3.6 or 2.0

[Remorseless]

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.

lol, how can I have confirmation bias when I currently choose to own both engines? I own both, right now, and willingly chose both. There isn't some "I chose this one I want it to win!", since I chose both. It wasn't a begrudging choice of the 3.6 either, I'm fine with the engine. It just does struggle enough with the weight of modern Jeeps that it is night and day between the two for feel. I would argue that having both in my current stable makes the argument more valid as I have direct back to back comparisons. In fact, if anything, I went into the 2.0T with trepidation - I wanted to try something new, but I wasn't sure if a turbo 4 banger was going to suck or not. Just turns out it doesn't.

With my 3.6, I'm constantly having to tip in to get it to kick down a gear or two to maintain speed. I don't drive hard - it's a box on wheels, just chill and cruise, plus I've usually got the kids with me in the truck. Coming off from a stop it's one of those things where you're urging the truck to get up to speed when using reasonable throttle inputs and it's just not quite moving as fast as you expect for the amount of throttle. No such issues with the 2.0, despite turning much larger and heavier tires. AND with the weight of the tires and stuff, I'd wager I'm within a couple hundred pounds of the JT with the JL anyway.

Sponsored

 

[ASSFROW]

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.

I disagree. Gearing should be what is best for engine, trans, tire(from the factory). If they are the same same from the factory it's a fair comparison or offered in various combinations from the factory, the optimum for each combo is what should be compared.

 

[yokramer]

I disagree. Gearing should be what is best for engine, trans, tire(from the factory). If they are the same same from the factory it's a fair comparison or offered in various combinations from the factory, the optimum for each combo is what should be compared.

So then you agree they should be compared with the same gear ratio .....

 

[Remorseless]

I disagree. Gearing should be what is best for engine, trans, tire(from the factory). If they are the same same from the factory it's a fair comparison or offered in various combinations from the factory, the optimum for each combo is what should be compared.

But then you're not isolating the engine as the point of comparison. I feel like the gearing point just should be mentioned more after the apples to apples comparison.

Though, in this case, both have been offered with 3.45, 4.10, and 4.56 at this point. The 2.0T, to all accounts, is peppier with 4.56 (as one would expect with shorter axle gearing).

 

[ASSFROW]

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.



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.

My Rubicon X with XR and 4.56 gears drive much better than my Willys with 4:10s and 35s. It's most noticeable on the highway or in headwinds.

 

[ASSFROW]

So then you agree they should be compared with the same gear ratio .....

Sorta. I'm ok with comparing 4:88 against 4:10 in either one or 4:56, 4:88 in an XR, since they are or were all factory available.

 

[yokramer]

Sorta. I'm ok with comparing 4:88 against 4:10 in either one or 4:56, 4:88 in an XR, since they are or were all factory available.

The science arguments are starting to make more sense.

 

[James Westfall]

With my 3.6, I'm constantly having to tip in to get it to kick down a gear or two to maintain speed. I don't drive hard - it's a box on wheels, just chill and cruise, plus I've usually got the kids with me in the truck. Coming off from a stop it's one of those things where you're urging the truck to get up to speed when using reasonable throttle inputs and it's just not quite moving as fast as you expect for the amount of throttle. No such issues with the 2.0, despite turning much larger and heavier tires. AND with the weight of the tires and stuff, I'd wager I'm within a couple hundred pounds of the JT with the JL anyway.

So I have that same problem with both engines. I actually feel like I have to dig into the throttle further on the 2.0 because I need to get that turbo spinning (more). I just got back from a beach trip this week and there was a big difference in fuel mileage between the trip down and back. Going down we had a head wind that made me have to do this a lot, coming back we had no wind and cruised effortlessly. 19.8mpg down, 22.1mpg back.

The problem is the box, not the engine.

My Rubicon X with XR and 4.56 gears drive much better than my Willys with 4:10s and 35s. It's most noticeable on the highway or in headwinds.

And I feel zero difference between my current JLUXR 2.0 and my previous 3.6 JLUR that I upgraded to 35's. But THAT JLUR on 35's was a HUGE improvement over both my previous Sports (one 2.0 and one 3.6) that I put 35's on.

