2.0 or 3.6? Canceling diesel build

[Odyssey USA]

Jeep could do whatever they want with it to make people feel better. DI is still not a good thing and like ESS was done simply to save FCA money. I do agree that reliability really isn't a factor with either engine, especially relative to the rest of the vehicle. I could even argue DI is more cost affective due to fuel savings alone but can't say that in good faith with its track record in most vehicles.



A properly geared 3.6 drives very well. Better than stock. I would be interested in directly comparing a regeared 3.6 on bigger tires and a 2.0 that's not regeared on bigger tires. It would be interesting to specifically highlight the torque difference that's obviously in the 2.0s favor. If the 2.0 truly doesn't need a regear, that's a major advantage.


No thanks, zero interest in ever boosting a vehicle. While cost would not be the same, supercharging a 3.6 would give better performance with zero turbo lag.



Sure, nobodies arguing differently. You're still assuming that certain buyers care about power more than other variables. Most people in the United States don't live at elevation either.


The comparison was two different JL Wranglers. It's not "can be a car length", it's approximately the size of a fender given two Wranglers were being compared in the 0-60.

If I was 600 lbs, I could kick Mike Tyons ass. The 2.0 is heavier, period. There's no "what ifs" if it was lighter. It's not.



According to 2.0 guys in this thread, the 2.0 was designed specifically for 87, so fuel really doesn't matter in this context. Can't have it both ways.



Certainly. Which is why I'm genuinely laughing at another poster insisting Torque doesn't mean power under the context of comparing two different engines. Torque absolutely makes a difference.

Lol that’s ridiculous now. The fuel does matter. Put 80 octane in your 3.6. That’s under recommended. They’re shipped with 87.

The 2.0 needs a regear.

Even for just a 0-60, a tenth doing the distance covered math can be in the area of a car length due to VARIABLES just like .2 will be between 1-2 car lengths.

Lastly, the subject was power. I’d normally agree with you but that 90 lbs isn’t just from drivetrain. The options were different. I’ll take the 90 lbs out for ENGINE OUTPUT comparison and for the sake of the POWER discussion seeing as somebody wants to measure acceleration at a drag strip or 0-60 run.

Sponsored

 

[Odyssey USA]

And though most don’t live at “elevation”, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t rather have it when they’re going up that 8% grade when traveling. I honestly think that the excitement of getting a new vehicle might make someone forget about that until after purchase sometime.

 

[Herson]

You still don't understand that the vehicle will always have a charge? It doesn't fully discharge the battery pack, ever(that's really hard on a battery for one). If you've never driven a hybrid, go drive one. The acceleration is the same regardless of % of charge. Even when the gauge is showing no capacity. I read somewhere that the vehicle holds as much as 20% in reserve, to ensure that you always have the functionality of the electric motor if you step on it. Not only does the battery charge at even the slightest deceleration, any time the load is light enough it charges. The extra 150 ftlbs is always there.

TFL has done it. The discharged the battery off-roading to test it. Once is discharged you have gas engine only. Additionally, Teraflex also did drag races with it and it was not faster than the regular rubicon with the 4cyl. Go watch the videos. I just prefer a lighter wrangler, and with the 2.0, I believe is a great combination.

 

[Zandcwhite]

TFL has done it. The discharged the battery off-roading to test it. Once is discharged you have gas engine only. Additionally, Teraflex also did drag races with it and it was not faster than the regular rubicon with the 4cyl. Go watch the videos. I just prefer a lighter wrangler, and with the 2.0, I believe is a great combination.

4xe 0-60 5.5s according to car and driver. Jlur similarly equipped with a 2.0t 6.8s. Not faster? If you think a 20% decrease in 0-60 isn't massively faster, we can just agree to disagree. You may want to watch the tfl video again, or actually drive one. There's a difference between not having enough charge to run in fully electric mode and not having enough charge for the electric assist.

 

[Strommen95]

Lol that’s ridiculous now. The fuel does matter. Put 80 octane in your 3.6. That’s under recommended. They’re shipped with 87.

I can see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. It's genuinely funny that when it was repeated in this thread the 2.0 is fine on 87, you didn't have anything to say. Now when real world data shows the 2.0 isn't as better as you thought it was, suddenly fuel is the big difference.

No gas station in any state carries less than 85 Octane. Probably 45 states of the 50 carry no less than 87. Bringing up 80 is ridiculous.

The 2.0 needs a regear.

Okay, so the extra torque doesn't matter as much as you and others suggest it does. Good to know.

