3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better??

[Shibadog]

I get a kick out of us talking about power in Jeeps. Back when they had what 60 horses or so? My old slant 4 IH’s would hit 70 if the road was flat enough and long enough. The older CJ’s were the same—slloooowww. We didn’t care, that’s just the way4x4’s were. When they stated putting in the 6’s and V8’s we were “wow”, and they were only 200 ponies or so. I think my TJ 4.0 was 190, and when I bought it I thought “this is quick” (and compared to it’s 4 cyl predecessor it WAS

Sponsored

 

[Zandcwhite]

I get a kick out of us talking about power in Jeeps. Back when they had what 60 horses or so? My old slant 4 IH’s would hit 70 if the road was flat enough and long enough. The older CJ’s were the same—slloooowww. We didn’t care, that’s just the way4x4’s were. When they stated putting in the 6’s and V8’s we were “wow”, and they were only 200 ponies or so. I think my TJ 4.0 was 190, and when I bought it I thought “this is quick” (and compared to it’s 4 cyl predecessor it WAS

Even the rx8, a "sports car", was slower 0-60 than any modern wrangler. They've come a long way. That doesn't make the discussion any less relevant just because the bar is so much higher. The v6 and the 2.0t are quick enough to be fun to drive even on road. The 4xe is quicker than a lot of modern sports cars with 0-60 in the mid 5 seconds. The 392 is down right quick at 4 seconds flat and 12 second 1/4 mile time bone stock. The modern rubicon is better on AND off road than any of the previous generations and the engine options are a huge part of that. Gone are the gear it low enough to crawl and never drive over 60mph days. Now we can get an 87-1 crawl ratio from the factory and a top speed of 110 that the Jeep can hold up a grade on the freeway. I definitely don't miss the old 4.0L, let alone the na 4 banger days. We can have our cake and eat it too these days.

 

[viper88]

I have a 2013 JK with the 3.6 Pentastar. 67K miles and it has been on the autobahn cruising at 115mph, off road, on road and everything in between. Regular oil changes and never had an issue.

Reluctantly took delivery of a 2.0 turbo as 3.6 not available in the UK. Off the line amazingly quick! Turbo lag most noticeable around 35-40 mph when you hammer it.
THEN, put 33 inch tires on it and my wife said "can we put the stock ones back on? It has lost its pep" whereas on our JK with the 3.6 the performance difference when putting on larger tires was not noticeable. The chipmunks seem to have lost some of their lustre.

Maybe the gears? The JK and JL have totally different automatic transmissions. The 8-speed automatic is a game changer.

I owned a '15 JK Sport with the 3.6 and automatic. I also owned a '19 JLR 2.0T eTorque with the ZF automatic. The 2.0 with the ZF 8-speed automatic is MUCH quicker. Absolutely no contest. And the JLR's 2.0T got much better mpg even with the Rubicon gears. I own a '22 3.6 eTorque with the 8-speed automatic now. It's is a much better driver than the 3.6L JK. It's faster too.

 

[Jeep Dude]

3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better??

Easy peazy.

-opt for the Forced Induction application if you live at altitude. Physics.

-opt for the 2.0 Forced Induction application if you are seriously into the Chip Tuning modding world

- opt for the V6, for silkier smooth, quiet operation(you won't hear it inside of your house when pulling into the garage). A 4 banger will never be as smooth as a V6.

-opt for the 3.6, if you are into, a longer track record, historical stats

I opted for the normally aspirated V6, but I really wanted a normally aspirated V8 , alas it didn't exist in 2019.

 

[TheRaven]

30 ftlbs, or 65ftlbs... and we aren't talking 500 vs 565. 200 vs 265 is 25% more torque. That's massive. Then you take them up to altitude, the na motor loses 30% at 10kft, the turbo 10%. Both are more than sufficient, especially compared to the 4.0 or 3.8L, but one has a definite edge at sea level that widens exponentially at altitude in my experience.

That graph is an outlier, and you're looking at ONLY peaks. Note that i said "average". AnnDee did a dyno analysis with every known verified dyno graph of both engines (two threads, on this forum), and the average is about 30lbfts across 2200rpm. Remember, this has been discussed, in depth and at length, in like 12 different threads over a time period of several years. We know the facts at this point - the 3.6 has the advantage off-idle and up top and the 2.0 owns the midrange...but the advantages in both cases are very small.

Besides, they both run the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile. A 25% difference would certainly show up in those results.

