2.0L Turbo non-BSG engine

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
2,223
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
I see!! I didn't think about that! So If the BSG version doesn't have an alternator then yeah the non-BSG would definitely be more "trail worthy" if you could call it that because thats one less thing to hit and break on the trail..
I have done my fair share of wheeling here in AZ to know that it wouldn't take to long to hit the BSG components on the trail and definitely break the system or the lines going to it..

Maybe thats what they were thinking with this change.
Have you actually looked under a BSG equipped Jeep? The 48V battery is actually higher than the gas tank, and the coolant lines are mounted right along the frame where they would be very hard to damage. When off-road, I am more worried about the transmission lines & brake lines than anything BSG related.





Advertisement

 

Yellow_Rubi-can

Active Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
42
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
4Runner
Have you actually looked under a BSG equipped Jeep? The 48V battery is actually higher than the gas tank, and the coolant lines are mounted right along the frame where they would be very hard to damage. When off-road, I am more worried about the transmission lines & brake lines than anything BSG related.
Its true, it is a little higher than the gas tank, however its just one more thing... And yes i did crawl under the first 2.0l BSG i saw on the dealership lol, the sales manager looked at me like i was crazy!

Capture_1.jpg

I found this on the internet, if anyone is wondering about the battery, its the box to the right of the drive shaft.
The box on the left of the driveshaft is the gas tank.


For me, either way, if they keep the BSG or delete the BSG, complicated or not complicated.. I need a daily driver that i can take off road that get great range and is quick to pass other cars.. Turbo is the only way to go.
 

FUHL

Well-Known Member
First Name
Robert
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
831
Reaction score
1,714
Location
Sandpoint Idaho
Website
cmott426.wixsite.com
Vehicle(s)
2013 F-150 Ecoboost 2018 2-door Rubicon 2013 Range Rover Evoque
Occupation
CAD Drafter/Engineer
Vehicle Showcase
1
Its true, it is a little higher than the gas tank, however its just one more thing... And yes i did crawl under the first 2.0l BSG i saw on the dealership lol, the sales manager looked at me like i was crazy!

Capture_1.jpg

I found this on the internet, if anyone is wondering about the battery, its the box to the right of the drive shaft.
The box on the left of the driveshaft is the gas tank.


For me, either way, if they keep the BSG or delete the BSG, complicated or not complicated.. I need a daily driver that i can take off road that get great range and is quick to pass other cars.. Turbo is the only way to go.
BSG or Non BSG, the oil pan is the thing I worry about. It hangs pretty low.
 

HealthRebel

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jerry
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
689
Reaction score
527
Location
Colleyville, TX
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLRU Ocean Blue
Same as the BSG model.
Where did you get this information? I have not seen it published anywhere. The BSG should add substantial torque under 1500 rpm. I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of disappointment when we all get to drive the 2.0L turbo without BSG. I hope I am wrong.

If they would have offered the 3.6L BSG version with the Rubicon, I would have ordered it. I bet THAT combination is gonna be a little screamer on the road.
 

Rploaded

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
546
Reaction score
676
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
Where did you get this information? I have not seen it published anywhere. The BSG should add substantial torque under 1500 rpm. I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of disappointment when we all get to drive the 2.0L turbo without BSG. I hope I am wrong.

If they would have offered the 3.6L BSG version with the Rubicon, I would have ordered it. I bet THAT combination is gonna be a little screamer on the road.
I meant the engine itself is the same, just without the BSG, so the hp-tq number would be identical.

The BSG isn’t factored into Hp or the Tq number as it’s not the peak of either.
 

rommel102

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
256
Location
NYC
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ocean Blue Sahara 2.0 JLU FINALLY HERE!
It doesn’t change. BSG doesn’t add overall- torque, it only provides extra torque during initial take off.
So, like the most important time for additional torque?

This decision baffles me. I love my 2.0T E-torque. It drives amazing, it has pickup that was better than my last sedan.

I hope there aren't complications with maintenance down the line.
 

