2.0 or 3.6? Canceling diesel build

[JamesJimmyD]

started out with a 2020 Gladiator sport S 3.6 only mod was wheels and 33s, used it for towing and work, fell in love with it ended up buying a 2020 JLU 3.6 electric top for the wife due to the fact she drove the gladiator more than I, a year later traded the gladiator for a 2021 2 door JL hardtop 2.0 80th....all i can say out of the 2....the 2.0 screams compared to the 3.6...we drive 50% hwy, 40%town 10% offroad mostly gravel, dirt....fuel economy within a few miles of one another, both are fun to drive but the 2.0 wins out purely on power delivery and the size of our smiles when behind the wheel...

Sponsored

 

[Steve JLUR]

521907[/ATTACH]

This just floors me. Not questioning the veracity, just envious. I do not thrash my Jeep in any way, I do live in a hilly area, so that is a factor, but it shouldn’t be that much of a delta. I am only averaging about 19 MPH!

 

[TheRaven]

No war for me. Owning both, it’s just simply a fact. It’s obvious when driving one on and off road. Throw in some elevation, the 2.0 shines even more.

To you. It's the opposite for me. The 2.0l takes longer to get into its power band and has to rev higher to make power...which just adds to the weedwhacker feel. With the 3.6l, it's there right off idle. Mind you, neither engine "has power" to me...they're both just meh. But I notice the better low end torque of the 3.6l and after spending 3 years with the 2.0l, that torque is a welcome change. I'll gladly trade the extra mid-range for the extra low end (and more importantly better manners).

But that's just my preference...and that's exactly the point here. You either PREFER the 2.0l or the 3.6l. Neither one is objectively better all around.

This just floors me. Not questioning the veracity, just envious. I do not thrash my Jeep in any way, I do live in a hilly area, so that is a factor, but it shouldn’t be that much of a delta. I am only averaging about 19 MPH!

Your 19mpg is mixed driving. That 29mpg is highway. The real difference is in the 2-4mpg range. My wife averaged 24mpg in her 2.0l turbo and is now averaging 21.5mpg in her 3.6l. Same driver, same drive. She never saw 29mpg even pure highway...I think the highest was 27 in the 2.0l and it's about 24mpg in the 3.6l.

 

[TX_Ovrlnd]

Y'all are wild. Horsepower (HP) = (Torque × Speed)/5252 (speed=RPM)

Stock 2.0 achieves peak torque at ~3000rpm and horsepower at ~5,200rpm, 3.6 achieves peak torque at ~4,500rpm and horsepower at ~6,500rpm; it redlines at ~6,000rpm.

Torque is rotating force doing work over distance, horsepower is how rapidly that work can be done per unit of time. Turbos are a game changer, smaller displacement with greater yield. Here's hoping for an inline 6 with turbo!

 

[AnnDee4444]

Yes, that was my point. When you stretch the graph you no longer have a "peaky" graph. You also have a deceiving graph, and, depending on how you scaled it, possibly an incorrect graph.

Possibly an incorrect graph? It's literally the same data. It doesn't matter if the X scale is 1, 2, or 99 times larger than the Y scale, the curve still peaks at the end of the engine's rev range. What if I had started with a graph with the same Y scaling? Would we have had a different conversation?

Here's another graph I'd like to show. We all have a location on it somewhere, but unfortunately only others can judge where.

 

[TheRaven]

Possibly an incorrect graph? It's literally the same data. It doesn't matter if the X scale is 1, 2, or 99 times larger than the Y scale, the curve still peaks at the end of the engine's rev range. What if I had started with a graph with the same Y scaling? Would we have had a different conversation?

Yeah...it's elementary level statistics knowledge dude. You can make the same graph look very different by changing the scaling of it. That's because most people don't take the time to read the numbers and understand what they are looking at...they just see the curve and go "oh that's peaky".

That said, you are right, it doesn't matter how you scale the graph of the 3.6l's HP. IT'S NOT REMOTELY PEAKY.

You really really need to drop this. It's old.

 

[Herson]

To you. It's the opposite for me. The 2.0l takes longer to get into its power band and has to rev higher to make power...which just adds to the weedwhacker feel. With the 3.6l, it's there right off idle. Mind you, neither engine "has power" to me...they're both just meh. But I notice the better low end torque of the 3.6l and after spending 3 years with the 2.0l, that torque is a welcome change. I'll gladly trade the extra mid-range for the extra low end (and more importantly better manners).
This comment just goes against the power curve of both engines and it doesn’t makes sense. The hp of the 3.6 is at 6k rpms and the 2.0 is way lower in the RPM range meaning you get the kick faster than the 3.6. Those are just facts proven by data and not an opinion.

But that's just my preference...and that's exactly the point here. You either PREFER the 2.0l or the 3.6l. Neither one is objectively better all around.



