2.0L turbo Jeep Wrangler JL Delivered Today

[SteadyC]

All the talk on greater MPG doesn’t matter, since this engine requires the higher octane gas, it will actually be more expensive to drive. In another thread, someone did the math, comparing MPG, gas price difference between the middle and high octane, and and the 2.0 will cost more for gas.
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/3-6l-gets-better-cost-per-mile-than-the-2-0l.5154/

He mentions that spark plugs needs to be changed more frequently on the 2.0 per the online manual, hopefully not a major expense, just be aware.

Also, there is a major recall for this motor in the Cherokee, some parts are installed backwards. Hopefully won’t be seen in the Wranglers, but does beg the question what else will be seen with the new motor.


I’m a techno geek, really like the idea of BSG in Wranglers and a strong supporter of turbo, especially given I live in Denver. This is an exciting advancement for us Wrangler people. Timing didn’t work out for me, had to get into the JL when I did. I am really hopeful this engine works out for everyone.

Sponsored

 

[WXman]

I’ve owned a 3.6 pentastar, 13 ecoboost, 15 ecoboost, 18 coyote.

Your post is ignorant.

As for the 2.0, it makes more torque sooner than the 3.6. And will get better mileage if you stay off the skinny pedal.

Ignorant? If you're not going to explain how, then your post is ignorant.

Everything I stated was fact and will be backed up by any Ford service tech with experience as well as my own mechanical experience. Where are yours?

 

[WXman]

So how about the 2014 my company has with over 120,000 and regularly tows a small excavator. We've had none of those problems, its a good motor.

A guy who is a fleet manager on one of these forums said that his company runs dozens of Ford trucks and racks up miles quickly. They stopped buying the EcoBoost models because their downtime with those was far in excess of what they've seen with naturally aspirated engines. And, to a business time is money.

 

[Sean L]

All the talk on greater MPG doesn’t matter, since this engine requires the higher octane gas, it will actually be more expensive to drive. In another thread, someone did the math, comparing MPG, gas price difference between the middle and high octane, and and the 2.0 will cost more for gas.
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/3-6l-gets-better-cost-per-mile-than-the-2-0l.5154/

He mentions that spark plugs needs to be changed more frequently on the 2.0 per the online manual, hopefully not a major expense, just be aware.

Also, there is a major recall for this motor in the Cherokee, some parts are installed backwards. Hopefully won’t be seen in the Wranglers, but does beg the question what else will be seen with the new motor.


I’m a techno geek, really like the idea of BSG in Wranglers and a strong supporter of turbo, especially given I live in Denver. This is an exciting advancement for us Wrangler people. Timing didn’t work out for me, had to get into the JL when I did. I am really hopeful this engine works out for everyone.

Premium is recommended, not required. it will detune some to run on regular gas, and how that will affect mileage nobody knows yet. Also, better fuel efficiency is also better for the environment, and its not just about everyone's pocketbook. If I was obsessed about purely saving money, I would have gotten a used prius or an insight, as buying new is always a much bigger chunk of money than getting used.

I'm averaging 5 MPG better than the vehicle I traded in, but I'm not saving anything in comparison. My monthly payment is a more, so what I'm saving on the reduced insurance and less fuel doesn't make a difference. What is good is the peace of mind knowing that I'm getting 30% better fuel mileage than my old truck that was a daily driver.

 

[Sean L]

A guy who is a fleet manager on one of these forums said that his company runs dozens of Ford trucks and racks up miles quickly. They stopped buying the EcoBoost models because their downtime with those was far in excess of what they've seen with naturally aspirated engines. And, to a business time is money.

All of our light duty trucks, save one are EcoBoost F-150s, since I've been here they've only been in the shop for routine maintenance and have had no major problems. They tow just as hard as the 5.4 F-250 we have and get nearly double the mileage. They will also leave the 4.6 F-150 in the dust...

All of our trucks are heavily involved in hauling equipment and materials to the job sites, so none of them are babied, and they're all doing well.

 

[WXman]

And... a big point that everybody is missing is that they are assuming the EPA window sticker numbers for the 2.0L turbo are accurate, which they have proven not to be on just about every other similar engine sold by competitors. So it is highly likely that in the real world, the actual MPGs on the 2.0L will be spot on what the numbers are for the 3.6L, which will push the 2.0L option further into the expensive category.

