Killed by Death
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Threads
- 5
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1,495
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
- Vehicle(s)
- Sarge Green 2021 Rubicon 2 Door
3.6
Sponsored
Just because I didn't directly address something, that doesn't mean I "missed it". It just means that it's not a relevant factor. Despite all the valid points you made above, in both the case of the 2.0 vs the 3.6 and the Ecoboost vs the 5.3, there is almost no, to actually no, efficiency difference between the engines. This is because while you are right about "staying out of the boost" to generate better efficiency, the same technique exists for the NA engines. There's just no boost in those cases. So, drive either engine aggressively, and they're going to consume gas like aggressively driven engines of their respective power levels. Drive them conservatively, and they're going to consume gas like conservatively driven engines of their respective power levels.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.
July 2018. On a great flat stretch of the A7 in Germany. I was in American spec 3.6 with 373 gears on 33's. I have AFE cold air intake, Superchips tune (no big deal) and custom cat back exhaust. That's it.I’m going to call BS on going 115mph in a 3.6 JK unless going downhill with the wind at your back (or it’s supercharged)
The jl with any of the engine options pulls hard all the way to the 99mph limit, I don't know why anybody finds 115mph a stretch. Turn off the limiter and any JL will hit 120+ no problem. 120mph in 8th gear our JL with 37's is only at 3k rpm.July 2018. On a great flat stretch of the A7 in Germany. I was in American spec 3.6 with 373 gears on 33's. I have AFE cold air intake, Superchips tune (no big deal) and custom cat back exhaust. That's it.
My mate was in his 2015 UK spec410 gears on 35's
We were en rout to the Jeep Summer Camp.
I took a hand off the wheel to try and pinch my iPhone To do a screen shot. I slowed down in the process.
ok May have been running German superpower or whatever juice they served at their gas station.
Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?The jl with any of the engine options pulls hard all the way to the 99mph limit, I don't know why anybody finds 115mph a stretch. Turn off the limiter and any JL will hit 120+ no problem. 120mph in 8th gear our JL with 37's is only at 3k rpm.
Which is why I said remove the limiter, and the jl has plenty of power for 120mph+? I think the xr package gets the 110mph limit as well.Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
my guess it is down to the speed rating on the different tires.(Stellantis lawyers)Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
You seem to lack a basic understanding of how engines work.Just because I didn't directly address something, that doesn't mean I "missed it". It just means that it's not a relevant factor. Despite all the valid points you made above, in both the case of the 2.0 vs the 3.6 and the Ecoboost vs the 5.3, there is almost no, to actually no, efficiency difference between the engines. This is because while you are right about "staying out of the boost" to generate better efficiency, the same technique exists for the NA engines. There's just no boost in those cases. So, drive either engine aggressively, and they're going to consume gas like aggressively driven engines of their respective power levels. Drive them conservatively, and they're going to consume gas like conservatively driven engines of their respective power levels.
This was precisely my point.
Now you might note that as you move down the performance spectrum, a turbo 4 can do much better than an NA 6 (or a turbo 6 can do much better than an NA 8)...like in the case of GM's 1.5l turbo 4 (180hp) or the detuned version of their 2.0 turbo 4 (220hp)...those engines deliver far better efficiency than the (larger I4 or V6, respectively) they replaced...but that's because the engines they replaced just were not that efficient. The 220hp 2.0 replaced the HF3600 in many applications, and the HF3600 was capable of over 300hp without breaking a sweat and with similar MPGs. So 220hp applications were really wasting the displacement of the motor, and thus efficiency suffered. But the demand wasn't there at the time so that's the motor we got.
I do. I daily drive it. If I can get the same, or arguably better performance with better efficiency, why wouldn't I?Who buys a Jeep for ANY type of fuel efficiency?
It's the proverbial square in a round hole.
109 mph for the Sport, if my ppwrk is accurate.Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
Did I miss any?There are exactly THREE turbo 4 cyl engines currently in production making more than 300hp
Three years on and this misinformation still shows up every 10 posts when discussing the 2.0T.I might see some cost savings at the pump because the 2.0 used premium gas.
You missed the obvious one, as proven by several people on chassis dynos, the 2.0t in the jl with a simple jb4 piggyback. 290-330 at the wheels which is somewhere between 340 and 400 at the flywheel. And for those trying to compare, even the livernoise tuned 3.6 on e85 only puts down 235hp to the wheels. I'm sure you won't feel an extra 100hp and 150ftlbs though.Did I miss any?
Subaru WRX STI: 310 HP
Mercedes: 416 HP
Ford Mustang: 310-330 HP (even the Bronco's 2.3 is 300 HP now)
Honda Civic type R: 306 HP
VW Golf R: 310 HP
Porsche 718 Boxter/Cayman: 2.5 @ 350HP
Porsche 718 Boxter/Cayman: 2.0 @ 300 HP (I guess this isn't more than 300)
Kia Stinger: 300 HP (again, this might not count)
Koenigsegg TFG: 600 HP (is missing one cylinder though)
Jaguar F-type: 296 HP (so close)