Sponsored

2020 2.0 difference.

Cmcclaflin31

Well-Known Member
First Name
Connor
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Threads
6
Messages
151
Reaction score
50
Location
Western MA
Vehicle(s)
92 Yj Wrangler, 18 JLUS, 82 J10 Pickup
Occupation
Ford Tech
I've seen no evidence of it being a lemon. Quite the contrary. It looks to be off to a great start. I posted in another thread an educated guess as to why it is not on the Rubicon. That has to do with the charging needed for the Etorque. I suspect that when rock crawling, it uses up the batteries pretty fast, as you are constantly stopping and going, and after awhile, there may not be enough power to engage it. The engine, at low RPM's, may not be allowing the alternator to produce enough power to overcome the draw. I'd love to pick a Jeep engineer's brain to see if there might be this kind of issue, or if it only exists in my imagination. If there are any 2.0 Etorque owners who've done some extensive off-roading, please chime in on your experiences!

That's totally a guess, though. The only thing that would explain it being just on the Sahara would be that Saharas probably spend more time on the road, being that they seem to be the more luxury oriented trim level. Before the Sahara folks jump me and beat me up, I know, I see plenty of built Saharas off road.

Like I said, I may be wrong, but there has to be some technical reason they aren't putting it on the Rubicon, being that it is the top trim level or at least equal in trim to the Sahara. Reliability isn't something I suspect because we'd see it all over this forum. I've mainly seen great praise of its power and fuel economy.

I do wonder, though, if the elimination of Etorque puts the 3.6 (non BSG) at least on par with the 2.0 for fuel economy?
My Sahara which yes it's never seen an offroad trail, has been at the dealer for a month now. The alternator went on it. Currently no date for when it will be off backorder. I'm not saying this might be everyone's issue later on, but there's only 11xxx miles on it. One would think after driving it as it's designed to be driven (start/stop always being used and driving city/highway/lots of back roads) the alternator shouldn't have an issue. No, I have no idea what went wrong with it. I only know the check engine light came on and my engine started surging. One would assume it's the charging part of the alternator and not the special motor/starter. I was very curious as to why they changed the engine options for 2020 as well though. It does seem very odd they're only keeping the etorque in Sahara's. Since they're keeping it, I would assume they're not having much trouble with them, just the unlucky few like myself I guess.
Sponsored

 

Dkretden

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Threads
57
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
3,527
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR 3.6L
Wow, I didn't see that the Rubi goes to 255 tires. That's a shocker, to me. If Cafe related, it tells me that the Rubi's make up quite a healthy percentage of the overall Wrangler sales.

If they keep the high fenders as standard on the Rubi, those 255's are going to look tiny!
Keep in mind that the new “base” tire on the Rubi is a 255/75/17. So, while narrower is only about a half an inch or so shorter.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,782
Reaction score
17,829
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
My guess is that the etorque remains only on the sahara because of the taller 3.45 gearing. That extra oomph from a dead stop is less noticeable with the Rubicons 4.10 gearing. The 3.45 geared sport model doesn't get it to help lower its price point.
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Threads
61
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
3,076
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
Clearly, this is a move to try and sell more 4-cylinder engines. The price going up on 3.6L and going down on 2.0L is an obvious marketing move. It looks good to the EPA if they sell more 4-bangers, consumers be damned.
 

DCBlake

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
137
Reaction score
84
Location
Winter Garden, FL
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Rubicon
I've seen no evidence of it being a lemon. Quite the contrary. It looks to be off to a great start. I posted in another thread an educated guess as to why it is not on the Rubicon. That has to do with the charging needed for the Etorque. I suspect that when rock crawling, it uses up the batteries pretty fast, as you are constantly stopping and going, and after awhile, there may not be enough power to engage it. The engine, at low RPM's, may not be allowing the alternator to produce enough power to overcome the draw. I'd love to pick a Jeep engineer's brain to see if there might be this kind of issue, or if it only exists in my imagination. If there are any 2.0 Etorque owners who've done some extensive off-roading, please chime in on your experiences!

