Sponsored

3.6 E-torque impressions?

hammick

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
41
Reaction score
27
Location
Red Lodge, Montana
Vehicle(s)
2015 Wrangler 2dr JK Sport S
I'm probably going to order a 2021 JL 4dr soon and would like to get impression from members who have actually spent some time driving the 3.6 E-torque. I was planning on ordering the 3.0 diesel but that engine can't be ordered at this time and nobody knows when it will be available to order.

Let's keep this discussion about the performance of the engine, not MPG or reliability down the road. The V6 with without E-torque is only available on the manual tranny for 2021.

Like many here I prefer a good torque curve over high horsepower. Does the 3.6 E-torque do anything to improve city driving or off-road torque in the JL? I have read a lot of speculation but I want to hear from people that have actually driven one.

Thanks.
Sponsored

 

JeePM

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
57
Reaction score
34
Location
IL
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee
i read an article from car and driver that said it was actually a bit slower and a bit less in fuel economy vs the non e-torque 3.6

thats just one article though
 
Last edited:

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,672
Reaction score
17,372
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
I have the 2.0 with bsg (etorque) but, regardless of engine, the bsg is the same system. It only provides about 70ish lb/ft of additional torque to help move the vehicle from a dead stop. It cuts off at about 1800 rpm, so it's probably only actually active for the first couple tire rotations.

I am also a fan of torque over horsepower. Torque in the low to mid rpm range is what we utilize both on road and when crawling the trails. An engine needs to be screamed for its potential horsepower, which i have zero inclination to do on my daily grind.

After test driving a few dozen Rubicons to help decide between the 2.0 and the 3.6, I ended up ordering the 2.0. Every back to back comparison yielded the same result. Noticeably more low/mid range torque that gave a peppy feel without a lot of throttle input. The 3.6 felt rather sluggish at lower rpms, and needed a good deal more throttle input before it would wake up.
 

Wranglernator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
137
Reaction score
84
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
1991 Wrangler (sold); 2021 Sting Gray Rubi Unlimited
Occupation
Evil Overlord
i read an article from car and driver that said it was actually a bit slower and a bit less in fuel economy vs the non e-torque 3.6

thats just one article though
Big weight tradeoff for all those Rube Goldberg contraptions. IIRC FCA reports 1 more mpg in city. Which would make sense if the etorque only kicks in briefly from a dead stop.
 

displayname

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
430
Reaction score
608
Location
DFW
Vehicle(s)
TBD
i read an article from car and driver that said it was actually a bit slower and a bit less in fuel economy vs the non e-torque 3.6

thats just one article though
That's interesting. Slower off the line, or slower 0-60 (or some other measure)?
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
hammick

hammick

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
41
Reaction score
27
Location
Red Lodge, Montana
Vehicle(s)
2015 Wrangler 2dr JK Sport S
Test drove a Sahara today with the 3.6 E-torque. Dash said battery low start/stop unavailable. So I don’t think the BSG was doing anything. Then test drove a 2.0 Rubicon non E-torque. Might like the 2.0 better even though we huge fans of it in our ‘19 Cherokee Trailhawk
 

viper88

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Threads
44
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
5,572
Location
IL
Vehicle(s)
'19 JLR 2.0T (past), '22 JLR 3.6 (present)
I have the 2.0 with bsg (etorque) but, regardless of engine, the bsg is the same system. It only provides about 70ish lb/ft of additional torque to help move the vehicle from a dead stop. It cuts off at about 1800 rpm, so it's probably only actually active for the first couple tire rotations.

I am also a fan of torque over horsepower. Torque in the low to mid rpm range is what we utilize both on road and when crawling the trails. An engine needs to be screamed for its potential horsepower, which i have zero inclination to do on my daily grind.

After test driving a few dozen Rubicons to help decide between the 2.0 and the 3.6, I ended up ordering the 2.0. Every back to back comparison yielded the same result. Noticeably more low/mid range torque that gave a peppy feel without a lot of throttle input. The 3.6 felt rather sluggish at lower rpms, and needed a good deal more throttle input before it would wake up.
Not 100% sure but I believe I read first 1/2 tire rotation? I will look up the article and post.
 

SecondTJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
1,128
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
I have the 2.0 with bsg (etorque) but, regardless of engine, the bsg is the same system. It only provides about 70ish lb/ft of additional torque to help move the vehicle from a dead stop. It cuts off at about 1800 rpm, so it's probably only actually active for the first couple tire rotations
The BSG system for the 2.0/3.6/5.7 are all slightly different and have different outputs.

The 3.6 version produces 90 lb-ft torque vs the 70lb-ft for the 2.0 (the Ram’s 5.7 gets 130 lb-ft)

Your correct it has a small operating range; which is idle to 1,500 rpm
 
OP
OP
hammick

hammick

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
41
Reaction score
27
Location
Red Lodge, Montana
Vehicle(s)
2015 Wrangler 2dr JK Sport S
It can provide the first 1/2 tire rotation by itself before the engine restarts.
Correct. In real world driving situations do you notice an increase in torque or does it just make the start/stop smooth? I know it's a little slower 0-60 but if it had better low torque I would like it. The 3.6 is fine but that's about it. I know I would be elated with the diesel.
 

Sponsored

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,672
Reaction score
17,372
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
Not 100% sure but I believe I read first 1/2 tire rotation? I will look up the article and post.
Not half of a tire rotation, the first couple tire rotations. I've never specifically checked, but even under normal acceleration, it doesn't take much to surpass the bsg rom threshold.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,672
Reaction score
17,372
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
The BSG system for the 2.0/3.6/5.7 are all slightly different and have different outputs.

The 3.6 version produces 90 lb-ft torque vs the 70lb-ft for the 2.0 (the Ram’s 5.7 gets 130 lb-ft)

Your correct it has a small operating range; which is idle to 1,500 rpm
I was just referring to what I have as an example, but there's no such thing as too much info. Thanks for adding those other bsg outputs.
 

displayname

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
430
Reaction score
608
Location
DFW
Vehicle(s)
TBD
Not as bad as the facts make it sound. Yes, technically slower and technically less mpg in their test, but it sounds like overall pretty negligible. I think the real takeaway is this line: " the eTorque hybrid system smooths and quickens the V-6's stop-start system."

Overall that still doesn't have me excited about eTorque. If I had the option to go without it, I would.
 

JeePM

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
57
Reaction score
34
Location
IL
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Not as bad as the facts make it sound. Yes, technically slower and technically less mpg in their test, but it sounds like overall pretty negligible. I think the real takeaway is this line: " the eTorque hybrid system smooths and quickens the V-6's stop-start system."

Overall that still doesn't have me excited about eTorque. If I had the option to go without it, I would.

I would opt-out as well. I would prefer to keep things simple, even though I understand the performance gain of things such as turbos. For longevity sake i want to keep it simple with a N/A motor and less electronics, which i know is pretty much impossible at this point.
Sponsored

 
 



Top