JeepCares

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,062
Location
Auburn Hills, MI
Vehicle(s)
JL
@JeepCares Can you comment on the decision to remove BSG from Sport and Rubicon in 2020?
Hi rommel102,

We have not been provided any information regarding the production specifications of the 2020 JL Wrangler. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your vehicles, please send us a private message and we will gladly connect you with a Case Specialist who will work with your dealer to help address your concerns.

Lydia
Jeep Social Care Specialist
 
OP
Dkretden

Dkretden

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
2,906
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR 3.6L
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #71
So, like the most important time for additional torque?

This decision baffles me. I love my 2.0T E-torque. It drives amazing, it has pickup that was better than my last sedan.

I hope there aren't complications with maintenance down the line.
I can’t speak to this directly. I can only speculate like the rest of us.

My speculation is that sales of Rubicons and sports with the 2.0 BSG were not hitting FCA’s targets (but Sahara’s may have been). I rationalize this idea by saying that the stereotypical Sahara buyer is more of an urban driver. Rubicon/sport owners may be more inclined to take them off road. And, of those who do, some may have been worried enough about the BSG and it’s “complications” to not want to buy it over the V6.

By stripping away the BSG and making the new 2.0 the “free” base engine, Jeep may succeed in 2020 and beyond at getting lots of new folks into rubicons/sports with the more fuel efficient engine and that helps with CAFE. The all important CAFE. It’s all about CAFE.
 

rommel102

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
256
Location
NYC
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ocean Blue Sahara 2.0 JLU FINALLY HERE!
I can’t speak to this directly. I can only speculate like the rest of us.

My speculation is that sales of Rubicons and sports with the 2.0 BSG were not hitting FCA’s targets (but Sahara’s may have been). I rationalize this idea by saying that the stereotypical Sahara buyer is more of an urban driver. Rubicon/sport owners may be more inclined to take them off road. And, of those who do, some may have been worried enough about the BSG and it’s “complications” to not want to buy it over the V6.

By stripping away the BSG and making the new 2.0 the “free” base engine, Jeep may succeed in 2020 and beyond at getting lots of new folks into rubicons/sports with the more fuel efficient engine and that helps with CAFE. The all important CAFE. It’s all about CAFE.
You may be correct, but it doesn't seem likely to me that buyers would be interested in a less powerful version of the 2.0T over the 2.0T w/BSG. The two biggest features of the mild-hybrid system...that early instant torque and the much more seamless auto-stop-start, will be lost with these changes. So you are stuck with a turbo-4 that will feel less powerful than the V6, and has the same slower start-stop behavior that BSG mitigated.

I would think serious off-roaders would just pick the 3.6 Pentastar in these cases.
 

marek

Well-Known Member
First Name
Marek
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
72
Reaction score
98
Location
Nashville TN
Vehicle(s)
19 Jeep Wrangler Moab 03 Mercedes SL 500
You state this as fact. Do you have inside knowledge of the actual decision making at FCA that led to this decision or, are you just stating your opinion (despite writing it as fact)?

While I speculate that what you say might be true or partly true, I don’t know that to be a fact. Do you?
He said IN MY OPINION.
 
OP
Dkretden

Dkretden

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
2,906
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR 3.6L
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #74
He said IN MY OPINION.
I guess that you missed his post a little further down where he indicates that he edited his original post. The post that I quoted was what he originally typed. Subsequently, he clarified his post by saying it was his opinion.
 
OP
Dkretden

Dkretden

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
2,906
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR 3.6L
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #75
You may be correct, but it doesn't seem likely to me that buyers would be interested in a less powerful version of the 2.0T over the 2.0T w/BSG. The two biggest features of the mild-hybrid system...that early instant torque and the much more seamless auto-stop-start, will be lost with these changes. So you are stuck with a turbo-4 that will feel less powerful than the V6, and has the same slower start-stop behavior that BSG mitigated.

I would think serious off-roaders would just pick the 3.6 Pentastar in these cases.
You may be correct. I haven’t seen any specs on the 2.0 non-BSG though to know if it is “less powerful” or not.

I guess we will have to see. I will test drive the engine when it arrives and make a decision.
 

Advertisement




Icon Vehicle Dynamics
 



Advertisement
Top