That's totally a guess, though. The only thing that would explain it being just on the Sahara would be that Saharas probably spend more time on the road, being that they seem to be the more luxury oriented trim level. Before the Sahara folks jump me and beat me up, I know, I see plenty of built Saharas off road.

Like I said, I may be wrong, but there has to be some technical reason they aren't putting it on the Rubicon, being that it is the top trim level or at least equal in trim to the Sahara. Reliability isn't something I suspect because we'd see it all over this forum. I've mainly seen great praise of its power and fuel economy.

I do wonder, though, if the elimination of Etorque puts the 3.6 (non BSG) at least on par with the 2.0 for fuel economy?

Look at this thread "Dead Battery and limp mode on trail" on issues around possible alternator and doing off road in 4Lo...

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...ery-and-limp-mode-on-trail.33129/#post-757325
 

Sponsored

brazos

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Threads
40
Messages
933
Reaction score
1,727
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sport, Giant singlespeed mountain bike, Hobie Revolution kayak
Occupation
Dog Feeder
Keep in mind that the new “base” tire on the Rubi is a 255/75/17. So, while narrower is only about a half an inch or so shorter.
Since the 285s are a “no cost option”, it seems clear that this is a CAFE move.

I suspect everyone, including dealers, will order Rubicons with 285s.

Gotta play the stupid game, I reckon.
 

Arterius2

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jerry
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Threads
42
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
4,828
Location
Vancouver, BC
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sahara 2.0L
My guess is that the etorque remains only on the sahara because of the taller 3.45 gearing. That extra oomph from a dead stop is less noticeable with the Rubicons 4.10 gearing. The 3.45 geared sport model doesn't get it to help lower its price point.
lol I highly doubt that, it’s way cheaper and simpler to give it higher gearing than to implement all that complexity in an engine just to remedy that issue.
 

Kyanche

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Threads
7
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
1,373
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
2020 Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
I bet they kept the BSG on the Sahara because it helped more on the CAFE numbers. The BSG is probably not as effective on a Rubicon, and too expensive for a Sport. I also noticed that this means there is no more 2-door with BSG.
I would guess the jeeps used most offroad are sports, not rubicons. xD -runs-
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Threads
49
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
6,273
Location
Vehicle(s)
'18 JLR 2.0
I would guess the jeeps used most offroad are sports, not rubicons. xD -runs-
You are probably right, but only when the Jeep is still new. I bet after they are a few years old the Rubicons are used more.
 

ormandj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Threads
31
Messages
547
Reaction score
420
Location
San Antonio, TX USA
Vehicle(s)
2024 JLUR X 4xe
I've seen no evidence of it being a lemon. Quite the contrary. It looks to be off to a great start. I posted in another thread an educated guess as to why it is not on the Rubicon. That has to do with the charging needed for the Etorque. I suspect that when rock crawling, it uses up the batteries pretty fast, as you are constantly stopping and going, and after awhile, there may not be enough power to engage it. The engine, at low RPM's, may not be allowing the alternator to produce enough power to overcome the draw. I'd love to pick a Jeep engineer's brain to see if there might be this kind of issue, or if it only exists in my imagination. If there are any 2.0 Etorque owners who've done some extensive off-roading, please chime in on your experiences!

That's totally a guess, though. The only thing that would explain it being just on the Sahara would be that Saharas probably spend more time on the road, being that they seem to be the more luxury oriented trim level. Before the Sahara folks jump me and beat me up, I know, I see plenty of built Saharas off road.

Like I said, I may be wrong, but there has to be some technical reason they aren't putting it on the Rubicon, being that it is the top trim level or at least equal in trim to the Sahara. Reliability isn't something I suspect because we'd see it all over this forum. I've mainly seen great praise of its power and fuel economy.

