Sponsored

3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better??

TheRaven

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
1,958
Location
Reading, Pennsylvania
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU 80th
Occupation
Electrical, Mechanical, and Aerospace Engineering.
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 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.
 
Last edited:

volant165

Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Location
UK
Vehicle(s)
Trackhawk, SRT, Rubicon 10A, TJ, Willys MB
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)
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.

Jeep Wrangler JL 3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better?? 038C6055-D4B1-4A11-9870-20AD2EE31EEF
 

Zandcwhite

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
4,249
Reaction score
7,579
Location
Patterson, ca
Vehicle(s)
2019 jlur
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.

Jeep Wrangler JL 3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better?? 038C6055-D4B1-4A11-9870-20AD2EE31EEF
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.
 

Sponsored

Punk'nVulpine

Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
16
Reaction score
46
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Unlimited
Occupation
Motion Graphic Artist
My Jeep:
2018 JLU Sahara with the 2.0 Turbo, S&B air filter, AWE exhaust. Gas - 23 mpg on the freeway at 75 mph; 26 mpg at 65 mph (roughly). The turbo has a bit more power than the 3.6. I can easily spin the wheels if I want. Off roads like a beast; however, I am an overland camper, so not much "crawling" for me. There is turbo lag!

My parents Jeep:
2018 JLU Sport with the 3.6, S&B air filter, Magnaflo exhaust. Gas - 22 mpg on the freeway at 75 mph; 25 mpg at 65 mph (roughly). Slightly less power than the 2.0 turbo, but not by much. Power is there more quickly for off-roading; probably due to the fact there is no turbo lag.

We have both only owned our Jeeps for 7-months, so we don't really have any "long term" comparisons. However, right now, I'd say they are about evenly matched for everything. We even have matching options with the only thing missing being the adaptive cruise control.

I prefer the turbo because I like turbo cars. But my dad is the other way round. So, at the end of the day, Unless there is an issue I am unaware of, I think you would be fine with either.
 

viper88

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Threads
44
Messages
5,510
Reaction score
5,588
Location
IL
Vehicle(s)
'19 JLR 2.0T (past), '22 JLR 3.6 (present)
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.
Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
 

Zandcwhite

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
4,249
Reaction score
7,579
Location
Patterson, ca
Vehicle(s)
2019 jlur
Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
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.
 

volant165

Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
Location
UK
Vehicle(s)
Trackhawk, SRT, Rubicon 10A, TJ, Willys MB
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)
 

tecnic1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
129
Reaction score
485
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLR
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.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of how engines work.


Who buys a Jeep for ANY type of fuel efficiency?
It's the proverbial square in a round hole.
I do. I daily drive it. If I can get the same, or arguably better performance with better efficiency, why wouldn't I?
 

Sponsored

Heimkehr

Well-Known Member
First Name
James
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Threads
31
Messages
7,034
Reaction score
13,960
Location
Pennsylvania
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU 2.0T
Not 100% sure but I thought I read the Rubicon is limited to 99mph and the sport is 110 or something?
109 mph for the Sport, if my ppwrk is accurate.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Threads
49
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
6,273
Location
Vehicle(s)
'18 JLR 2.0
There are exactly THREE turbo 4 cyl engines currently in production making more than 300hp
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)
 

Speed331

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Threads
18
Messages
467
Reaction score
1,212
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle(s)
2008 Jetta, 2018 Discovery Sport, 2020 Wrangler Sport S (on order)
I might see some cost savings at the pump because the 2.0 used premium gas.
Three years on and this misinformation still shows up every 10 posts when discussing the 2.0T.

reccomended, but not required.

That is all you need to know about the opinions you're receiving...

Just under 30k on my 2.0T - have mostly used 87 octane, averaging about 24mpg and runs like a dream...

Pic is from September - put almost 7k on her since then...
Jeep Wrangler JL 3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better?? 20210904_130452
 

Zandcwhite

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
4,249
Reaction score
7,579
Location
Patterson, ca
Vehicle(s)
2019 jlur
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)
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.
 
Last edited:

Jhawth

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jake
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Threads
10
Messages
525
Reaction score
1,123
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR
How come so many are using 91 in their 2.0?

Jeep Wrangler JL 3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better?? Screenshot_20220121-203844_Adobe Acrobat
Sponsored

 
 



Top