3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better??

[Zandcwhite]

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.



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.

I agree they should do more to separate the 2 in stock trim. With cafe standards and mandated fuel economy I think they would be better off turning up the 2.0t and leaving the v6 alone. The srt tuned Jeep beach concept was putting out 340hp and 369 ftlbs of torque, you’d be hard pressed to push the v6 to that level on tune alone. I’ve seen several tuned 2.0t put down 400ftlbs at the wheels on the dyno. To get the v6 there you’d be looking at $10k in forced induction. The 5.7L would only take away sales from the cash cow that is the 392. Odds are the only new powertrain options we see in the wrangler will be the straight 6 turbo that FCA is replacing the 5.7L with and the fully electric option, both of which I’m all for if they are well executed.

Sponsored

 

[Gunfighter]

... Turbo owners are all slim, athletic and handsome, it's amazing.

...and metrosexual

 

[viper88]

I believe the 3.6 with the etorque has a slight whine.

I think it's any eTorque engine?

My 2.0T with eTorque and 3.6 eTorque both had/have a slight whine. No whining on the gas. The whining starts right when you lift off the gas pedal and stops again right when you press on it. Like a ON/OFF switch.

 

[scottijohn63]

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.

I was already good looking, and after getting my 2.0 eTorque I can't stop looking at my self in the mirror!

 

[Shibadog]

...and metrosexual

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark

 

[Gunfighter]

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark

awww...just a little fun. Gotta rib each other now and then.

 

[Hennessey17]

Depends on who you ask and what they've bought.

My last car was a VW which had a direct injection, 2.0 liter, turbocharged 4 cyl. I took care of it, did all the maintenance, changed the fluids even more than the manual asked for... and I got 162K miles out of it before I traded it in.

Turbo replacement is inevitable, but it's also easy to add extra HP to turbo engines rather cheaply.

But we all balance risk/reward differently.

 

[TheRaven]

I agree they should do more to separate the 2 in stock trim. With cafe standards and mandated fuel economy I think they would be better off turning up the 2.0t and leaving the v6 alone. The srt tuned Jeep beach concept was putting out 340hp and 369 ftlbs of torque, you’d be hard pressed to push the v6 to that level on tune alone. I’ve seen several tuned 2.0t put down 400ftlbs at the wheels on the dyno. To get the v6 there you’d be looking at $10k in forced induction. The 5.7L would only take away sales from the cash cow that is the 392. Odds are the only new powertrain options we see in the wrangler will be the straight 6 turbo that FCA is replacing the 5.7L with and the fully electric option, both of which I’m all for if they are well executed.

If you're an automaker with a current V6, you don't push your I4 to the edge to get more power than the V6. You either cam the V6 or you add FI to it. Now, if FCA were to DROP the V6 then that changes the equation. Though i'd be worried about pushing the 2.0 much further. If you look around the automotive world, turbo I4's seem to stop at roughly 300hp...for anything more they generally choose V6's. If everyone's doing that, there's a good reason for it (likely it's simply that there's no benefit to an I4 over a V6 at HP levels above 300). Plus it's a matter of physics that more displacement making a given level of power is going to be a more durable power plant than less displacement making the same level of power. That's not something that's ever going to be overcome by tech.

 

[Zandcwhite]

If you're an automaker with a current V6, you don't push your I4 to the edge to get more power than the V6. You either cam the V6 or you add FI to it. Now, if FCA were to DROP the V6 then that changes the equation. Though i'd be worried about pushing the 2.0 much further. If you look around the automotive world, turbo I4's seem to stop at roughly 300hp...for anything more they generally choose V6's. If everyone's doing that, there's a good reason for it (likely it's simply that there's no benefit to an I4 over a V6 at HP levels above 300). Plus it's a matter of physics that more displacement making a given level of power is going to be a more durable power plant than less displacement making the same level of power. That's not something that's ever going to be overcome by tech.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27813840/mercedes-amg-m139-four-cylinder-engine-specs/
It's becoming far more common than you think. In a world where fuel economy and emissions standards don't matter, sure there's no replacement for displacement. In the modern world where people expect performance AND fuel economy, forced induction is the way all the major manufacturers are headed from smaller displacement ecoboost to the luxury manufacturers to imports and domestics. This is the way. You won't see a FI pentastar as the compression ratio is sky high already. The hemi will give way to the 3.0t straight six that is rumored between 4-500hp and 500+ ftlbs. It's the direction the industry is going whether we like it or not.

