2020 Rubicon in my future

[EnjoyLife]

I am looking at placing an order for a Rubicon 2020 in the next 3 or so months. My biggest hangup right now is deciding on an engine to use. I currently have a 2013 Camaro SS and obviously the Jeep won't compare on the speed. We also have a 2018 Grand Cherokee Larado (wife's car) and have no trouble with the speed in that. We are in St. Louis and my wife would like to get a horse (and trailer) in maybe 5 years. So we may need it for towing in the future.

My question is on the engine to choose. I have no idea what engine would fit my uses. Does the future 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 have better 0-60 times than the other two engines? I don't need the Jeep to go 90 MPH, but also don't want to be disappointed. I feel that I would be fine with the 3.6L and did test drive the 2.0 in the 2019 with the eTorque and was okay with that. However, the 2020 Rubicon will not have the eTorque.

Sponsored

 

[JLURD]

I am looking at placing an order for a Rubicon 2020 in the next 3 or so months. My biggest hangup right now is deciding on an engine to use. I currently have a 2013 Camaro SS and obviously the Jeep won't compare on the speed. We also have a 2018 Grand Cherokee Larado (wife's car) and have no trouble with the speed in that. We are in St. Louis and my wife would like to get a horse (and trailer) in maybe 5 years. So we may need it for towing in the future.

My question is on the engine to choose. I have no idea what engine would fit my uses. Does the future 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 have better 0-60 times than the other two engines? I don't need the Jeep to go 90 MPH, but also don't want to be disappointed. I feel that I would be fine with the 3.6L and did test drive the 2.0 in the 2019 with the eTorque and was okay with that. However, the 2020 Rubicon will not have the eTorque.

If 480 lb-ft of torque doesn’t make the 3.0 the fastest JLU to 60mph, I'd be shocked considering the 2.0 and 3.6 aren’t even in the same ballpark for torque and the 3.6 doesn’t hit peak torque until nearly triple the 3.0’s rpm. They’ll all tow a horse but if you want reasonable towing mpg, none will see a smaller drop in baseline fuel efficiency than the 3.0 while towing. Your state and region will dictate whether that’s a cost savings or not.

 

[N5lp]

I am looking at placing an order for a Rubicon 2020 in the next 3 or so months. My biggest hangup right now is deciding on an engine to use. I currently have a 2013 Camaro SS and obviously the Jeep won't compare on the speed. We also have a 2018 Grand Cherokee Larado (wife's car) and have no trouble with the speed in that. We are in St. Louis and my wife would like to get a horse (and trailer) in maybe 5 years. So we may need it for towing in the future.

My question is on the engine to choose. I have no idea what engine would fit my uses. Does the future 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 have better 0-60 times than the other two engines? I don't need the Jeep to go 90 MPH, but also don't want to be disappointed. I feel that I would be fine with the 3.6L and did test drive the 2.0 in the 2019 with the eTorque and was okay with that. However, the 2020 Rubicon will not have the eTorque.

For 0 to 60 acceleration look at horsepower. Can’t be sure without the specs, but I am confident the diesel will be the slowest accelerating option.

 

[Crux]

For 0 to 60 acceleration look at horsepower. Can’t be sure without the specs, but I am confident the diesel will be the slowest accelerating option.

This simply isn’t true

 

[Mike630]

I am looking at placing an order for a Rubicon 2020 in the next 3 or so months. My biggest hangup right now is deciding on an engine to use. I currently have a 2013 Camaro SS and obviously the Jeep won't compare on the speed. We also have a 2018 Grand Cherokee Larado (wife's car) and have no trouble with the speed in that. We are in St. Louis and my wife would like to get a horse (and trailer) in maybe 5 years. So we may need it for towing in the future.

My question is on the engine to choose. I have no idea what engine would fit my uses. Does the future 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 have better 0-60 times than the other two engines? I don't need the Jeep to go 90 MPH, but also don't want to be disappointed. I feel that I would be fine with the 3.6L and did test drive the 2.0 in the 2019 with the eTorque and was okay with that. However, the 2020 Rubicon will not have the eTorque.

The Rubicon with a 3.6 shouldn’t be that much slower than your Camaro.

I’m coming from a Mustang GT, so I had the same though process as you. After test driving both engine types, I’m confident you’ll enjoy the 3.6 more.

 

[The Viking]

If 480 lb-ft of torque doesn’t make the 3.0 the fastest JLU to 60mph, I'd be shocked considering the 2.0 and 3.6 aren’t even in the same ballpark for torque and the 3.6 doesn’t hit peak torque until nearly triple the 3.0’s rpm. They’ll all tow a horse but if you want reasonable towing mpg, none will see a smaller drop in baseline fuel efficiency than the 3.0 while towing. Your state and region will dictate whether that’s a cost savings or not.

