2.0 turbo vs Pentastar V6

[TCogs1]

9 mm bounce off perps. 45 or 40. Or 357 if old style.

10MM and Whiskey (not at the same time)…

Sponsored

 

[The Viking]

Here's a graph I made of the road force at the tires. While the 2.0 has more torque, the 3.6's higher redline delays the upshift to a higher speed. I suspect that this is why the 0-60 times are not much different. It's also important to note that at 75 mph in 8th gear the 2.0 has about 21% more road force (3.6 = 382 pounds, 2.0 = 462 pounds). To me this indicates that the 2.0 could handle larger tires easier than the 3.6.

Solid = 2.0 Rubicon
Dashed = 3.6 Rubicon​

Actual meaningful data to show the difference that torque multiplication makes. People will still argue and someone will still insist that the old I6 was better than both engines. Thanks though. Interesting to see the real world difference graphed out.
My only real gripe with the turbo right now is the turbo lag. I wish that the electric engine filled in that lag until the boost comes up. I am used to instant torque available everywhere pretty instantaneously and the turbo is just too slow for that. It isn't a performance car however and keeping that in mind, I'm enjoying it so far and the MPG has been pretty solid

 

[Shaved Ice]

FYI: for 2020 the 3.6 is $1000 more than the 2.0 on the Sport & Rubicon. If I am reading the specs correctly, the weight difference on a Rubicon 2.0 vs 3.6 (both without BSG) is within 2 pounds also.

The “build” pricing is not accurate for engines. Look at window stickers through the inventory (or in person at a dealership). The 2.0 adds additional cost. The 3.6 doesn’t.

From 2019 window sticker:

From 2020 window sticker:

As far as engine weights go, manufacture’s websites are notorious for not annotating spec differences between sub models. Example, if you compare overall heights among models, the Sport is the same height as a Rubicon. We all know that isn’t the case. From Jeep’s compare vehicles page:

 

[AnnDee4444]

Actual meaningful data to show the difference that torque multiplication makes. People will still argue and someone will still insist that the old I6 was better than both engines. Thanks though. Interesting to see the real world difference graphed out.
My only real gripe with the turbo right now is the turbo lag. I wish that the electric engine filled in that lag until the boost comes up. I am used to instant torque available everywhere pretty instantaneously and the turbo is just too slow for that. It isn't a performance car however and keeping that in mind, I'm enjoying it so far and the MPG has been pretty solid

Agreed. I hope BSG tuning becomes possible someday.

I wanted to see how the 4.0 compared to the 3.6 also, but with the current Rubicon gearing & tire (as if they built a 4.0 Rubicon today). I noticed the torque curve looks strangely similar to the 2.0

Solid = 4.0 HO with 8-speed auto, Rubicon gearing/tire
Dashed = 3.6 Rubicon Auto​

 

[The Viking]

Agreed. I hope BSG tuning becomes possible someday.

I wanted to see how the 4.0 compared to the 3.6 also, but with the current Rubicon gearing & tire (as if they built a 4.0 Rubicon today). I noticed the torque curve looks strangely similar to the 2.0

Solid = 4.0 HO with 8-speed auto, Rubicon gearing/tire
Dashed = 3.6 Rubicon Auto​

I also have a TJ with 4.88 gears on 36s. It would be destroyed by my JLUR on 37s and stock 4.10s. The I6 is a dog and gets horrible mpg. The good thing is that you can run it off of pizza sauce without hurting it and fix it with a hammer if you do break it.

 

[TCogs1]

Depends on how much more you are paying for regular unleaded over premium. Where I live, 91 is 33-38 cents more per gallon and 93 octane is 50-60 higher. I'm getting 21-22 mpg with a 3.6 over 11,000 miles burning 87 octane. I don't see a 2.0 being more economical from a financial stand point when you are starting out in the hole by $1,000. If you get 10% better mileage with a 2.0, that's 23-25 mpg. in my case. Is anyone actually getting that? I'm asking. In my case to hopefully get 10% better mileage with a 2.0 paying on the low end 33 cents a gallon for 91 over $2.00 per gallon for 87, it would cost 16% more per gallon. On the high end for 93 octane at let's say $2.55 per gallon, it would cost 27% more per gallon. That means to get 10% better mileage and more power and torque it would cost me 6-17% more per gallon at prices in my area. That doesn't count the $1,000 up front for the 2.0 and more maintenance down the road. For many that's a small price to pay. I'm happy with my 3.6. But that's why they offer us the choices.

And in the socialist country of Kalifornia… I just paid $4.57 gallon for 91.. I run a 3.6 lifted etc.. and I get happy to see 16-17 MPG..

 

[wrc777]

The “build” pricing is not accurate for engines. Look at window stickers through the inventory (or in person at a dealership). The 2.0 adds additional cost. The 3.6 doesn’t.

From 2019 window sticker:

From 2020 window sticker:

As far as engine weights go, manufacture’s websites are notorious for not annotating spec differences between sub models. Example, if you compare overall heights among models, the Sport is the same height as a Rubicon. We all know that isn’t the case. From Jeep’s compare vehicles page:

I assume that sticker is from a Sahara. No etorque on sport or Rubicon for 2020. Just regular turbo only which means $1500 more than a manual v6 and fca just bumped the auto trans price to 2750 for the v6 on sport/rubicon.