 

[TheRaven]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27813840/mercedes-amg-m139-four-cylinder-engine-specs/
It's becoming far more common than you think. In a world where fuel economy and emissions standards don't matter, sure there's no replacement for displacement. In the modern world where people expect performance AND fuel economy, forced induction is the way all the major manufacturers are headed from smaller displacement ecoboost to the luxury manufacturers to imports and domestics. This is the way. You won't see a FI pentastar as the compression ratio is sky high already. The hemi will give way to the 3.0t straight six that is rumored between 4-500hp and 500+ ftlbs. It's the direction the industry is going whether we like it or not.

There are exactly THREE turbo 4 cyl engines currently in production making more than 300hp, and every one of them is in a high performance car. Furthermore, they all get terrible fuel mileage for the four cylinder class.

The problem is that it takes a given amount of fuel and air to make a given amount of power. Doesn't matter if you do it with 4, 6 or 8 cylinders, Turbo, supercharger, NA. You aren't going to see major fuel savings by going with an FI 4cyl over an NA V6 to make a given amount of power...unless you are talking about a very inefficient NA motor. Just look at the 3.6 vs 2.0 debate in this very same thread. Some report better fuel mileage with the 2.0 some say it's a wash. Even the ones that claim better fuel mileage say it's 1-2mpg (my experience was right smack in the middle of that range)...so it's barely a difference. But then the FCA 3.6 is no model of fuel economy either. GM's 335hp V6 gets significantly better mileage in every single application its in. This is the exact same discussion that was had 10 years ago when Ford introduced the Ecoboost 3.5l. They promised "V8 power with V6 fuel mileage". I and many others were saying even back then that getting V8 power out of a turbo V6 was nothing to brag about...it's been done for 50 years. But you don't get better mileage just because you have two less cylinders. You're just packing the same energy density into a smaller space. No surprise, GM's 5.3 delivers the same fuel mileage that the Ecoboost does. Furthermore, the 5.3 doesn't lose it's efficiency in the winter, the Ecoboost is well known for loosing 4-6mpg when the temp drops below freezing.

As for where we are going, i'd be very surprised to see either of the current engines continue much longer once that straight six is out. It's going to be that, the 4xe, and the diesel, followed pretty quickly by an all-electric option. THAT'S the way we are heading....well at least until we learn the hard way that an all-electric country is not possible in the next 30 years.

 

[Headbarcode]

...and metrosexual

Hey, there's nothing wrong with wanting smooth skin...

 

[multicam]

There are exactly THREE turbo 4 cyl engines currently in production making more than 300hp, and every one of them is in a high performance car. Furthermore, they all get terrible fuel mileage for the four cylinder class.

The problem is that it takes a given amount of fuel and air to make a given amount of power. Doesn't matter if you do it with 4, 6 or 8 cylinders, Turbo, supercharger, NA. You aren't going to see major fuel savings by going with an FI 4cyl over an NA V6 to make a given amount of power...unless you are talking about a very inefficient NA motor. Just look at the 3.6 vs 2.0 debate in this very same thread. Some report better fuel mileage with the 2.0 some say it's a wash. Even the ones that claim better fuel mileage say it's 1-2mpg (my experience was right smack in the middle of that range)...so it's barely a difference. But then the FCA 3.6 is no model of fuel economy either. GM's 335hp V6 gets significantly better mileage in every single application its in. This is the exact same discussion that was had 10 years ago when Ford introduced the Ecoboost 3.5l. They promised "V8 power with V6 fuel mileage". I and many others were saying even back then that getting V8 power out of a turbo V6 was nothing to brag about...it's been done for 50 years. But you don't get better mileage just because you have two less cylinders. You're just packing the same energy density into a smaller space. No surprise, GM's 5.3 delivers the same fuel mileage that the Ecoboost does. Furthermore, the 5.3 doesn't lose it's efficiency in the winter, the Ecoboost is well known for loosing 4-6mpg when the temp drops below freezing.

As for where we are going, i'd be very surprised to see either of the current engines continue much longer once that straight six is out. It's going to be that, the 4xe, and the diesel, followed pretty quickly by an all-electric option. THAT'S the way we are heading....well at least until we learn the hard way that an all-electric country is not possible in the next 30 years.