If this engine was going to make 20 more horsepower and 80 more lbs/ft of torque, the fact that gasoline, initial purchase price, and maintenance are all going to cost more money wouldn't be such a big deal. But you're talking less HP and slightly more torque essentially making it a wash, at the sacrifice of all those extra costs. It just doesn't add up.

Can't wait to test drive one myself and do a review as soon as my buddy gets one at the dealership.

 

[Sean L]

And... a big point that everybody is missing is that they are assuming the EPA window sticker numbers for the 2.0L turbo are accurate, which they have proven not to be on just about every other similar engine sold by competitors. So it is highly likely that in the real world, the actual MPGs on the 2.0L will be spot on what the numbers are for the 3.6L, which will push the 2.0L option further into the expensive category.

If this engine was going to make 20 more horsepower and 80 more lbs/ft of torque, the fact that gasoline, initial purchase price, and maintenance are all going to cost more money wouldn't be such a big deal. But you're talking less HP and slightly more torque essentially making it a wash, at the sacrifice of all those extra costs. It just doesn't add up.

Can't wait to test drive one myself and do a review as soon as my buddy gets one at the dealership.

Oh I can just see how you're going to drive it with your foot all the way to the floor just so you can "prove your point"

I can tell you I've either met or exceeded the EPA milage estimates on any vehicle I drive. Its all in HOW you drive more than just the engine all by itself. You can get bad gas mileage in a Prius if you drive it hard enough.

 

[rswanson]

You're right about the useless flood of anecdotal posts, which are inductive fallacies. But what you then state about turbo engines in general could seen as a deductive fallacy. While turbo engines are more sophisticated we have no way to know yet whether there will actually be issues with the wrangler turbo. Just because turbo direct injection tech is new to forum members doesn't mean it's new to the auto industry at this point. By the same logic I could argue in favor of buying a carbureted Jeep saying it's simpler and has been around longer. If all we wanted was old and reliable why even go for a JL instead of a JK? It all basically comes down to people posting in order to rationalize their own decisions.

So the only thing you agree with me about is the part that you can use to then argue against the rest of my statement? This is why I love the internet.

My statement, while possibly "deductive fallacy" is based on laboratory research. But I think you're missing the thrust of my comments. The supposed savings an owner relializes when owning a GDI Diesel engine are not the same benefit gained by manufacturers able to edge towards unrealistic government fuel efficiency goals. Will the 2.0 Wrangler engine be subject to the same issues many other platforms of the same sort have been? You're correct there, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Demonic]

So the only thing you agree with me about is the part that you can use to then argue against the rest of my statement? This is why I love the internet.

My statement, while possibly "deductive fallacy" is based on laboratory research. But I think you're missing the thrust of my comments. The supposed savings an owner relializes when owning a GDI Diesel engine are not the same benefit gained by manufacturers able to edge towards unrealistic government fuel efficiency goals. Will the 2.0 Wrangler engine be subject to the same issues many other platforms of the same sort have been? You're correct there, we will have to wait and see.

I'm agreeing with what you said, but simply adding that we don't yet know whether the turbo DI generalizations apply to the JL turbo, making much of the generalizations simply speculative. Not all of my post was directed towards what you said. I don't doubt that the advantage to the manufacturer may be more than to the consumer, but then again, that's often how the auto industry works. Not trying to argue, just discuss.

 

[rswanson]

I'm agreeing with what you said, but simply adding that we don't yet know whether the turbo DI generalizations apply to the JL turbo, making much of the generalizations simply speculative. Not all of my post was directed towards what you said. I don't doubt that the advantage to the manufacturer may be more than to the consumer, but then again, that's often how the auto industry works. Not trying to argue, just discuss.

Noted and thanks. Sorry if I sounded abrupt but so many posts are simply made with no further intent other than contradiction.

To add to my observations, one theory is that the damage from carbon and soot buildup endemic in turbo GDI (not diesel as I mistakenly said previously) is especially likely to occur under low speed, high load situation. The more torquey applications many Wranglers are likely to see could cause even more problems.

One thing I'd say would be a good idea is to always use the highest octane premium fuel available. The last thing you want is more pre-detonation due to lower octane fuel that would exacerbate the buildup in the cylinder heads and undersides of the valves. The more buildup on the valves, the hotter they run and that's when you start to see major problems- valve seating issues and dropped valves. Of course, premium gas prices further decrease any savings garnered by better MPGS.

