a

[3TV]

I test drove well over 100 different Jeeps, for the sole purpose of direct back to back comparisons of the 2.0 and 3.6 engines. Every 3.6 didn't wake up and accelerate as fast as a 2.0, until it was revved higher than I'd like on a daily driver. I'm also a low rev fan, such as yourself. The 2.0 has a very noticeable low and mid range torque advantage over the 3.6 engine. Horsepower ratings require high rev driving to tap into. Low and mid range torque is where all of our time is spent. Not one single 3.6 caught my attention, yet every 2.0 made for a fun ride. And I'm not talking about racing around like "that guy" on the road, just normal sane driving at lower rpms. The 2.0's torque that starts kicking in off idle made the Jeep feel lighter and more nimble than it really is.

Here's my 19 JLUR with the 2.0 lifted about 4" over stock and on 38's. A regear wasn't even on my mind.

It took a recent switch to 40's to get me thinking about a set of 4.88's.

Nice Jeep Headbarcode. I didn't drive a hundred Jeeps with these engines in them, but I have owned three of them. I owned a 2019 JLR with a 2.0Te-torque, a 2020 JT Mojave with a 3.6, and now a 2021 JLUR with a 2.0T. I agree with what you say about the 2.0T being a better engine. It has more torque at a lower RPM than the 3.6. I live in the Rocky Mountains, so it seems like every road is either going uphill, or downhill, and all are at high elevation. The 3.6 has to downshift to a lower gear and rev to a higher RPM to climb any grade than the 2.0T does. The 2.0T will climb steep grades on high elevation mountain passes while motoring along at a comfortable 2400 RPM all day long. I actually prefer my current 2.0T to either prior JL or JT engine I've owned. It has the better power of the 2.0T, without the extra complexity of the e-torque.

Sponsored

 

[Headbarcode]

Nice Jeep Headbarcode. I didn't drive a hundred Jeeps with these engines in them, but I have owned three of them. I owned a 2019 JLR with a 2.0Te-torque, a 2020 JT Mojave with a 3.6, and now a 2021 JLUR with a 2.0T. I agree with what you say about the 2.0T being a better engine. It has more torque at a lower RPM than the 3.6. I live in the Rocky Mountains, so it seems like every road is either going uphill, or downhill, and all are at high elevation. The 3.6 has to downshift to a lower gear and rev to a higher RPM to climb any grade than the 2.0T does. The 2.0T will climb steep grades on high elevation mountain passes while motoring along at a comfortable 2400 RPM all day long. I actually prefer my current 2.0T to either prior JL or JT engine I've owned. It has the better power of the 2.0T, without the extra complexity of the e-torque.

Yeah, and all of my comparisons were just a couple hundred feet above sea level. The highest point on long Island is about 511'.

 

[AG’s ‘ 21 Jeep Wrangler]

Thats alot of weight to move with such a small engine with and no trq. I bet once you get moving you would be ok...

The 2.0L turbo 4 has more torque than the V6 and about the same HP…”turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine has 270 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque”.

 

[Revs2ninegrand]

I run 37 Toyo MT's on my 2.0 with zero issue.

 

[Col_Sanders]

Well, the diesels by in price did a great job of offsetting its mpg rating. They'll be 200k miles on the engine, or more, before it breaks even. Also depending on where one lives, like me in New York, diesel toggles just above and below 93 octane. Now add higher oil and filter costs and Def fluid fillups, and you'll have an engine getting long in the tooth by the break even point. The sulfur being removed from the fuel was a big hit to the longevity that diesels had a reputation for. Sulfur provided a cooling factor and lubrication for the high pressure half of the fuel system. The modern fuel is considered "dry" like kerosene. This results in faster erosion of injector nozzle orifices and internal hard parts of the injection pump. There's good reason why I'm one of many longtime diesel mechanics that have switched over to gas powered personal vehicles.

IMO the "break even" point on diesels is really a pointless argument unless you never sell it or the vehicle with a diesel engine does not maintain a higher value than the standard engine option. When I bought my Ram, the diesel was a $9k option. Current trade in value with the Cummins is $8k higher than an identical truck with the base 5.7 Hemi. Sure, I've had to spend a few extra hundred on diesel filters, DEF, etc but it has probably paid for itself in fuel savings over the 5.7 and it has damn sure paid for itself in the performance when towing.