Your 19mpg is mixed driving. That 29mpg is highway. The real difference is in the 2-4mpg range. My wife averaged 24mpg in her 2.0l turbo and is now averaging 21.5mpg in her 3.6l. Same driver, same drive. She never saw 29mpg even pure highway...I think the highest was 27 in the 2.0l and it's about 24mpg in the 3.6l.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Yeah...it's elementary level statistics knowledge dude. You can make the same graph look very different by changing the scaling of it. That's because most people don't take the time to read the numbers and understand what they are looking at...they just see the curve and go "oh that's peaky".

That said, you are right, it doesn't matter how you scale the graph of the 3.6l's HP. IT'S NOT REMOTELY PEAKY.

You really really need to drop this. It's old.

I really do need to stop, and I apologize to everyone annoyed by this. Trolling isn't a hobby of mine, but I do get distracted by the spreading of misinformation.

 

[TheRaven]

This comment just goes against the power curve of both engines and it doesn’t makes sense. The hp of the 3.6 is at 6k rpms and the 2.0 is way lower in the RPM range meaning you get the kick faster than the 3.6. Those are just facts proven by data and not an opinion.

That's not correct. See dyno graph below. Black is 3.6l and green is 2.0l. You can clearly see the torque curve of the 3.6l is much wider and flatter than the 2.0l. Though the 2.0l has more torque from 2700rpm to 5700rpm, the 3.6l outputs significantly more below and above that range. The 3.6l puts out solid torque numbers all the way down to 1200rpm while you need the 2.0l up over the 2000rpm mark in order to get good power. That's my second-biggest gripe with the 2.0l.

In fact, AnDee4444 did an entire thread of dyno graph analysis on both these engines and his data proves the same.

I do get distracted by the spreading of misinformation.

So do I. See above for example.

 

[Heimkehr]

This just floors me. Not questioning the veracity, just envious. I do not thrash my Jeep in any way, I do live in a hilly area, so that is a factor, but it shouldn’t be that much of a delta. I am only averaging about 19 MPH!

Pennsylvania roads don't trend flat or straight, so I too have to contend with varying elevation. I am careful to choose rural routes when possible to avoid the stop-and-go of daily traffic.

My average fuel mileage hovers between 27.5-28.5 mpg. Seeing 29.1 on the dashboard two days ago, which occurred with no change in my driving habits, was a pleasant surprise. My current record is almost 30 mpg.

The 2.0T, which is not underpowered, has been fed Premium fuel since the day I took delivery. I do also try to avoid bad habits like jackrabbit starts and the like.

Your 19mpg is mixed driving. That 29mpg is highway. The real difference is in the 2-4mpg range. My wife averaged 24mpg in her 2.0l turbo and is now averaging 21.5mpg in her 3.6l. Same driver, same drive.

She never saw 29mpg even pure highway...I think the highest was 27 in the 2.0l and it's about 24mpg in the 3.6l.

Thank you for not asking me to confirm or deny my quoted mpg figure as being earned from "pure highway", in advance of your taking a position on the matter.

Do review the preceding text.

 

[AnnDee4444]

That's not correct. See dyno graph below. Black is 3.6l and green is 2.0l. You can clearly see the torque curve of the 3.6l is much wider and flatter than the 2.0l. Though the 2.0l has more torque from 2700rpm to 5700rpm, the 3.6l outputs significantly more below and above that range. The 3.6l puts out solid torque numbers all the way down to 1200rpm while you need the 2.0l up over the 2000rpm mark in order to get good power. That's my second-biggest gripe with the 2.0l.

At the risk of starting another shit-flinging battle, I highly doubt that graph is accurate below 3000 RPM. Most other 2.0 dynos show at least 200 lb-ft at 2500 RPM, while this shows 100.

 

[longfiredragon]

It's a loosing battle dud, he can't even tell the diff. when he puts his foot in one versus the other.

 

[TrailSnail]

This thread sucks.

OP, the people who have actually lived with both prefer the 2.0. That should be the most influential point taken away from this sh*t mess.

 

[nsfw_andy]

At the risk of starting another shit-flinging battle, I highly doubt that graph is accurate below 3000 RPM. Most other 2.0 dynos show at least 200 lb-ft at 2500 RPM, while this shows 100.

Yeah, I dont think that one is accurate at all.


Blue is 2.0
Red is 3.6
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...first-ever-dyno-runs-vs-3-6l-pentastar.14270/

 

[PocketsEmptied]

All I know is I went in wanting a 3.6L. After many, many test drives I couldn't get past how much more pep and torquier the 2.0T felt throughout most of the power band, the 3.6L had to down shift and rev high to get you there. I know people's experiences are different, but to me the 2.0T had more torque/power/whatever you want to call it when I needed or wanted it. Even my die-hard "tried and true" 3.6L friend was surprised by the torque when I let him drive my 2.0T after he had tried hard to convince me not to get it. He says he now prefers driving it although he's still sticking to the "tried and true" part.

Now, as for MPG the highest I've had for a tank is just under 21 calculated, however I generally average 18.5-19.5. But I'm not even to my first oil change yet, and my foot is kind of heavy.

Sponsored