 

[Templeton]

Silly question. Does anyone know if the 2.0L Turbo comes with a rear car logo or detailing or badge reflecting the engine? Would love a pic of the back of the car if anyone has available.

 

[cdrober]

This is exactly why I went with the turbo. I do almost 90% city driving and many days it is at 100% for the day (Wash. DC area so also a lot of traffic). In my JK now I'm getting between 15 or 16 mpg. Now, I know I'm not saving money (cost of the turbo / cost of premium), but I still like the idea of getting better fuel efficiency and having better range. The range for me is also key, because if I can wait until I get to Costco I can get gas there about $0.50 / gal. less than the stations along my normal commute (mostly due to tax differentials by county), but nowadays I can't always make it long enough between Costco trips. I also like not having to fill up as many times, as that alone is time saved (which can be significant if during rush hour I find out I need gas and the lines at the pump are long).

I know there is a risk getting a new Turbo, but I'm happy to test it out, see what happens, and if I have to, use the warranty.

I think it would require an entirely new vehicle to put out 30+ MPG with a gas engine on a wrangler. However these JLs are astoundingly fuel efficient for what they are, as even with my V6 I'm seeing high 20s in my instant fuel economy readout on flat roads. I can see a 4 cylinder edging out just over 30 on the highway but to get your average to be that high it would require a total change in the nature of the Wrangler itself. Jeep already has that in the Cherokee, Compass and Renegade, so the Wrangler can still be a Wrangler.

The real deal for this mild hybrid system is the city driving I think. It goes from 18MPG city (v6 auto) to 22 MPG City. Now I know its all very subjective to the city you live in but it does give you an Idea as to how it can perform. If you don't live near a traffic light, then you probably won't care, but for a lot of us living in the city drags the mileage down hard. My Ram 1500 was averaging 19-20 before I moved back home to Winston, and it went down to 15 average since I moved here. I had to deal with a lot more stop lights and stop signs than I used to, so the 2.0 Wrangler would have been a good choice for me given the massive improvement it would have been.

 

[RubiconGaby]

This is exactly why I went with the turbo. I do almost 90% city driving and many days it is at 100% for the day (Wash. DC area so also a lot of traffic). In my JK now I'm getting between 15 or 16 mpg. Now, I know I'm not saving money (cost of the turbo / cost of premium), but I still like the idea of getting better fuel efficiency and having better range. The range for me is also key, because if I can wait until I get to Costco I can get gas there about $0.50 / gal. less than the stations along my normal commute (mostly due to tax differentials by county), but nowadays I can't always make it long enough between Costco trips. I also like not having to fill up as many times, as that alone is time saved (which can be significant if during rush hour I find out I need gas and the lines at the pump are long).

I know there is a risk getting a new Turbo, but I'm happy to test it out, see what happens, and if I have to, use the warranty.

New things always scare people. To the point that they'll defend against it with everything they have.
We had only had the 4.0 engines in our Wranglers (which were bulletproof engines), so my first reaction to the new 3.6 was "bah, they're ruining a good thing!", but to hear everyone on here talking about them they must be pretty good.
This time around, we're not saying "bah,.." We are trying something new to see if it's a good fit and platform for Wranglers.
I cannot get on board with the "Crabs in a bucket" mentality however.

 

[InvertedLogic]

And... a big point that everybody is missing is that they are assuming the EPA window sticker numbers for the 2.0L turbo are accurate, which they have proven not to be on just about every other similar engine sold by competitors. So it is highly likely that in the real world, the actual MPGs on the 2.0L will be spot on what the numbers are for the 3.6L, which will push the 2.0L option further into the expensive category.

Meanwhile, I'm getting right at or above the EPA average on my 2.5T Subaru. Rated at 18/23, usually get 19-20/25.

I'm very much looking forward to the tune ability of the 2.0Ts, coming from the Subaru world. I have also seen first hand how quick a 2.0T turning 35s can be. I helped build a Class 15 Baja buggy on 35s powered by a Ford Ecoboost 2.0L mated to a 5spd manual transaxle. Was an absolute blast to drive. It sounded amazing too, with the turbo being the only muffler it would shoot fire . About as quick as my STi too.

 

[FLAFIRE]

FCA dropped the ball in reality again! What everyone wants is the 5.7 Hemi V8 or tried and true diesel. With the new ever rising base pricepoints, it should be standard. My Ram 1500 Crew with the Hemi & 8 speed got right at 23 mpg Hwy doing 75 and had 400 horsepower!

Sponsored