2.0 Torque Curves

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
I've was wondering how all the aftermarket baseline dyno curves compare to each other, and found a neat website that lets you convert images into CSV data www.graphreader.com. So with some work, I've collected some baseline 2.0 dyno charts and plotted them out together.

Some observations:
  • automobile-catalog.com provides engine torque that has been estimated by a computer. I'm not sure how they do this, but I found that factoring 85% for drivetrain losses puts it pretty close when ignoring below 2500 RPM.
  • Some plots don't look accurate below certain RPMs, and should probably be ignored (ExtremeTerrain.com's 3000 RPM, Superchips below 2200 RPM)
  • Vaitrix & Eurocompulsion are sharing data
  • not all dynos measure power equally
2.0 Stock Torque Curves.png


Sources:

Update: I've put together what I think is a good average of all these dynos. Looks like peak torque is around 275 lb-ft from 2750-4100. If this is true, it means that there is either 9% drivetrain loss (which I highly doubt), or the 2.0 actually makes more than the official 295 lb-ft at the crank. Even the lowest peak number (Mishimoto @ 265 lb-ft) is only around 10% less than the official published torque number.

Here's what I did to get this average:
  • Ignored the computer generated data from automobile-catalog.com
  • Ignored the unrealistically steep sections at the beginning & ends of some of the pulls (ExtremeTerrain.com's & Superchips)
  • Smoothed out minor bumps & dips from where certain data starts & stops
2.0 Stock Torque Curves (1).png





Advertisement

 
Last edited:

mikeborden

New Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Memphis
Vehicle(s)
Dodge 2500
I wonder if we should make this a sticky?

Mike
 
OP
AnnDee4444

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #3
Below is the data for my estimated average. It was originally broken down in 10 RPM increments, but I've found it's much easier to deal with 100 RPM increments and still accurate enough.

RPMTorque
1700121
1800146
1900164
2000179
2100196
2200209
2300221
2400236
2500254
2600267
2700275
2800279
2900279
3000279
3100279
3200279
3300280
3400282
3500283
3600283
3700283
3800282
3900280
4000280
4100282
4200278
4300274
4400272
4500269
4600264
4700258
4800254
4900250
5000247
5100242
5200238
5300233
5400227
5500219
5600205
5700178
580096
 

CivilJeep

Well-Known Member
First Name
James
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
97
Reaction score
65
Location
Tega Cay, SC
Vehicle(s)
2020 Wrangler Unlimited Sahara
Occupation
Engineer
I enjoy seeing this kind of data. Thanks for the effort!
 
OP
AnnDee4444

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #8
What about with etorque?
eTorque is lower in the RPM range (up to 1500 RPM I believe), and only applies in 1st gear starting scenarios. I've tried including it before, but there is simply not enough information available to do it accurately for it's limited benefits.

I'll definitely be interested in the 4XE dynos though...
 
OP
AnnDee4444

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #9
Below is the data for my estimated average. It was originally broken down in 10 RPM increments, but I've found it's much easier to deal with 100 RPM increments and still accurate enough.

RPMTorque
1700121
1800146
1900164
2000179
2100196
2200209
2300221
2400236
2500254
2600267
2700275
2800279
2900279
3000279
3100279
3200279
3300280
3400282
3500283
3600283
3700283
3800282
3900280
4000280
4100282
4200278
4300274
4400272
4500269
4600264
4700258
4800254
4900250
5000247
5100242
5200238
5300233
5400227
5500219
5600205
5700178
580096
...and the resulting wheel HP curve using the estimated/averaged torque.
chart (1).png
 

TimnTexas

Active Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
41
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Jeep Wrangler Blackbear
Awesome data!
I saw you had this data for the 3.6L as well. Would be cool to see them both in the same graph.
I used to have a 2016 JKU 6spd and I did the chip, exhaust, air filter updates. It was fun to drive but no where near as much power and torque as the 2.0 turbo stock. The turbo is a lot more fun to drive. I love the fact that the torque peak is low and you feel the dramatic ramps up. The turbo puts the power and torque where you drive 99% of the time. I was always disappointed with the torque of the 3.6L, even with the manual trans and upgrades. I like the idea of the gladiator, but could never consider it with the 3.6 engine and the smelly diesel is a downer as well.
 