I do wonder, though, if the elimination of Etorque puts the 3.6 (non BSG) at least on par with the 2.0 for fuel economy?
As noted in the other referenced thread, I've got 40+ hours of low speed off-road at off-road parks and haven't had any issues with the 2.0 with etorque. Only problem was winching without giving it a little gas, warning lights lit up that didn't impact anything. Same thing happened in my 3.6 JK. I don't know why there's so much conjecture about reliability with these things when there are as few or fewer noted actual problems documented anywhere than with the 3.6. they are both fine on and offroad. This smells like a cost cutting exercise.
 

Sponsored

brazos

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Threads
40
Messages
933
Reaction score
1,727
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sport, Giant singlespeed mountain bike, Hobie Revolution kayak
Occupation
Dog Feeder
Wow, I didn't see that the Rubi goes to 255 tires. That's a shocker, to me. If Cafe related, it tells me that the Rubi's make up quite a healthy percentage of the overall Wrangler sales.



If they keep the high fenders as standard on the Rubi, those 255's are going to look tiny!
If the 255s are 255/80s, they won’t look tiny.

They are actually .4” taller than the 285/70s. 33.1” vs 32.7”.

One inch narrower. Lighter. And they LOOK even taller to me, being narrower.

I put them (Falken WP AT) on my Sport. Love them.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
159
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
11,073
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
If the 255s are 255/80s, they won’t look tiny.

They are actually .4” taller than the 285/70s. 33.1” vs 32.7”.

One inch narrower. Lighter. And they LOOK even taller to me, being narrower.

I put them (Falken WP AT) on my Sport. Love them.
True! I had that size KM2 on my JK. They are a true 33" tire. They almost gave it a throwback look, as the old Army Jeeps had tall skinny tires.
 

Alpha Delta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
151
Reaction score
288
Location
Maine
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JLU
Fair point.

Folks from Europe who have the 2.0 with ESS but not BSG (I.e. the “new” 2020 domestic US/Canada config) report that the Jeep is “peppy and quick” (my words). That said, they don’t have a reference since they have not been able to compare their vehicle to the 2.0 BSG.

I will be interested in seeing if there is an MPG difference. I am going to bet that the 2.0 without etorque gets a little less MPG and that is why the “standard” rubicon spec now has 255/75/17 tires (same as the export). Those tires might get the vehicle a slightly better mileage rating and therefore bump it back up to where it was.

In the US these days, it’s all about CAFE.
Wow, I didn't see that the Rubi goes to 255 tires. That's a shocker, to me. If Cafe related, it tells me that the Rubi's make up quite a healthy percentage of the overall Wrangler sales.

If they keep the high fenders as standard on the Rubi, those 255's are going to look tiny!
This misinformation keeps getting spread. The standard Rubicon tires are the same as 2018 and 2019. See the official build sheet and not the “what’s new release”.

Look at the build sheets for Rubicons that are starting to finally show up. Look at the tire size listed.

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...sticker-and-build-sheet-order-tracking.12503/
 

2Wheel-Lee

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lee
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
402
Reaction score
342
Location
Orange County, CA
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2006 Dodge Ram 2500 CTD, 1986 Suzuki Samurai, 1975 Datsun 620
As Alpha Delta said...the 2020 Rubis are coming with the same 33" tires as before. Whoever made the spec sheet that showed the 255s simply tried updating an old document and missed updating the tire size. Easy mistake.
 

bval001

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brett
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
62
Reaction score
28
Location
Rockville Maryland
Vehicle(s)
2020 wrangler sport s
I'm very confused. I ordered a 2020 wrangler sport s 2.0. I was deciding between a black 19 or a 20 sting gray. I ultimately went with the 2020 as they were giving me a better deal on it. I was never once told that the model didnt have the etorque system.. so after reading, my jeep does not have the etorque system??
Sponsored

 
 



Top