 

[Zandcwhite]

That graph is an outlier, and you're looking at ONLY peaks. Note that i said "average". AnnDee did a dyno analysis with every known verified dyno graph of both engines (two threads, on this forum), and the average is about 30lbfts across 2200rpm. Remember, this has been discussed, in depth and at length, in like 12 different threads over a time period of several years. We know the facts at this point - the 3.6 has the advantage off-idle and up top and the 2.0 owns the midrange...but the advantages in both cases are very small.

Besides, they both run the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile. A 25% difference would certainly show up in those results.

That graph is one of very few run back to back same day on the same dyno, too many variables comparing different runs on different dynos in different weather at different elevations in my opinion. Peak is 65ftlbs, but from 2500 rpm to 5700 rpm (the range where I do the vast majority of accelerating) the average is closer to 50 ftlbs than 30. Of course if it's performance you are interested in between the 2, for a few hundred dollars you can add a jb4 and have more torque on tap than the 392...

 

[TheRaven]

That graph is one of very few run back to back same day on the same dyno, too many variables comparing different runs on different dynos in different weather at different elevations in my opinion.

Conversely, looking at only one graph leaves too many variables - maybe the 3.6 in this one had issues that weren't known, maybe the 2.0 is a freak or had an undisclosed tune. And, more importantly, you're just one random guy on the internet with a dyno graph. How do we know it's legit?

Such is the nature of bench racing unfortunately.

Fortunately, we have further evidence - the fact that both engines produce the exact same 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. So really this is all moot anyway.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Conversely, looking at only one graph leaves too many variables - maybe the 3.6 in this one had issues that weren't known, maybe the 2.0 is a freak or had an undisclosed tune. And, more importantly, you're just one random guy on the internet with a dyno graph. How do we know it's legit?

Such is the nature of bench racing unfortunately.

Fortunately, we have further evidence - the fact that both engines produce the exact same 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. So really this is all moot anyway.

It is strange that the quoted 0-60 is identical when everyone who's actually run them head to head like the above poster with the rental 2.0t on 37's has the same experience I've seen, the 2.0t walks the v6 in the real world. Some don't like turbos, and that's fine, but in my experience the 2.0t is the better engine in both power and mpg, especially at elevation. It is amazing that for the 1st time in 80 years there are so many wrangler options, and all are good.

 

[roaniecowpony]

I'm old, I admit. But it's fascinating to read all the discussion about more power. The base engines in the JL are knocking on the door of 300hp. The 392 JL is approaching 500hp. These numbers are well past what most highly modified Jeeps would have just a handful of years ago. I'm pretty content with my 3.6L power. But I say that about its sea level performance with a light load. If I lived in central Colorado, I'd probably have a different opinion. Up there, I'd probably turbocharge every vehicle I owned.

 

[TheRaven]

It is strange that the quoted 0-60 is identical when everyone who's actually run them head to head like the above poster with the rental 2.0t on 37's has the same experience I've seen, the 2.0t walks the v6 in the real world.

This is the way it works. Drivers, tires, conditions, fuel quality...there's a billion variables. I don't doubt your experience, and my experience has been the opposite and that's just as irrelevant. Facts are facts.

Some don't like turbos, and that's fine, but in my experience the 2.0t is the better engine in both power and mpg, especially at elevation. It is amazing that for the 1st time in 80 years there are so many wrangler options, and all are good.

I respect your experience and opinion, and I agree on the choices...however I feel like FCA could have done a better job in separating the engine choices. The 2.0 turbo should be the entry level option with exactly the power it has now. The 3.6 should be in the 310-340hp range like all of its competition, and the 5.7 should be available in the Wrangler to round out the engine options. It makes no sense to have an NA V6 and Turbo I4 both running the same performance numbers in the same vehicle.

I'm old, I admit. But it's fascinating to read all the discussion about more power. The base engines in the JL are knocking on the door of 300hp. The 392 JL is approaching 500hp. These numbers are well past what most highly modified Jeeps would have just a handful of years ago.

Problem is that it's not a handful of years ago. It's 2022, and FCA is pushing the JL to compete in markets that no previous Wrangler was designed to compete in. These new competitors all have more power, more towing and hauling capacity, and most even get better fuel mileage. The real kicker is that it's not like FCA doesn't have the engines to work with. They have a 300hp+ version of the 3.6 that could easily be tuned for a bit more (GM and Ford are at 330hp+ with their NA V6's), they have the 5.7. That would have made a perfect engine line-up but instead we get two very different engines that produce the same result, and three low-volume options. It's a real head-scratcher.

 

[roaniecowpony]

What's going to be interesting is how the pursuit of more power by auto "enthusiasts" is affected by electric vehicles. While you can buy an electric car that will run in the mid 9s at over 150mph, or more importantly to street use 0-60 in 2 seconds consistently, without sparkplug changes, no slicks, no special fuel, nada, it's a $130k car, which puts it out of most people's reach. Still, it's a bargain for that level of performance. I expect other more middle class targeted electrics to have performance options like Tesla has, just not that quick.