The diesel has a lot of torque but at a lower rate, hence the lower horsepower. Through gearing for a given speed, more torque is available at the rear wheels with a higher horsepower engine through torque multiplication. The fastest a vehicle will accelerate at a given speed is at its hp peak. The fastest it will accelerate in a given gear is at its torque peak. With the 8 speed transmissions that the JLs have, we are able to keep the car in its power peak far better than a transmission with fewer gears for optimal acceleration. Torque will affect drivability and overall responsiveness but for maximum acceleration with an 8 speed transmission that keeps you in the power peak, look at HP and not torque to predict acceleration.

 

[The Viking]

The Rubicon with a 3.6 shouldn’t be that much slower than your Camaro.

A 4400 lb jeep with the aerodynamics of a barn and heavy rotating mass in it's drivetrain and under 300 hp shouldn't be much slower than a car with 426 hp and a curb weight around 600 lbs less? Jeeps are slow. They are faster than they used to be but don't kid yourself into thinking they are fast now.

 

[Mike630]

A 4400 lb jeep with the aerodynamics of a barn and heavy rotating mass in it's drivetrain and under 300 hp shouldn't be much slower than a car with 426 hp and a curb weight around 600 lbs less? Jeeps are slow. They are faster than they used to be but don't kid yourself into thinking they are fast now.

I was calling Camaros slow.

The point is, the answer to OPs question is that the 3.6 will be more of an easier transition for him.

 

[JLURD]

The diesel has a lot of torque but at a lower rate, hence the lower horsepower. Through gearing for a given speed, more torque is available at the rear wheels with a higher horsepower engine through torque multiplication. The fastest a vehicle will accelerate at a given speed is at its hp peak. The fastest it will accelerate in a given gear is at its torque peak. With the 8 speed transmissions that the JLs have, we are able to keep the car in its power peak far better than a transmission with fewer gears for optimal acceleration. Torque will affect drivability and overall responsiveness but for maximum acceleration with an 8 speed transmission that keeps you in the power peak, look at HP and not torque to predict acceleration.

When the torque is in the same ballpark, you may be right. When one of the three engines is twisting with 60-80% more than the others, I’d be happy to see your wager on this theory.

 

[The Viking]

When the torque is in the same ballpark, you may be right. When one of the three engines is twisting with 60-80% more than the others, I’d be happy to see your wager on this theory.

It isn't a theory. You can look at a dyno chart and gear ratios and figure out about how much rear wheel torque is going to the rear wheels at a given speed and the answer is very clear and derived from real numbers, not a guess. Keep the engine in the power peak with optimal gearing and torque is irrelevant. Torque is part of the equation of power which through gearing is what matters. Like I said, drivability and so forth is another matter. I've owned three vipers, I'm a fan of torque, but math is math.

If an engine has three times as much torque as another but its power is lower, that means that the torque times rate is lower. Once that goes through the gears and torque multiplication is applied there is less power going to the rear wheels at a given speed. Rate being a constant, that means that there is less rear wheel torque at that speed and your low revving torque monster is left in the dust.

 

[JLURD]

It isn't a theory. You can look at a dyno chart and gear ratios and figure out about how much rear wheel torque is going to the rear wheels at a given speed and the answer is very clear and derived from real numbers, not a guess. Keep the engine in the power peak with optimal gearing and torque is irrelevant. Torque is part of the equation of power which through gearing is what matters. Like I said, drivability and so forth is another matter. I've owned three vipers, I'm a fan of torque, but math is math.

If an engine has three times as much torque as another but its power is lower, that means that the torque times rate is lower. Once that goes through the gears and torque multiplication is applied there is less power going to the rear wheels at a given speed. Rate being a constant, that means that there is less rear wheel torque at that speed and your low revving torque monster is left in the dust.

Would have taken less time and effort to just type “$0”.

 

[evo8904]

You will get over the speed of your camaro. I had a 850whp 2015 Mustang GT and traded it for a 2017 Ram crewcab 4x4. I’ll be picking up a 3.0L Rubicon at some point next year.

 

[EnjoyLife]

You will get over the speed of your camaro. I had a 850whp 2015 Mustang GT and traded it for a 2017 Ram crewcab 4x4. I’ll be picking up a 3.0L Rubicon at some point next year.

Oh, I will be keeping the camaro. Not quite 850whp, but it is quick enough Thank you for your insight. I am still deciding on the 3.0 EcoDiesel or the 3.6L V6. I don't think it will make much of a difference to me. Whenever I feel for the need for speed, I can always hop back into the Camaro.

 

[evo8904]

Oh, I will be keeping the camaro. Not quite 850whp, but it is quick enough Thank you for your insight. I am still deciding on the 3.0 EcoDiesel or the 3.6L V6. I don't think it will make much of a difference to me. Whenever I feel for the need for speed, I can always hop back into the Camaro.

Man, I wish that I would have kept my mustang. My wife made me sell it years ago when I decided to change careers. I wouldn’t buy another ford though. I’m looking at Camaro's lol

Sponsored