So the base engine will be what, a brand new high output turbo I-6 with 400+ hp? Or a high tech hybrid that isn’t even offered in the 2-door version? Or a diesel? No, one of the two current “base” engines will stick around for a good while.

 

[TheRaven]

So the base engine will be what, a brand new high output turbo I-6 with 400+ hp? Or a high tech hybrid that isn’t even offered in the 2-door version? Or a diesel? No, one of the two current “base” engines will stick around for a good while.

I don't see any reason to believe that the I6 will be at 400hp+ in the Wrangler. Perhaps if it's used in the Challenger and Charger you might see that kind of power there. But in the wrangler I would expect 300-350hp. Note that the Pentastar in the Wrangler has the lowest output of all its current applications, and the Wrangler's only close competition is getting 330hp out of it's TT 6-cylinder. FCA needs to improve the 4xe and get an all-electric option out so that's where the focus is going to be. It's possible the 2.0 will stick around for a bit after the I6 shows up, but it won't be for long. Perhaps until they use up enough of the built parts.

 

[tecnic1]

There are exactly THREE turbo 4 cyl engines currently in production making more than 300hp, and every one of them is in a high performance car. Furthermore, they all get terrible fuel mileage for the four cylinder class.

The problem is that it takes a given amount of fuel and air to make a given amount of power. Doesn't matter if you do it with 4, 6 or 8 cylinders, Turbo, supercharger, NA. You aren't going to see major fuel savings by going with an FI 4cyl over an NA V6 to make a given amount of power...unless you are talking about a very inefficient NA motor. Just look at the 3.6 vs 2.0 debate in this very same thread. Some report better fuel mileage with the 2.0 some say it's a wash. Even the ones that claim better fuel mileage say it's 1-2mpg (my experience was right smack in the middle of that range)...so it's barely a difference. But then the FCA 3.6 is no model of fuel economy either. GM's 335hp V6 gets significantly better mileage in every single application its in. This is the exact same discussion that was had 10 years ago when Ford introduced the Ecoboost 3.5l. They promised "V8 power with V6 fuel mileage". I and many others were saying even back then that getting V8 power out of a turbo V6 was nothing to brag about...it's been done for 50 years. But you don't get better mileage just because you have two less cylinders. You're just packing the same energy density into a smaller space. No surprise, GM's 5.3 delivers the same fuel mileage that the Ecoboost does. Furthermore, the 5.3 doesn't lose it's efficiency in the winter, the Ecoboost is well known for loosing 4-6mpg when the temp drops below freezing.

As for where we are going, i'd be very surprised to see either of the current engines continue much longer once that straight six is out. It's going to be that, the 4xe, and the diesel, followed pretty quickly by an all-electric option. THAT'S the way we are heading....well at least until we learn the hard way that an all-electric country is not possible in the next 30 years.

The thing you're missing is that unless your engine is in a race car or a boat, it doesn't need to make 300hp all the time. When it comes to fuel efficiency, efficiency at (for example) 10% load will be a larger factor then efficiency at 100% load.

Yes, in an ideal situation, where we can ignore pumping, loss it should take the same amount of fuel to make 300hp in 4 cylinders as 6 cylinders or 12 cylinders or whatever.

However, to make 80hp off boost, the 2.0 is going to be quite a bit more efficient.

The Ford EcoBoost is a great example of exactly this. It's really Eco or Boost, not Eco and Boost. You can get great fuel economy if you stay out of boost, but if you drive with a heavy foot frequently, fuel economy is going to take a hit pretty fast, just like I've seen in my 2.0L Jeep.

Just to be clear, I don't really think one engine is much better then the other. I have my reasons for wanting the 2L, but if the 2L wasn't a thing, I would have bought a 3.6.

 

[Zandcwhite]

The 4xe is based around the 2.0t, that likely will not ever get redesigned as it’s too late in the game to bother. Fully electric is the next step but the PHEV market will remain until ICE goes away entirely. In my opinion, because of that shared platform, the 2.0t will remain and the pentastar will get dropped when the new I6t makes its way into the wrangler. They’ve already stated that the V8’s are on the way out. By 2025-2030 at the latest I’d bet there won’t be an NA wrangler available. It’s just the direction the industry is headed.

Sponsored