engine all day thanks.

 

[JeezAJeep]

Had both...went with the 2.0...very very happy with it.

 

[longfiredragon]

WOW, Sometimes you just can't get through to people, their going to stick with it no matter what. Torque, horsepower, Bla, Bla, Bla. It's not rocket science, you don't need a PHD or an engineering degree. All you need to do is drive both and decide which one you like best.

Obviously some people just don't like 4 cylinder engines. Great stick with the 6 banger, there's nothing wrong with it.

The facts though, are the facts, and the facts are that the 4 cylinder turbo in the Wrangler out performs the 6 banger in every aspect. Not only that but it is way more fun to drive.

And for the last time, wholly Moly. Trucks, cars, school buses, tanks, APC, Deuce and half's, 18 wheelers, tractors, bulldozers, motorcycles, aircraft, boats, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. have all been turbocharged/supercharged for 60 to 70 years now and have seen well over 300K miles repeatedly in all kinds of applications.

 

[entropy]

The 2.0l was designed to run on 91. The fact that it is possible to run it on 87 is simply a bonus feature.

Have you seen the compression ratio of the V6?

 

[JeezAJeep]

and thats that...well said

 

[IdahoJOAT]

That's not "proving it false". The 2.0l was designed to run on 91. The fact that it is possible to run it on 87 is simply a bonus feature. That said, if you know anything about FI engines, you aren't going to be running it on 87.

Show me proof the FCA Hurricane 2.0T was designed to run on 91. Furthermore, you completely glossed over the bit about EVERY manual states "for maximum performance use 91 octane."

Also, EVERY engine is going to run better and produce better numbers on a higher octane, even your venerated 3.6. You used the fuel as a reason to prop up the 3.6, when it just plain isn't true, and you misled the OP.

I've owned both. Can't stand the 2.0l. In fact I never actually drove the 3.6l until I owned it due to the fact that dealers don't have 3.6's on lots. Again the 3.6l has a broader torque curve which more than negates the small power advantage that the 2.0l has unless you are street racing your Wrangler. And that's just it - if you only care about a FAST truck, then perhaps the 2.0l is the perfect engine for you. But I don't race trucks. That's what fast cars are for. I use trucks for truck things, and when you use trucks for truck things, you want power, not speed.

No one has a huge selection of vehicles right now. But I know when I looked about a month ago there were no 2.0Ts or 3.0s. To be fair, as I look right now there are, so that's an interesting ebb and flow to the productions of 2021s that a little over a month ago there were no diesels or 4 cylinders, but now there are.

 

[TheRaven]

WOW, Sometimes you just can't get through to people, their going to stick with it no matter what. Torque, horsepower, Bla, Bla, Bla. It's not rocket science, you don't need a PHD or an engineering degree. All you need to do is drive both and decide which one you like best.

Obviously some people just don't like 4 cylinder engines. Great stick with the 6 banger, there's nothing wrong with it.

You were doing great up to this point.

The facts though, are the facts, and the facts are that the 4 cylinder turbo in the Wrangler out performs the 6 banger in every aspect. Not only that but it is way more fun to drive.

Then you posted this.

SMH.

Have you not paid attention to a single debate about these engines? You talk like you haven't.

 

[IdahoJOAT]

You were doing great up to this point.



Then you posted this.

SMH.

Have you not paid attention to a single debate about these engines? You talk like you haven't.

You didn't even really say anything with this post.

They're right, except in HP. The 3.6 makes 5 more HP.

 

[TheRaven]

Show me proof the FCA Hurricane 2.0T was designed to run on 91. Furthermore, you completely glossed over the bit about EVERY manual states "for maximum performance use 91 octane."

The proof is in the manual. You already posted it.

Also, EVERY engine is going to run better and produce better numbers on a higher octane

Not true. My Tahoe is a perfect example. ZERO difference in any meaningful metric whether it's running on 87 or 91.

No one has a huge selection of vehicles right now. But I know when I looked about a month ago there were no 2.0Ts or 3.0s. To be fair, as I look right now there are, so that's an interesting ebb and flow to the productions of 2021s that a little over a month ago there were no diesels or 4 cylinders, but now there are.

3.6's are only available as sold orders. Dealers can't order them for stock unless they cheat. So you may see some 3.6s sitting around but that's likely because they are special orders that don't have what the lot buyer wants. Tough to say.

 

[AnnDee4444]

We've been over this already...those outlets do not agree with you. Power is TQ. Horsepower is a derived measure created to make comparison between different types of powerplants easier.

Let's take this one at a time.

Wikipedia

"power is the product of a force on an object and the object's velocity, or the product of a torque on a shaft and the shaft's angular velocity." ​

​

The product meaning multiplication... of torque and "shaft's angular velocity" (a.k.a. RPM).​

Car & Driver

"Work is the result of a force acting over some distance. The U.S. measurement unit for work (and also energy) is foot-pounds. In the International System (SI), work is measured in joules and, in rare instances, newton-meters.​

​

Torque is a rotating force produced by an engine’s crankshaft. The more torque an engine produces, the greater its ability to perform work. The measurement is the same as work, but slightly different. Since torque is a vector (acting in a certain direction), it’s quantified by the units pound-feet and newton-meters."​

​

"Power is how rapidly work is accomplished. Eighteenth-century Scottish inventor James Watt gave us this handy equivalency: one horsepower is the power required to lift 33,000 pounds exactly one foot in one minute. Honoring that contribution, the SI measurement unit for power is the kilowatt."​

Motor Trend

"Torque and work measurements tell us how much has been accomplished, but provides no clue how fast a given amount of work (or torque) is done. That's the job of power, an expression of the rate or speed at which work is performed."​

It really is a pretty useless measure on its own for anything outside of bench racing.