When it comes to light duty applications, I do think diesels have lost their largest advantages over gasoline engines over the past few years though. The higher cost and complication due to EPA BS is a large deterrence and these smaller DI gasoline engines with turbos are closing the gaps in torque and fuel economy pretty well.

 

[rubiria]

I actually prefer my current 2.0T to either prior JL or JT engine I've owned. It has the better power of the 2.0T, without the extra complexity of the e-torque.

One of the reasons why I’m glad I ordered a 2022 2.0 Turbo: no e-Torque. But I was curious if the benefits of the 2018-2020 e-Torque 2.0 were helpful or are there minimal differences in torque delivery.

 

[Headbarcode]

IMO the "break even" point on diesels is really a pointless argument unless you never sell it or the vehicle with a diesel engine does not maintain a higher value than the standard engine option. When I bought my Ram, the diesel was a $9k option. Current trade in value with the Cummins is $8k higher than an identical truck with the base 5.7 Hemi. Sure, I've had to spend a few extra hundred on diesel filters, DEF, etc but it has probably paid for itself in fuel savings over the 5.7 and it has damn sure paid for itself in the performance when towing.

When it comes to light duty applications, I do think diesels have lost their largest advantages over gasoline engines over the past few years though. The higher cost and complication due to EPA BS is a large deterrence and these smaller DI gasoline engines with turbos are closing the gaps in torque and fuel economy pretty well.

What's pointless is touting fuel economy advantages of a diesel over gas, after spending more for the diesel option in the 1st place. Higher maintainence and consumables cost further negates the mpg advantage.

The only benefit of choosing the diesel in a wrangler is for someone routinely pushing longer distances between fuel ups. Towing has no significance, as the 3500lb capacity is across the board. The higher torque is nice, but its increased physical weight and taller gearing offsets those paper numbers due to higher parasitic loss.

Don't get me wrong, being born and raised in heavy equipment repair has instilled a deep respect for Rudolph Diesel. What has driven me away from owning them personally anymore is not just the ridiculous exhaust restrictions that are essentially choking the engine on its own carbon, but more importantly the sulfur being drastically lowered to near non existent levels. Sulfur in the fuel was a key characteristic of diesel engines longevity. Sulfur provides both cooling and lubrication to every moving part it makes contact with. From injectors and the injection pump internals, to the cylinder walls and piston rings through "fuel wash" during the injection pulse.

 

[3TV]

One of the reasons why I’m glad I ordered a 2022 2.0 Turbo: no e-Torque. But I was curious if the benefits of the 2018-2020 e-Torque 2.0 were helpful or are there minimal differences in torque delivery.

I don't think there is a significant difference in torque delivery between the two engines.

 

[OldJupiter]

I would be interested to see how the non Etorque feels off the line. I wouldn't think they would add it for the sake of adding complexity. Most differences people have noted on the forums is the Auto Start stop feature being much more smooth for Etorque. Power delivery would never show up on a dyno so it wouldn't add power per se.

Maybe someone could add to this. The Etorque has been great in my opinion. No issues so far

 

[jbcrane]

What's pointless is touting fuel economy advantages of a diesel over gas, after spending more for the diesel option in the 1st place. Higher maintainence and consumables cost further negates the mpg advantage.

The only benefit of choosing the diesel in a wrangler is for someone routinely pushing longer distances between fuel ups. Towing has no significance, as the 3500lb capacity is across the board. The higher torque is nice, but its increased physical weight and taller gearing offsets those paper numbers due to higher parasitic loss.

Don't get me wrong, being born and raised in heavy equipment repair has instilled a deep respect for Rudolph Diesel. What has driven me away from owning them personally anymore is not just the ridiculous exhaust restrictions that are essentially choking the engine on its own carbon, but more importantly the sulfur being drastically lowered to near non existent levels. Sulfur in the fuel was a key characteristic of diesel engines longevity. Sulfur provides both cooling and lubrication to every moving part it makes contact with. From injectors and the injection pump internals, to the cylinder walls and piston rings through "fuel wash" during the injection pulse.

Dang... this is why this forum is so great. Thanks for being willing to share the knowledge. A newbie like me has been scratching his head wondering what the appeal of diesel engines is... aside from the cool sound they make. I didn't think seriously about it because a manual transmission was higher priority for me. But this information is filed away in a folder now. Thanks again.

Sponsored