3.6 or 2.0

[grimmjeeper]

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.

Not just torque. The shape of the torque curve is key. I wouldn't put 4.88s in my diesel because it's all low end torque. The 3.73s were perfect for 35s. But I'd put 4.88s in a 3.6 Jeep with the same 35s all day long. That engine is all top end and needs the shorter gears.

Comparing both of those engines with the same axle ratio would clearly bias the comparison.

Sponsored

 

[Remorseless]

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.

I'd love to see what a JT with the 2.0 would be like, I've told the wife before I feel like I would enjoy the JT more with the 2.0 in it day-to-day, though I'm sure it'd take a hit in tow rating due to how Jeeps struggle to cool turbo'd engines.

Not much has changed in terms of towing/payload though actually - Max Tow was around 7600lb, now up to around 7700lb. Rubi stayed at 7000 lb. Payload in Rubi I believe hasn't changed much from around the ~1k lb mark (maybe 1100lb?).

Either way, I'm OK with where the JT falls for truck numbers - it's a midsize truck putting up technically half ton-ish numbers from like the 90s.

 

[Remorseless]

Not just torque. The shape of the torque curve is key. I wouldn't put 4.88s in my diesel because it's all low end torque. The 3.73s were perfect for 35s. But I'd put 4.88s in a 3.6 Jeep with the same 35s all day long. That engine is all top end and needs the shorter gears.

Comparing both of those engines with the same axle ratio would clearly bias the comparison.

It would highlight the differences, not bias it.

The "What would level the playing field" discussion is where the gears come in. The point isn't to make the two engines the same, but to highlight where they're different.

 

[grimmjeeper]

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

It's not that it needs help. It's about maximizing the torque curve. The 2.0 has a better lower end than the 3.6. So you need the axle ratio to be matched to the torque curve to have a valid comparison.

 

[yokramer]

I'd love to see what a JT with the 2.0 would be like, I've told the wife before I feel like I would enjoy the JT more with the 2.0 in it day-to-day, though I'm sure it'd take a hit in tow rating due to how Jeeps struggle to cool turbo'd engines.

Not much has changed in terms of towing/payload though actually - Max Tow was around 7600lb, now up to around 7700lb. Rubi stayed at 7000 lb. Payload in Rubi I believe hasn't changed much from around the ~1k lb mark (maybe 1100lb?).

Either way, I'm OK with where the JT falls for truck numbers - it's a midsize truck putting up technically half ton-ish numbers from like the 90s.

Yea but you might tow a 100,000lb boat at some point in your life so you need more power and towing capacity otherwise it should be scrapped.

 

[Remorseless]

It's not that it needs help. It's about maximizing the torque curve. The 2.0 has a better lower end than the 3.6. So you need the axle ratio to be matched to the torque curve to have a valid comparison.

But it's not valid for comparing the engines if they're not operating under the same conditions

 

[grimmjeeper]

It would highlight the differences, not bias it.

The "What would level the playing field" discussion is where the gears come in. The point isn't to make the two engines the same, but to highlight where they're different.

Yeah, I see what you're getting at.

 

[yokramer]

But it's not valid for comparing the engines if they're not operating under the same conditions

Naw you can just change all kinds of variables until you get the results you want.

 

[Remorseless]

Yea but you might tow a 100,000lb boat at some point in your life so you need more power and towing capacity otherwise it should be scrapped.

I just hope I can squeak the JL in under that 7klb rating so I can have an easier time getting the girls out west

 

[Remorseless]

Naw you can just change all kinds of variables until you get the results you want.

I mean it is valid to take the results of the controlled test and identify what variables make the most difference to even things out. But you gotta have the controlled test first to identify the differences.

And anyone who's driven a 3.6 long term knows it needs revs to pull, generally more than are useful in normal driving, so you shorten the gearing to increase torque multiplication.

 

[grimmjeeper]

But it's not valid for comparing the engines if they're not operating under the same conditions

Depends on what you're trying to determine.

Pointing out the differences is one thing.

Trying to figure out which one is better overall should be set up with ideal gearing. And by "better", I mean that in a more abstract sense. Given ideal gearing, how do they drive and perform in the real world. Not just how they perform in instrumented tests.

 

[ASSFROW]

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).

I'm buying a vehicle, not an engine. If I can buy a factory drivetrain combination at relatively the same price that out performs the other in any combo offered, the winner is the winner. We all have different preferences and probably goals.

I think I've beat a dead horse with my opinion over the 2 choices on this forum. Both are fine, just different. The 3.6 is smooth and predictable. The 2.0 is peppier and not as smooth or refined. Both have problems. The 2.0 has more that are pretty much guaranteed, but pesky more than catastrophic. The 3.6 has fewer pesky/guaranteed and fewer overall, but if you win the ticking lottery, oh fucking boy. Same Jeep, different motor, I'm going with price and availability every time. Given an exactly equal choice I honestly don't know.

 

[Remorseless]

Depends on what you're trying to determine.

Pointing out the differences is one thing.

Trying to figure out which one is better overall should be set up with ideal gearing. And by "better", I mean that in a more abstract sense. Given ideal gearing, how do they drive and perform in the real world. Not just how they perform in instrumented tests.

For "better" I figure you end up breaking it down pro/con based on use case and then identifying ideal setup for whichever engine for whichever use case.

Like, the 2.0 may be optimal at 4.56 for balance of power output and economy, but it's gonna be trash at towing in a JT with that setup.

The 3.6 may be optimal with 4.88s for perceived responsiveness, but you're going to lose economy due to the higher cruising RPMs.

 

[James Westfall]

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?

No i'm not going to waste my time on this. I don't care what you think.

 

[yokramer]

No i'm not going to waste my time on this. I don't care what you think.

So you dont have anything and keep replying anyway.

Sponsored