I actually think that with DBW peak power is more relevant than ever, especially in lower powered vehicles. The throttle tuning in newer cars is pretty aggressive, going WOT with moderate throttle input.

Twenty years ago I would use the (now obsolete) example of the 900hp Supra vs the 500hp Z06. The Z06 rips apart the Supra...why? It's more powerful.

I'm not going to discuss this without knowing specifics. Also it's not an approved topic.

Pay attention dude. TORQUE IS POWER. Neither of the Wrangler's engines have peaky HP curves.

I will ignore what I want to, but I strongly suggest providing some written documentation that torque = power.

The only time when this would be mathematically correct is at 0 RPM and/or 0 lb.ft. of torque. Or the much harder to achieve infinite RPM and/or infinite torque.

THESE are peaky hp curves:

"Peaky" is meant to be a negative attribute when it comes to dyno graphs, and the 3.6's HP curve is not bad at all. So if that's the way you define "peaky", then i'll take a "peaky" engine all day thanks.

You've made it perfectly clear that you prefer the peaky-er engine of the two. Peaky is not my definition, and I don't think it's a negative attribute either. I actually prefer peaky engines in some cases... they can be lots of fun with manual transmissions and lightweight vehicles.

I agree, those are all peaky power curves. What isn't shown is the corresponding flat torque curves. Also the shapes also look pretty similar to the 3.6 (horse)power curve:

 

[AnnDee4444]

Also, EVERY engine is going to run better and produce better numbers on a higher octane, even your venerated 3.6. You used the fuel as a reason to prop up the 3.6, when it just plain isn't true, and you misled the OP.

Only if the tuning can adjust for it.

If I understand everything correctly... If tuned for 87 octane and not able to adjust, 91 should actually make very slightly less power due to the slower combustion rate acting like slightly more retarded timing.

 

[TheRaven]

Let's take this one at a time.

This is the last time i'm addressing this...we can't keep doing this over and over again. None of those sources refute what i'm saying, as they are all referring to HORSEPOWER. Again, horsepower is NOT A REAL MEASURE, it is derived. When I talk about power, i'm talking about a REAL measure, and that's torque. Another way to put it - torque is POWER, horsepower is WORK.

I actually think that with DBW peak power is more relevant than ever, especially in lower powered vehicles. The throttle tuning in newer cars is pretty aggressive, going WOT with moderate throttle input.

Depends on what you are talking about. When comparing similar engines, torque is always the differentiator...so in this context, peak power is pretty meaningless.

I'm not going to discuss this without knowing specifics. Also it's not an approved topic.

It wasn't meant to be a discussion. It's a quick example cause i'm trying to find a way to illustrate this in a way you'll understand. I've run out of illustrations.

You've made it perfectly clear that you prefer the peaky-er engine of the two. Peaky is not my definition, and I don't think it's a negative attribute either. I actually prefer peaky engines in some cases... they can be lots of fun with manual transmissions and lightweight vehicles.

Look dude, we clearly differ on our definition of "peaky". You are the first person in my 30 years of "car guy-ing" that I have ever heard refer to an HP curve like the 3.6l as "peaky". That's why I said, if you call that peaky, then give me peaky any day. That's one fantastic peaky curve.

I agree, those are all peaky power curves. What isn't shown is the corresponding flat torque curves. Also the shapes also look pretty similar to the 3.6 (horse)power curve:

It's not. Your graph is very compressed. Your earlier graph, and all the superimposed graphs you did in our past discussions show the curve much more accurately. This graph intentionally makes it look steep when it's not at all.

 

[AnnDee4444]

This is the last time i'm addressing this...we can't keep doing this over and over again. None of those sources refute what i'm saying, as they are all referring to HORSEPOWER. Again, horsepower is NOT A REAL MEASURE, it is derived. When I talk about power, i'm talking about a REAL measure, and that's torque. Another way to put it - torque is POWER, horsepower is WORK.



Depends on what you are talking about. When comparing similar engines, torque is always the differentiator...so in this context, peak power is pretty meaningless.



It wasn't meant to be a discussion. It's a quick example cause i'm trying to find a way to illustrate this in a way you'll understand. I've run out of illustrations.



Look dude, we clearly differ on our definition of "peaky". You are the first person in my 30 years of "car guy-ing" that I have ever heard refer to an HP curve like the 3.6l as "peaky". That's why I said, if you call that peaky, then give me peaky any day. That's one fantastic peaky curve.



It's not. Your graph is very compressed. Your earlier graph, and all the superimposed graphs you did in our past discussions show the curve much more accurately. This graph intentionally makes it look steep when it's not at all.

Wow. Just... wow.

If it's the same exact data, but somehow scaling it differently makes it look peaky... then...

Nope, still peaky.

Sponsored