DadJokes

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
873
Location
Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
Sahara
Awesome data!
I saw you had this data for the 3.6L as well. Would be cool to see them both in the same graph.
I used to have a 2016 JKU 6spd and I did the chip, exhaust, air filter updates. It was fun to drive but no where near as much power and torque as the 2.0 turbo stock. The turbo is a lot more fun to drive. I love the fact that the torque peak is low and you feel the dramatic ramps up. The turbo puts the power and torque where you drive 99% of the time. I was always disappointed with the torque of the 3.6L, even with the manual trans and upgrades. I like the idea of the gladiator, but could never consider it with the 3.6 engine and the smelly diesel is a downer as well.
I’m sure a 392 is inevitable.
 
OP
AnnDee4444

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #12
Awesome data!
I saw you had this data for the 3.6L as well. Would be cool to see them both in the same graph.
I used to have a 2016 JKU 6spd and I did the chip, exhaust, air filter updates. It was fun to drive but no where near as much power and torque as the 2.0 turbo stock. The turbo is a lot more fun to drive. I love the fact that the torque peak is low and you feel the dramatic ramps up. The turbo puts the power and torque where you drive 99% of the time. I was always disappointed with the torque of the 3.6L, even with the manual trans and upgrades. I like the idea of the gladiator, but could never consider it with the 3.6 engine and the smelly diesel is a downer as well.
I'd rather not post a comparison chart here, as any discussion involving 2.0 vs 3.6 never ends well. Even though I tried to be as accurate and open about my methods as possible, as soon as I show a comparison graph people assume I'm bad-mouthing their choice of engine. That doesn't mean that I haven't compared the two myself though, just that I'm going to refrain from making direct comparisons on this forum. You're more than welcome to use my data to compile your own comparison chart (the raw data can be found here).

I’m sure a 392 is inevitable.
I can't wait for those dynos... Also the 4XE should be pretty interesting.
 

TimnTexas

Active Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
41
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Jeep Wrangler Blackbear
Totally agree in the “versus” saga. It will never end. As long as folks are happy with what they got, then that is all that matters.
I am excited to see the 4xe data. All that electrical torque is very enticing. I also like the idea of going electric as the range is all I would need each day if and whenever we go back to office.
At said, the V8 sound is priceless and I hope FCA prices it right and doesn’t overdo it. It is interesting to see that the Jeep Cherokee SRT vs Durango SRT have like $10k difference in price. The Durango has a 3rd row and physically more material. I really think getting a Jeep V8 would be a long term keeper.
 

MattT69

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
114
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JL Rubicon
Vehicle Showcase
1
Totally agree in the “versus” saga. It will never end. As long as folks are happy with what they got, then that is all that matters.
I am excited to see the 4xe data. All that electrical torque is very enticing. I also like the idea of going electric as the range is all I would need each day if and whenever we go back to office.
At said, the V8 sound is priceless and I hope FCA prices it right and doesn’t overdo it. It is interesting to see that the Jeep Cherokee SRT vs Durango SRT have like $10k difference in price. The Durango has a 3rd row and physically more material. I really think getting a Jeep V8 would be a long term keeper.
Can we order the 3.0diesel or 392 or 2.04xe in a 2 door JLR. If not which engine is the best option for light weight 2 doors?
 
OP
AnnDee4444

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
2,202
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15
Can we order the 3.0diesel or 392 or 2.04xe in a 2 door JLR. If not which engine is the best option for light weight 2 doors?
No, the 2-door isn't available with the 3.0, 392, or 4xe. The only 2-door engine options in the United States are the 2.0 & 3.6. The 2.0 has only ever been offered with the automatic transmission. The 2.0 (and 3.6?) has been offered with and without eTorque depending on year/trim level.

You will get many different answers on what the "best" option is. I recommend taking a few test drives.
 

Advertisement




Quake LED
 



Advertisement
Top