 

[entropy]

I got the V6 for reliability and peace of mind. Also because it has excellence performance and fits perfectly on my 2D Wrangler. I dont need less or more.

But lets be honest, the 2.0 turbo is a high performance engine, that fits very well om the wrangler and performs better than the V6 overall. It might be the future of jeeps or it will fail misserably over time just lile CVTs did. Time will tell.

 

[viper88]

Pulled the trigger on the 2019 JLUR turbo today. Had a 2019 Rubicon V6 I traded in because of constant mechanical issues that FCA and the dealer (and Arrigo WPB) refused to correct. Much happier with the turbo. Time will tell.

What kind of problems did your first JLUR have? Did you trade-in or did they do a Buy-Back? Congratulations on the new one!

 

[modeler]

in model year 2019 and before 2.0t is 1k more than v 6, now reverse. what a mess.

i think ess and etorque are two equally silly feature, so that change shouldn't justify the reduction in price of 2.0t.
i feel bad for those bought 2.0t

 

[YYCSahara]

in model year 2019 and before 2.0t is 1k more than v 6, now reverse. what a mess.

i think ess and etorque are two equally silly feature, so that change shouldn't justify the reduction in price of 2.0t.
i feel bad for those bought 2.0t

Don't feel bad for us.
I love my 2.0T. When I got it, Jeep Canada had more incentives on it vs the V6, making it a cheaper engine to get. I put only regular gas in it, has big torque, gets 2 mpg better than my Tacoma V6 did, is much faster/more drivable... I made sure to lease it though so that this perceived reliability problem won't be my issue down the road...

 

[smithrd65]

The specs on the baby engine 2.0 with a tiny turbo is not that much greater sorry. They get people because they hear Turbo and think of massive powering not.

 

[Sly]

Hello folks. First post here. I just want to share my "engine decision making process" in case it helps anyone, as this forum seriously helped me!
First of all: I went through literally all posts in the forums I found on this site + some external resources. Also talked to my mechanics, test drove BOTH engines multiple times at the dealership, went offroad for couple of minutes (mud/grass, nothing crazy) with both...

Background:
- I don't drive much. maybe 5k miles per year in my car (but 40K on motorcycles yearly). Not too concerned about MPG
- My previous car: '12 Jeep liberty RWD (yeah...not too concerned about mpg )
- Planned use: 20% freeway, 40% smaller roads, 40% sand/desert (VERY hot weather), some trails. My driving style is very "relaxed". Too relaxed for the lady...
- I fix pretty much everything myself on my motorcycles and plan to do so on the jeep (to some extend...at least my regular service...and mounting some accessories...). I have strong background in electronics, reliability testing and failure analysis

and so I picked: the V6!

The 2L turbo was my favorite to drive around the dealership/town. Great acceleration (except when "relaunching the motor at 20mph" - like start at red light, brake, relaunch - thinking it was the eTorque system not kicking in that an actual turbo lag. BTW are those variable turbo geometry?).
If I had been using my car to commute daily (60 HWY miles a day in terrible traffic jams), or if I was leasing the car, I would have chosen the turbo. 100%

The reasons why I picked the V6:
1) resale value. I keep my cars for decades.
you cannot expect the same resale value at 80K miles on a 2L 4 cylinder, with lot of compression, probably higher RPM reached through the engine's life than a V6. plus the V6 offers a less complex system for the whole vehicle.
2) Batteries, cables, second cooling system: too many points of failure point of damage when going offroad, and more aging parts.Electrical systems and connections don't age well, same for batteries. That means higher maintenance cost. Also, from my experience, those system don't like the heat and it often reached 100 degrees around where I live and when it' not that means I'm by the ocean: no good for electrical connections either.
3) if your eTorque system goes down, the car won't run.
4) The 2l didn't feel like a jeep. I mean like my old Jeep liberty does or like the other wranglers I sometimes drove in the past. It felt like a regular SUV. The center of mass is probably higher on the V6 but that's a very personal and subjective feel.
6) I sometimes need to tow stuff....

and... I can't fix an eTorque system my (trusted) mechanics said "V6 all the way" and that sealed pretty much everything.

 

[modeler]

Both have pro and cons, the way I see is the Price, now turbo offer better price just go for it.
The only draw back is "there are more stuff to fail", but if you open the hood of any engine, there is plenty of stuff to fail already.
With that logic, you should shop for bike rather than car. Indeed, every thing you see today is more complicated than things twenty years ago, but this doesn't mean reliability is lower, because technology and manufacturers advance.

 

[Sly]

every thing you see today is more complicated than things twenty years ago, but this doesn't mean reliability is lower, because technology and manufacturers advance.

I can only disagree with this but in the end I was only sharing my decision making process to try to help other people reading this forum.
I'm sure many struggled around engine choice (and I am not saying turbo is a bad choice)

now turbo offer better price just go for it.

yup they are cheaper than V6 now (at least where I live)
... Maybe...there is a reason for it?

you should shop for bike rather than car

Yup, as i mentioned I am a biker and I fix my motorcycles myself, that's part of the reason why I chose a simpler system than engine + turbo + mild-hybrid system.

Sponsored