Even for just a 0-60, a tenth doing the distance covered math can be in the area of a car length due to VARIABLES just like .2 will be between 1-2 car lengths.

Lastly, the subject was power. I’d normally agree with you but that 90 lbs isn’t just from drivetrain. The options were different. I’ll take the 90 lbs out for ENGINE OUTPUT comparison and for the sake of the POWER discussion seeing as somebody wants to measure acceleration at a drag strip or 0-60 run.

Great, another clear cut example of the narrative changing. The big argument for the 2.0 has been Torque. Now 90 lbs on a 4400 lb vehicle is the reason why the 2.0 and 3.6 are neck to neck?

 

[TheRaven]

Even for just a 0-60, a tenth doing the distance covered math can be in the area of a car length due to VARIABLES just like .2 will be between 1-2 car lengths.

At 60mph, 0.2 sec is 6.8ft. Thats what we call a fender. This is a silly argument, both engines have the same ET in the 1320. There is nothing further to debate on this.

I'm seeing a ton of excuses being made for the 2.0. Is this the Supra forum circa 2004?

 

[Odyssey USA]

I can see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. It's genuinely funny that when it was repeated in this thread the 2.0 is fine on 87, you didn't have anything to say. Now when real world data shows the 2.0 isn't as better as you thought it was, suddenly fuel is the big difference.

No gas station in any state carries less than 85 Octane. Probably 45 states of the 50 carry no less than 87. Bringing up 80 is ridiculous.



Okay, so the extra torque doesn't matter as much as you and others suggest it does. Good to know.

Great, another clear cut example of the narrative changing. The big argument for the 2.0 has been Torque. Now 90 lbs on a 4400 lb vehicle is the reason why the 2.0 and 3.6 are neck to neck?

You’re a piece of work.
Did I say 80 existed? Did I…. Petty. It’s a random number exaggeration to make a point. Oh but you got me! Didn’t you? lol I never, never went on about octane in this thread. I pointed out a variable because this guy wants to bring up a C&D drag racing test lol…of Jeeps. I shouldn’t have even tried to point out things because it’s lost on you and maybe him too. You can’t handle the critique and didn’t address the question other than to insult for some odd reason. Was there a recommended octane (for optimum power) used for both engines? Maybe someone here said optimum octane doesn’t matter but it wasn’t me. You think I’ve read this thread in it’s entirety?

Since were talking about DRAG RACING JEEPS (Where did that guy go?)….and comparing that output…(with me giving the equal hp but one having higher torque scenario earlier) recommended fuel octane and being aware of the WEIGHT difference might better help this apparent debate and degradation to lack of reason and insults for those who aren’t as familiar with going to the track and racing 1/8th and 1/4 like I’ve done for years. And you want to compare a regeared 3.6, I presume running the recommend octane, to a 2.0 with what? 87? If yes, that’s not the recommend. That’s the minimum recommended. It will handicap the 2.0.

Narrative? Lol You’re making a lot of this like it’s F’n political.

I’m done with the drag strip comparison if people want to ignore factors to accurately compare engine output and take a publication like a C&D article DRAG RACING JEEPS as gospel. There’s definitely, with no regards for real factors, reaching going on.

I stand by my points. To reasonably compare output using ONE drag race all else should be equal as possible. Octane will make a huge % of power difference in this 2.0. 90 lbs much less so. They are valid point and worthy of question when there’s a comparison of engine output by using a drag strip, and it would especially be appreciated by those who participate in drag racing competitively. Maybe not a Jeep forum, well, unless they try to use it to make a point they think reinforced their position.

As to the 2.0 buyer, if you are not wanting to spend the money and didn’t care what engine you got, you’ll probably run 87. If you want the max power, run the recommended , & not the minimum requirement octane. The difference with the 3.6 will absolutely be more apparent that way, especially as altitude increases, but don’t spend the money if you don’t wish to.

 

[Odyssey USA]

At 60mph, 0.2 sec is 6.8ft. Thats what we call a fender. This is a silly argument, both engines have the same ET in the 1320. There is nothing further to debate on this.

I'm seeing a ton of excuses being made for the 2.0. Is this the Supra forum circa 2004?

I get 8.8 ft at one tenth second at 60 mph and 17.6ft for two tenths…if you want to go back and read my initial ballpark guess.

Then stop debating. I don’t think we’re far off but you seem to be saying there’s no difference. I’m critiquing and asking valid questions. I’m giving real, first hand, Day to day feedback on both engines with nothing to gain. The 2.0 is considerably more stout down low in my opinion, which differs from yours. Shall we pretend to put slicks on Jeeps and compare 60ft to try to judge the off road torque I have experienced is more accessible on the 2.0 vs the 3.6? That’s funny.