 

[grimmjeeper]

So then you agree they should be compared with the same gear ratio .....

Each engine has an ideal ratio given the transmission and tire size. To get a fair comparison, I'd want to have the ideal ratio installed. Keep the transmission and tire size the same so it's a closer apples to apples comparison. But different axle ratios to match the engine is an appropriate way to compare.

 

[ASSFROW]

lol, how can I have confirmation bias when I currently choose to own both engines? I own both, right now, and willingly chose both. There isn't some "I chose this one I want it to win!", since I chose both. It wasn't a begrudging choice of the 3.6 either, I'm fine with the engine. It just does struggle enough with the weight of modern Jeeps that it is night and day between the two for feel. I would argue that having both in my current stable makes the argument more valid as I have direct back to back comparisons. In fact, if anything, I went into the 2.0T with trepidation - I wanted to try something new, but I wasn't sure if a turbo 4 banger was going to suck or not. Just turns out it doesn't.

With my 3.6, I'm constantly having to tip in to get it to kick down a gear or two to maintain speed. I don't drive hard - it's a box on wheels, just chill and cruise, plus I've usually got the kids with me in the truck. Coming off from a stop it's one of those things where you're urging the truck to get up to speed when using reasonable throttle inputs and it's just not quite moving as fast as you expect for the amount of throttle. No such issues with the 2.0, despite turning much larger and heavier tires. AND with the weight of the tires and stuff, I'd wager I'm within a couple hundred pounds of the JT with the JL anyway.

I think they are both inadequate for a mid sized truck. You need more ass in a truck than either offer in my opinion. When I bought my 2020 F150 I considered a JT for about 1 second. It was more expensive and didn't do truck stuff a 1/4 as well. I think payload and towing capacity have improved since then.

 

[Remorseless]

So I have that same problem with both engines. I actually feel like I have to dig into the throttle further on the 2.0 because I need to get that turbo spinning (more). I just got back from a beach trip this week and there was a big difference in fuel mileage between the trip down and back. Going down we had a head wind that made me have to do this a lot, coming back we had no wind and cruised effortlessly. 19.8mpg down, 22.1mpg back.

The problem is the box, not the engine.

The fact that it's box definitely makes both engines work harder, but my experience really is just the opposite. I have to dig into my 3.6 harder. Which I found disappointing, I had really hoped the 8 speed had alleviated that trait coming out my JK.

 

[James Westfall]

Elaborate then

You know this sub-forum exists right?

(1) 2.0L 4-Cyl Turbo Engine & Exhaust | Jeep Wrangler Forums (JL / JLU) -- Rubicon, 4xe, 392, Sahara, Sport - JLwranglerforums.com

 

[Remorseless]

Each engine has an ideal ratio given the transmission and tire size. To get a fair comparison, I'd want to have the ideal ratio installed. Keep the transmission and tire size the same so it's a closer apples to apples comparison. But different axle ratios to match the engine is an appropriate way to compare.

But that's not controlling down to just the engine for comparison. In fact, the point that there's different optimal gearing setups tells you that you need to do a direct comparison for the engine with other factors controlled to isolate WHY there's different ideal gearing setups.

And, in this case, it's torque.

 

[yokramer]

You know this sub-forum exists right?

(1) 2.0L 4-Cyl Turbo Engine & Exhaust | Jeep Wrangler Forums (JL / JLU) -- Rubicon, 4xe, 392, Sahara, Sport - JLwranglerforums.com

So you arent going to elaborate, just point to a sub forum that shows far less issues than the one for the 3.6 and some how thing thats proves a point?

 

[yokramer]

But that's not controlling down to just the engine for comparison. In fact, the point that there's different optimal gearing setups tells you that you need to do a direct comparison for the engine with other factors controlled to isolate WHY there's different ideal gearing setups.

And, in this case, it's torque.

Apparently we need to make sure the 3.6 has different gears than the 2.0 because it needs the help.

Sponsored