3.6 or 2.0

[Old Dogger]

It won't make much difference to most but I live in the hottest city in USA (according to the weather channel list of hottest populated cities with most days over 110 degrees). I see 120 and higher every year in the shade on my patio and have seen 127 a few times.

Now we all know blown engines (turbo/super charged) build excessive heat and will coke oil quickly in those conditions. Based on that plus lack of direct injection I chose the 3.6. It's too early to tell if I made good choice but being 74 y/o I will prolly not out live either engine anyway!!

Your post is written with a lot of common sense, along with facts.
The 2.0 maybe O.K. in cooler climates, but it doesn't belong in the Arizona heat, or other areas with extreme high ambient outside temps.

Sponsored

 

[James Westfall]

Them offering both the 2.0T and the 3.6L still seems a bit redundant imo, if not confusing to some folks, but here we are.

It's not "a bit redundant". It's flat out F-ing stupid. They should have offered the 3.6 and 5.7 from the start, then replaced the 3.6 with the 2.0t at some point (or just saved us the trouble and stuck with the V6). But there's no justifying these stupid engine choices. One mediocre issue-prone mainstream engine choice would be perfectly fine. Granted, the 2.0 fanboys would need something else to be the subject of their pride parades, but i'm sure they'd find something to fill the coolant-soaked hole left by it.

 

[AFD]

And they should only offer the 2.0 but some people cant let go of the past and their love for paying for cam shafts and wont let go of the V6. Then maybe Jeep would have a reason to slot a 3rd engine in between the perfectly fine 2.0 and the waste of money good only for Jeeps balance sheet 392.

Coming from somebody that bought a v6 eTorque, I think you're 100% right. I'm sure I would've been fine with either choice myself, but they're so close that it just causes confusion and dumb what-if scenarios from customers trying to figure out which is more ideal for them (and again, either one is "fine" - nothing exciting from either, but both are certainly "adequate").

A Wrangler/Gladiator line-up that would make the most sense would be the 2.0T as a base engine, then either the 5.7L or new 3.0TT I6 S.O. for an optional mid-range performance upgrade and then the 392 for their halo cash cow.

Dunno, seems reasonable to me. K.I.S.S, right?

 

[dac219.9]

The LS6 will be in everything. Chevy trucks, GMC trucks, Tahoes, Subarbans, etc, not just the Corvette. Point being that GM has launched 4 new V8 generations since FCA/Stellantis stopped development and even cancelled the Hemi.

The I6 BMW engine is on par with Stellantis I6 engine. Same generation and technology. The I4 of both brands are equally as competitive.

Point being that Stellantis has 2 modern, globally competitive engines offered in NA (plus the 1.6 derivative), while the Pentastar and Hemi are ancient.

The LS6 is debuting with the Corvette GS. There’s not way it will be in “everything”.

By comparison, the Gen 5 LT1 was only used for Camaros and Vettes. The LS6 is basically the new version of the LT1, not being DOHC like the LT6 and LT7.

Curious…what are your thoughts on the Bronco engine options?

 

[gato]

The LS6 is debuting with the Corvette GS. There’s not way it will be in “everything”.

That is not correct. The LS6 is the base engine of the cheapest Corvette (Stingray) AND the GS. Base HP of all base Corvettes is now 535HP from the LS6.

GM is retiring the Gen5 5.3 and 6.2 engines across the entire line up. The Silverado and Sierra and the next vehicles to receive the LS6 in 2027.

In any event, let's not get lost in the weeds of GM powerplants. The only point is that GM (and Ford) continue to invest heavily in modern aluminum V8s, while Stellantis is peddling the same 15 year old ancient Hemi iron block boat anchors.

 

[gato]

Fair enough I guess, and I was just saying that out of the available mainstream options, I wish there was still a 3rd (or 4th), slightly more powerful choice like we used to have (diesel/4xe), without delving into 392 pricing (and without having to wait until 2030 or whatever).

Them offering both the 2.0T and the 3.6L still seems a bit redundant imo, if not confusing to some folks, but here we are.

Yes. We can all agree. This whole 2.0 vs 3.6 debate goes on and on and on exactly because, as you said, the engines are in the same power class, there is little distinction between them.

Ford, on the Bronco, has a 2.3L a 2.7L and 3.0L that have meaningful differences between them, being roughly 330tq, 400tq, 450tq-class give or take, which is a nice progression.

 

[AFD]

Ford, on the Bronco, has a 2.3L a 2.7L and 3.0L that have meaningful differences between them, being roughly 330tq, 400tq, 450tq-class give or take, which is a nice progression.

Exactly this. The one thing that kept tempting me on a Bronco was being able to get their 2.7L EcoPoof upgrade in a smaller/lighter 2-door for only $3,000 or so iirc (unfortunately, it looks like that upgrade is now 4-door only as of MY25). Also liked the flexibility of 315HP/410TQ on regular unleaded jumping up to 330/415 on premium, and now Ford sells an OEM performance tune, bringing that up to 355/433 for another $850.

Now don't tell me that wouldn't be a moderately fun/zippy little machine! Just a shame it's a Ford (no offense intended) with IFS, and something Jeep will likely do eventually, but probably never for the 2-door

 

[James Westfall]

Yes. We can all agree. This whole 2.0 vs 3.6 debate goes on and on and on exactly because, as you said, the engines are in the same power class, there is little distinction between them.

Ford, on the Bronco, has a 2.3L a 2.7L and 3.0L that have meaningful differences between them, being roughly 330tq, 400tq, 450tq-class give or take, which is a nice progression.

Yes, exactly. The Bronco is just one of many perfect examples. Three different engines, three different prices, three different power levels (and all three more powerful than the two mainstream choices in the JL). Why we are still being offered two very different engines that both offer roughly the same result, AFTER NINE MODEL YEARS, is baffling.

 

[Roky]

This entire fuking thread is baffling

 

[Cutterone]

I think perhaps they wanted to make the 2L Turbo the main default engine, but didn't want to engineer it to work with a 6sp, so that is mainly why they kept the 3.6 around, to still offer the 6sp. I think next gen perhaps the present 2L Turbo will be the base engine (I have my doubts the stick makes it to next gen), the new 2L Hurricane the step up, and maybe the 3L I6 Turbo (if it fits, I don't think any of us want a longer Wrangler) or 392 as the top of the line...with the 3L Turbo there I don't see them offering the 5.7 or equivalent smaller V8...

 

[Remorseless]

Granted, the 2.0 fanboys would need something else to be the subject of their pride parades, but i'm sure they'd find something to fill the coolant-soaked hole left by it.

Nah, we all know the 2.0 would beat the V6 if push came to shove to have only one engine in the JL. The JT gets murkier because of towing and Jeep's less-than-ideal cooling stack, but if they had to cut the JL/JLU fleet over to a single engine, it'd be the 2.0.

And, since it would be the V6 that goes, it wouldn't be able to be a coolant soaked hole since the V6's coolant issues are generally internal when the head gasket goes. We would have a cam shaped hole, a head gasket shaped hole, or OFA shaped hole.

 

[yokramer]

there is little distinction between them.

You know other than maintenance that involves replacing cams.

 

[Remorseless]

the engines are in the same power class, there is little distinction between them.

Driving them back to back though they are quite different though, actually distinct when you're doing more than looking at numbers

 

[Remorseless]

This entire thread is fuking baffling

Don't fuck baffles, it don't feel good

 

[Terrymo]

Don't fuck baffles, it don't feel good

I read waffles somehow

Sponsored