 

[Strommen95]

You’re a piece of work.
Did I say 80 existed? Did I…. Petty. It’s a random number exaggeration to make a point. Oh but you got me! Didn’t you? lol I never, never went on about octane in this thread. I pointed out a variable because this guy wants to bring up a C&D drag racing test lol…of Jeeps. I shouldn’t have even tried to point out things because it’s lost on you and maybe him too. You can’t handle the critique and didn’t address the question other than to insult for some odd reason. Was there a recommended octane (for optimum power) used for both engines? Maybe someone here said optimum octane doesn’t matter but it wasn’t me. You think I’ve read this thread in it’s entirety?



. Octane will make a huge % of power difference in this 2.0. 90 lbs much less so. They are valid point and worthy of question when there’s a comparison of engine output by using a drag strip, and it would especially be appreciated by those who participate in drag racing competitively. Maybe not a Jeep forum, well,

I'm a piece of work for using facts and data in an argument. Thank you!

Your point is foolish and was ignored because I never suggested Octane didn't make a difference. Again, reading comprehension. I was pointing out the humor that fuel suddenly mattered when it didn't fit the 2.0 narrative. The C&D comparison came out when 91 was required for the 2.0 according to the owners manual, so it's unlikely your variable is relevant. You're literally reaching because your opinion that the 2.0 is much more powerful, you said the engines 'weren't even close', was proven wrong with real world data. You've posted in this thread 13 times in the last 2 days, so yes, you almost certainly read all of the 2.0 misinformation posted recently and didn't correct any. You helped spread misinformation yourself by saying "it's not even close."

And you want to compare a regeared 3.6, I presume running the recommend octane, to a 2.0 with what? 87? If yes, that’s not the recommend. That’s the minimum recommended. It will handicap the 2.0.

The C&D Comparison was a stock Sahara vs a stock Sahara. I brought up a hypothetical comparison of a regeared 3.6 to a non regeared 2.0 for the sole purpose of seeing with data how much of a difference the additional torque of the 2.0 would make. I never brought up the 2.0's Octane in that hypothetical comparison, so again, you're reaching.

Narrative? Lol You’re making a lot of this like it’s F’n political.

It's funny you say that. When you say nothing to the 2.0 positive misinformation and keep responding to legitimate 3.6 points, you're no different than a (D) or (R) not calling out members of their own party for their BS.

I’m done with the drag strip comparison if people want to ignore factors to accurately compare engine output and take a publication like a C&D article DRAG RACING JEEPS as gospel. There’s definitely, with no regards for real factors, reaching going on.

"This data isn't what I wanted to read, so I'm not going to listen to it."

I stand by my points. To reasonably compare output using ONE drag race all else should be equal as possible

The 2.0 only came with ETorque at the time. The test was fair and it's unlikely that ETorque hinders either engine regardless. You're suggesting comparing two stock vehicles is unfair?..

unless they try to use it to make a point they think reinforced their position.

The irony that you of all people is writing this

 

[Odyssey USA]

I'm a piece of work for using facts and data in an argument. Thank you!

Your point is foolish and was ignored because I never suggested Octane didn't make a difference. Again, reading comprehension. I was pointing out the humor that fuel suddenly mattered when it didn't fit the 2.0 narrative. The C&D comparison came out when 91 was required for the 2.0 according to the owners manual, so it's unlikely your variable is relevant. You're literally reaching because your opinion that the 2.0 is much more powerful, you said the engines 'weren't even close', was proven wrong with real world data. You've posted in this thread 13 times in the last 2 days, so yes, you almost certainly read all of the 2.0 misinformation posted recently and didn't correct any. You helped spread misinformation yourself by saying "it's not even close."



The C&D Comparison was a stock Sahara vs a stock Sahara. I brought up a hypothetical comparison of a regeared 3.6 to a non regeared 2.0 for the sole purpose of seeing with data how much of a difference the additional torque of the 2.0 would make. I never brought up the 2.0's Octane in that hypothetical comparison, so again, you're reaching.



It's funny you say that. When you say nothing to the 2.0 positive misinformation and keep responding to legitimate 3.6 points, you're no different than a (D) or (R) not calling out members of their own party for their BS.



"This data isn't what I wanted to read, so I'm not going to listen to it."



The 2.0 only came with ETorque at the time. The test was fair and it's unlikely that ETorque hinders either engine regardless. You're suggesting comparing two stock vehicles is unfair?..