I wonder if street racing will increase with electrics.

 

[roaniecowpony]

...we get two very different engines that produce the same result, and three low-volume options. It's a real head-scratcher.

I think it was mentioned earlier that the 2.0 holds power at elevation better. That's significant to a market where higher altitude is common.

 

[Shibadog]

Even the rx8, a "sports car", was slower 0-60 than any modern wrangler. They've come a long way. That doesn't make the discussion any less relevant just because the bar is so much higher. The v6 and the 2.0t are quick enough to be fun to drive even on road. The 4xe is quicker than a lot of modern sports cars with 0-60 in the mid 5 seconds. The 392 is down right quick at 4 seconds flat and 12 second 1/4 mile time bone stock. The modern rubicon is better on AND off road than any of the previous generations and the engine options are a huge part of that. Gone are the gear it low enough to crawl and never drive over 60mph days. Now we can get an 87-1 crawl ratio from the factory and a top speed of 110 that the Jeep can hold up a grade on the freeway. I definitely don't miss the old 4.0L, let alone the na 4 banger days. We can have our cake and eat it too these days.

And that’s the point-ANY box stock Jeep today is way over the top of anything even offered in the past. I well remember having to downshift my 4 cylinder TJ to maintain speed on the highway in Iowa-compared to it, my 4.0 TJ was “powerful”, and ANY current Jeep is a rocket. Same thing has happened to motorcycles. Toured all over the country on bike with <70 horsepower, now that’s”beginner” bike levels of power. There is a “base” level of power for any vehicle for it to be ”comfortable” and capable. it needs to accelerate decently, be able to cruise the slab at legal speeds with some power in reserve, and have enough torque to pull away decently at low speeds. Antrhing beyond that becomes a “like” not a “need”. We are blessed that the most basic Jeep you can buy today exceeds the listed minimums by a good deal. I don’t believe there’s a “bad” choice out there today. 3.6 and 2.0 are both great, 4XE, TDI and the mighty 392 are all over the top. If ya can’t buy a Jeep today that suits you and your driving style, you are probably in the wrong class of vehicle.

 

[Headbarcode]

It is strange that the quoted 0-60 is identical when everyone who's actually run them head to head like the above poster with the rental 2.0t on 37's has the same experience I've seen, the 2.0t walks the v6 in the real world. Some don't like turbos, and that's fine, but in my experience the 2.0t is the better engine in both power and mpg, especially at elevation. It is amazing that for the 1st time in 80 years there are so many wrangler options, and all are good.

Yeah, I fully agree that having multiple engine choices is great, along with transmissions. It allows each individual owner more options to fine tune their Jeep beyond just the regular creature comfort packages.

One of the bigger reasons why I did as many test drives of both engines as I did, was reading many posts here about how each engine dealt with larger lifts and tires. The pattern that I noticed was that shorter gears became more desirable with the 3.6/auto and 37's, whereas the same tires were shrugged off by the 2.0/auto. My personal experience with my 2.0 JLUR, is that shorter gears didn't even blip the radar with my previous 38x13.5's. Now that I've bumped up to 40x13.5's, I feel that I've finally crossed that threshold. Also worth mentioning is that the highest elevation on long Island is 511 feet above sea level, which in my mind fully debunks the whole notion of there only being a felt difference at higher elevations. Dozens of back to back test drives ruled out any potential one or two-off flukes.

Again, having engine options is great. It gives each Jeep a different overall feel, which helps cater to each individuals wants/needs for their intended use. That goes hand in hand with the plethora of aftermarket parts that we can choose from to create our own custom builds. There's nothing to be gained by shitting on either engine with false claims. They are both capable of powering the same build to the same difficult destinations. Just simply drive them all at least a couple times each, choose what grabs your attention the most, and than comfortably move on to the tire and lift rabbits hole. That's where the far more important questions and answers are. That's the only true make it or break it part of Jeep ownership. Lemons aside, Jeep puts out a great platform regardless of how its configured when it leaves the mothership. It's what we do to them afterwards that deserves the real attention.

Cheers to all, regardless of what's under your hoods!

 

[ViperJon]

It's also an incontrovertible fact that almost all 6 cyl owners are ugly. It doesn't seem possible that better looking people gravitate towards the turbo but it's just a fact. Perhaps it's the old "tried and true" adage that always gets referred to in this discussion. This can be confirmed by looking at every JK owner as well. Butt ugly. Turbo owners are all slim, athletic and handsome, it's amazing.

Sponsored