kah.mun.rah
Well-Known Member
Yes, yes it does.Because its broken. The 2.0 just sounds like a tractor.
Sponsored
Yes, yes it does.Because its broken. The 2.0 just sounds like a tractor.
so youre saying it sounds like a ViperBecause its broken. The 2.0 just sounds like a tractor.
Most of the complaints I see are from people who don’t do any research before buying and could’ve easily googled any of their complaints to see that most of them are just how the 2.0t is. The Facebook JL page is horrible for that, so bad I actually had to post a video nicely calling them idiots for not researching before buying a 30k+ dollar vehicle only to complain lol. These people can’t even change their oil on time let alone use the correct oil so yeah lolThe problem for me when choosing was there just isn't enough proven reliability for the 2.0 yet. It still falls under the newish/proving itself category. Unlike at the 3.6 that has 15 million produced and proven.
Not saying the 2.0 won't prove itself but it's still in the unknown phase. And with all these manufactures having turbo motor troubles, I just don't trust stelantis enough to have figured it out. And that's why they had to keep the 3.6 around because even they don't know if this motor is going to make it and they knew a lot of people wouldn't buy a jeep if that was the only option.. (my .02 of course)
I've actually been seeing more 2.0 complaints recently. Could be a fluke.
Only time will tell when we start seeing or not seeing more 2.0s at the 150k-200k mark.
Also for the engine that makes better power so you can drive away from the v6 manual luddites as they sit there praying this isnt the time their jeep burns to the ground.
Admin: Enzo Ferrari has entered the chatBecause its broken. The 2.0 just sounds like a tractor.
Great analysis, makes sense. Definitely want one that works optimally on 87. I'm never going to put more expensive gas in it.Of the two I'd go with the v6 since it has no direct injection, and because the manuals state that 1) the V6 requires 87 octane to attain full performance and derives no performance benefit from higher octane, and 2) the 2.0 manual states that it will run on 87, but for best performance and mileage it specifies 91 octane.
That said, I own a 392 Rubicon with shite mileage, and I've owned a 2.0 turbo Rubicon. The 2.0 is just a more complex engine due to it's turbo, intercooler loop, direct injection, and the associated high pressure direct injection pump. The V6 is relatively low tech, as is the 392.
The 392 has 10.9:1 compression, the V6 has 11.3:1. and the 2.0t has 10.0:1, but the turbo increases pressure which increases the octane requirement.
if you think the v6 runs optimally on 87 I have some bad news…Great analysis, makes sense. Definitely want one that works optimally on 87. I'm never going to put more expensive gas in it.