The irony that you of all people is writing this

What facts and data regarding MY statements have you refuted as incorrect? Real world driving, it’s not close relative to two sub 300 hp engines.

Exactly how is it “reaching” to ask questions? You think I cared to read that article? I assessed what was put in front of me….a copy and paste.

What are the 3.6 positions points? They are equal?

So you would like to compare output on an engine dyno like what would be the most accurate way to measure output from around stall rpm to just past peak hp to be able to clearly say “ there’s a difference” at the least? I’m saying MY personal experience, for a sub 300 hp vehicle is they are “not even close” in difference in relative terms.

Irony? See mirror.

So are you trying to disprove my…opinion? What facts did I give, and which are incorrect?

 

[Herson]

4xe 0-60 5.5s according to car and driver. Jlur similarly equipped with a 2.0t 6.8s. Not faster? If you think a 20% decrease in 0-60 isn't massively faster, we can just agree to disagree. You may want to watch the tfl video again, or actually drive one. There's a difference between not having enough charge to run in fully electric mode and not having enough charge for the electric assist.

Yeah according to them . Like the fuel economy numbers that never match the real world. Just go watch the teraflex video.

 

[Odyssey USA]

Comparing the 2.0 vs 3.6, both with recommended octane, not the minimum necessarily, me owning both with eTorque, the ‘21 Rubicon stock and the Sahara with the mods in my sig, the Sahara has more accessible torque and power down below 3k where I spend most of my driving time. It accelerates faster and even before the regear, which I highly recommend to get 8th gear back, it made the heavy 35’s and mods less apparent. Starting with more, you end up with more and power down low is where you want it. The extended range and performance at high elevation are factors for myself as well.

Will it be more high maintenance down the road? It might be but to have the benefits of any forced induction will likely make it worth it. Take care of it and it’ll last longer. It might save you a couple of dollars on fuel too.

The 3.6 is a solid engine. It’s like stepping back in time for me with the lower output but your drivetrain parts might take less intense hits off-road when you have to throttle out. My opinion…is this might be why the XR comes with the 3.6. Less breakage when there is less twisting force. That 3.6 might go hundreds of thousands of miles if you need one to. That’s something to consider if you need something long term and more predictable.

 

[Col_Sanders]

I owned a Grand Caravan with the 3.6 and we have a Ram 1500 with the 3.6 at work. I've logged quite a few miles on both of those vehicles so I think I have a pretty good feel for the 3.6. I live at around 2200ft but travel up to 8000ft fairly often. On those trips, the 3.6 SCREAMS trying to maintain highway speed. The 6 speed in the GC was really annoying as it could not find a gear to stay in. The 8 speed in the Ram handles it much better but I still cringe when its turning >5k rpm for minutes at a time. With it struggling like that on a stock truck like that, I knew it would be much worse on a JLU with 37s, armor, lift, camping gear, etc.

My JLU with the 2.0 is still on stock 4.10 gears with 37s. It will rarely drop below 6th gear (under 3000rpm) on the same grades and does not feel like it is struggling at all. I mean...I'd love more power, but I do not feel like it is underpowered. The only time I have been disappointed with the engine was a couple times at high elevation in CO (Imogene, Engineer, Black Bear passes) when in 4L it seemed like it just didnt want to move from a stop but I ASSume it was due to the detuning in 4L and the trans skipping 1st gear. Not sure how the 3.6 would have done in that situation but I'm sure it would not have handled the rest of the trip nearly as well.

 

[TheRaven]

Then stop debating. I don’t think we’re far off but you seem to be saying there’s no difference. I’m critiquing and asking valid questions. I’m giving real, first hand, Day to day feedback on both engines with nothing to gain. The 2.0 is considerably more stout down low in my opinion, which differs from yours. Shall we pretend to put slicks on Jeeps and compare 60ft to try to judge the off road torque I have experienced is more accessible on the 2.0 vs the 3.6? That’s funny.

See this here is your problem. No one is trying to tell you that what you feel is wrong. Your opinion is noted. But all along, you've been trying to tell us that the 2.0 is objectively the better engine because you feel it's better. The truth always has been, and remains, that these engines are neck and neck when it comes to power. You and some others feel the 2.0 is noticeably more powerful. Me and some others feel the 3.6l is noticeably more powerful. These are all opinions. The fact is that objectively they're pretty much the same. The 2.0l excels in some situations and the 3.6l excels in other situations.

You keep trying to establish your own and other opinions as proof of fact. Stop doing that and we're all good.

 

[gerlbaum]

Maybe everyone should cancel the 2.0 and 3.6 and get the diesel like I did.

Sponsored