3.6 or 2.0

[James Westfall]

Uhh, debuted 2003 so 23 year old , revised with VVT and upgrade internals in 09. The only major upgrades, but has evolved. Perhaps they should re-continue the dropped years ago Gen 4 development ?

Wrong LS6.

GM has been recycling their engine designations for the last decade now. Really dumb, but they've never been known for being good at naming products. The NEW LS6 debuts in the 2027 Vette and then will almost certainly trickle down to the Camaro and trucks like always.

Sponsored

 

[2nd 392]

Wrong LS6.

GM has been recycling their engine designations for the last decade now. Really dumb, but they've never been known for being good at naming products. The NEW LS6 debuts in the 2027 Vette and then will almost certainly trickle down to the Camaro and trucks like always.

Gen 3 Hemi debut 2003, perhaps I wasn’t clear. (edited) Yes, the list of new LS6 upgrades look impressive. …. GM should have followed the 392 example and recycled so fine 409. …
A winner in it’s time.

 

[jeepingib]

...What I didn't realize was by purchasing a Jeep I was joining a cult.

I've been participating in vehicle forums for every vehicle I've owned since Al Gore invented the internet.

So far this one is very unique.

 

[Remorseless]

I posit that the problem was actually behind the wheel, not in the engine bay.

Same could be said for the fact that all your engines have ended up being "pieces of shit"

Though, to an extent, the stuff behind the steering wheel does present a problem for the 3.6 in my case... the JT's a big bitch. A 5k lb truck is a lot to ask of an engine that struggled with a 4k lb JK.

 

[Remorseless]

Uhh, Gen 3 Hemi debuted 2003 so 23 year old , revised with VVT and upgrade internals in 09. The only major upgrades, but has evolved. Perhaps they should re-continue the abandoned years ago Gen 4 development ?

They revised stuff further in like '15 didn't they? Pretty sure they revised the heads or something in '15 or thereabouts, remember there being a difference in how the heads interfaced with the exhaust manifold I think.

 

[ASSFROW]

Same could be said for the fact that all your engines have ended up being "pieces of shit"

Though, to an extent, the stuff behind the steering wheel does present a problem for the 3.6 in my case... the JT's a big bitch. A 5k lb truck is a lot to ask of an engine that struggled with a 4k lb JK.

I don't feel like my 3.6 struggles at all. No problems merging, passing or towing my dump trailer.

 

[Remorseless]

I don't feel like my 3.6 struggles at all. No problems merging, passing or towing my dump trailer.

With XR you have 4.56 gears, and gearing helps the 3.6 a LOT.

My JKR had the NAG1 trans (Merc 5 speed auto, tough little transmission) and the 3.6. With 4.10s and 35s it couldn't get out of its own way. Spent a LOT of time in 3rd on hills. Moved to 4.88s and it was like night and day. Still not as good as the 2.0 with 4.10s for power feel, but the gearing wakes the 3.6 up a lot. Now the JT with 4.10s and 33s feels like a less-awful version of the JK with 35s and 4.10s. But if I bounce up to 35s I'm going to have to consider a regear.

 

[ASSFROW]

With XR you have 4.56 gears, and gearing helps the 3.6 a LOT.

My JKR had the NAG1 trans (Merc 5 speed auto, tough little transmission) and the 3.6. With 4.10s and 35s it couldn't get out of its own way. Spent a LOT of time in 3rd on hills. Moved to 4.88s and it was like night and day. Still not as good as the 2.0 with 4.10s for power feel, but the gearing wakes the 3.6 up a lot. Now the JT with 4.10s and 33s feels like a less-awful version of the JK with 35s and 4.10s. But if I bounce up to 35s I'm going to have to consider a regear.

Gearing isn't the engines fault tho.

 

[Remorseless]

Gearing isn't the engines fault tho.

True, but when comparing setups apples to apples, you gotta keep gearing the same so you eliminate it as a differentiating factor. Because if a 2.0T with 4.10s is as responsive as a 3.6 with 4.56s or 4.88s, depending on trans, then what if you slap those same gears behind the 2.0T? By keeping with the same gearing, you focus on the engine itself.

 

[James Westfall]

Same could be said for the fact that all your engines have ended up being "pieces of shit"

I didn't say my engines were "pieces of shit". I was quoting someone else claiming the 3.6 was. I don't believe the 3.6 is, however if you say it is, then you have to consider the 2.0 the same because it's just as problematic...it's problems are just different.

No, I personally would call both engines "mediocre". As many have pointed out, they have just enough power to not suck, and are just reliable enough to not completely ruin the overall JL package. It's just really weird for me to choose a vehicle DESPITE the engine. That's something i've never done in my life up until the JL. Literally every other vehicle i've ever bought i've bought largely BECAUSE of the engine.

With XR you have 4.56 gears, and gearing helps the 3.6 a LOT.

I don't notice a difference between the 4.10s and 4.56s on either the 3.6 or 2.0. I noticed a BIG difference between the 3.45s and 4.10s though, for both engines, especially on 35s. The jump to 4.10s completely transformed the experience. But then going to 4.56 did not further improve said experience.

I will call BS anytime someone tries to say that the power difference between the two engines is "night and day". That's confirmation bias, just trying to re-assure oneself that they made the right choice. There just is not much difference. The 3.6 has a bit more "jump" off the line, and the 2.0 has a bit more when you jump out to pass at speed. That's it.

 

[yokramer]

I didn't say my engines were "pieces of shit". I was quoting someone else claiming the 3.6 was. I don't believe the 3.6 is, however if you say it is, then you have to consider the 2.0 the same because it's just as problematic...it's problems are just different.

No, I personally would call both engines "mediocre". As many have pointed out, they have just enough power to not suck, and are just reliable enough to not completely ruin the overall JL package. It's just really weird for me to choose a vehicle DESPITE the engine. That's something i've never done in my life up until the JL. Literally every other vehicle i've ever bought i've bought largely BECAUSE of the engine.

You keep going on about the 2.0 having the same level of problems as the 3.6 while one has some leaks here and there like any engine made in the last ever while the 3.6 is known to eat cams.

 

[Remorseless]

I didn't say my engines were "pieces of shit". I was quoting someone else claiming the 3.6 was. I don't believe the 3.6 is, however if you say it is, then you have to consider the 2.0 the same because it's just as problematic...it's problems are just different.

No, I personally would call both engines "mediocre". As many have pointed out, they have just enough power to not suck, and are just reliable enough to not completely ruin the overall JL package. It's just really weird for me to choose a vehicle DESPITE the engine. That's something i've never done in my life up until the JL. Literally every other vehicle i've ever bought i've bought largely BECAUSE of the engine.

The idea that one engine is fine and the other is "a pile of shit" is ridiculous. I've had multiples of both now and I know first hand that it's a pick-your-hell type of situation. The 2.0 is just as big a "pile of shit" as the 3.6, it's just horse shit instead of cow shit.

Really seems a bit revisionist there, reads a helluva lot like you're saying your experience with both sucked and was shitty. ("I've had multiples of both now and I know first hand that it's a pick-your-hell type situation", )

Anway, engines have always been - IMO - immaterial on Jeeps provided they're not so awful they're in the way. You're paying for the chassis and axles.

 

[James Westfall]

You keep going on about the 2.0 having the same level of problems as the 3.6 while one has some leaks here and there like any engine made in the last ever while the 3.6 is known to eat cams.

LOL "some leaks here and there". Now THAT'S revisionism.

Really seems a bit revisionist there, reads a helluva lot like you're saying your experience with both sucked and was shitty. ("I've had multiples of both now and I know first hand that it's a pick-your-hell type situation", )

That's why I use quotes, btw. I'm not one of those people who thinks quotes are for accentuating.

 

[Remorseless]

LOL "some leaks here and there". Now THAT'S revisionism.



That's why I use quotes, btw. I'm not one of those people who thinks quotes are for accentuating.

 

[yokramer]

LOL "some leaks here and there". Now THAT'S revisionism.



That's why I use quotes, btw. I'm not one of those people who thinks quotes are for accentuating.

Elaborate then

Sponsored