3.6 vs 2.0 turbo?? Which is better??

[Philly_]

How come so many are using 91 in their 2.0?

It's recommended for the best performance in harsher conditions such as high heat or towing, and is likely how the advertised torque and hp numbers were achieved. All of Ford's ecoboost engine numbers come from using premium fuel, but they are all typically run at 87 by the consumer.

Most people using 91-93 are the ones achieving the best fuel mileage. I plan to run 91-93 in mine when it arrives.

Sponsored

 

[jmccorm]

How come so many are using 91 in their 2.0?

Here you go:

During 100+ degree weather, I filled up the tank with 93 octane gas and promptly forgot about it. It wasn't until later I was in the forums searching for an answer as to why my new Wrangler all the sudden got a performance boost out of nowhere.

I thought it was a break-in performance governor. HA! In the right circumstances, you don't just notice a performance boost from higher octane gasoline. It jumps off the page and right at you. But in less demanding situations....? "Meh." I'm a seasonal customer.

 

[Jhawth]

Here you go:

During 100+ degree weather, I filled up the tank with 93 octane gas and promptly forgot about it. It wasn't until later I was in the forums searching for an answer as to why my new Wrangler all the sudden got a performance boost out of nowhere.

I thought it was a break-in performance governor. HA! In the right circumstances, you don't just notice a performance boost from higher octane gasoline. It jumps off the page and right at you. But in less demanding situations....? "Meh." I'm a seasonal customer.

I've tried running a few tanks of 91 to see if there was a difference, nothing noticeable enough to justify the extra cost imo. I also don't see 100+ degree days very often in Minnesota either though lol!

I would need to see an extra 3.75-4 mpg on premium for the cost to be roughly the same and I feel like at best I saw maybe 1 mpg increase.

 

[jmccorm]

I finally checked out their website. You're quite the salesperson! But... they're not carrying a JL model anymore?

 

[Billkowski]

I scratch my head too, but from the opposite perspective. I had a 2.0 and went to a 3.6 cause I couldn't stand the 2.0. It doesn't just make more noise on startup. It is significantly louder and harsher from startup all the way through the powerband. It is something that is so pronounced, it caused me to factory order a new vehicle.

Now don't get me wrong, the 3.6 isn't what I would call "smooth". The GM 6.0 makes my Tahoe feel like a luxury sedan in comparison. But it's by far the more refined option in the 2.0 vs 3.6 debate. I will note, once again, that I realize that NVH is not high on everyone's list, and for some not even on the list at all, and that's fine. But it's something that the 2.0 is abysmal at.

One additional note, and this is also a subjective one, but I don't find the 2.0 to FEEL quicker. To me the 3.6 is the quicker and more fun motor. That said, the data doesn't lie, the 2.0 does have more midrange power so I can certainly understand how many would find that it feels faster.

The heating up thing is something I never took note of. I don't feel like the 3.6 takes any longer than the 2.0 did but then BOTH of them heat up a lot faster than my Tahoe or Challenger so I don't know that I would notice the difference between them.

Everything in this engine debate comes down to personal preference which is why these threads just won't go away.

When I bought mine I tested Two identical 2 doors, one with a 2.0 the other a 3.6. In hard acceleration to 60, I found the 3.6 to be faster with a steady linear acceleration, the 2.0 gave a surge in places but it was a bit of momentary illusion. I guess it's subjective, and I had no initial preference either way and went with the 3.6 etorque.

 

[JeepyVet]

Just purchased a 3.6. I test drove both and I didn't like the way the 2.0T sounded. It was peppy enough but it sounded like a high pitched sewing machine to me. Get what feels best to you. You can't go wrong with either. It's a Jeep

 

[TheRaven]

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)

Ahem...

https://www.motortrend.com/news/most-powerful-four-cylinder-cars-weve-ever-tested/

When I bought mine I tested Two identical 2 doors, one with a 2.0 the other a 3.6. In hard acceleration to 60, I found the 3.6 to be faster with a steady linear acceleration, the 2.0 gave a surge in places but it was a bit of momentary illusion. I guess it's subjective, and I had no initial preference either way and went with the 3.6 etorque.

Same. I actually OWNED a 2.0l and it drove me to the 3.6l. In the process of buying ours, all we could test drive was 2.0s but my wife and I both disliked the 2.0 so much we were willing to buy the 3.6l without ever driving it. I don't find the 2.0 to feel faster at all. It feels like it takes too long to get into its powerband, whereas the 3.6 has it right off idle.

That said, these are all our subjective opinions so they only go so far. We shouldn't be arguing over our opinions, it's a waste of time. You know what's an even bigger waste of time? Arguing over facts. But that's what I find myself being forced to do every time a thread like this comes up.

We men clearly care very deeply about our engine choices and don't like to be questioned.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Ahem...

Here's my article with an incomplete list where I got my incorrect information...ahem? All 6 in his list do in fact make more than 300hp currently.

 

[Dudley Dawson]

I think someone in this thread was bullied by a 2.0 turbo in middle school.

 

[BrennanJL]

45k miles so far without issue. At least a dozen wheeling trips well above 10k feet. Obviously it's no race car, but it is nice to be able to pass on mountain grades with ease so power is important. Being that the 4xe is based on the same 2.0t, I'll bet the v6 gets discontinued first. I have no idea what you are even trying to say about housewives and the 2.0t? The 2.0t was more expensive, when it was only available with etorque. Now it's slightly cheaper than the v6 without etorque. Either way, I'd still pick the 2.0 for my use (likely the 4xe at this point if I were in the market for a new jeep). In stock form they are a wash at sea level so just by the one you prefer.

Yeah the 3.6L is definitely going to be discontinued after they placed it as their standard engine option in their projected best selling car the new Grand Cherokee .

 

[NewbieJon]

I took 2 test dives in both the 2.0T and the 3.6 eTorque. The 2.0T felt quicker, and it actually seemed quieter. I liked the 2.0T better after the first drives, but I felt the drive was too short to be conclusive.

I was able to arrange a longer test drive with each, and I discovered the 2.0T does have turbo lag, most noticeably when cruising at lower RPMs, then hitting the gas.

I also saw torque curves showing the 2.0T had more peak torque, but the 3.6 has more low end torque below around 2500 rpms, significantly more in the 1500-2000 range. Since I will be off roading a lot, I wanted that better low end torque and the smoother power delivery.

I think the 2.0T may be better on the road. To me, the 3.6 feels like it is better off road than the 2.0T would be. (except at 10,000 ft altitude?)

I got the 2021 Rubicon with 3.6L eTorque and the 8 speed auto. I am happy with my choice.

Sadly, most dealers (at least in big cities) won't let you test drive adequately. I was not allowed on the freeway at all. I had to find an open stretch of road.

Do a pros and cons list, and rank them according to what's more important to you.

I hope you get what is best for you.

 

[NewbieJon]

I wonder if some dealers put 91-93 octane in the 2.0L, making it feel faster than the 3.6L, while other dealers put cheaper 87 octane in the 2.0's, making the 3.6 feel faster?

Here you go:

 

[Headbarcode]

I finally checked out their website. You're quite the salesperson! But... they're not carrying a JL model anymore?

Just found this...

https://ultimate9usa.com/collection...ttle-controller-to-suit-jeep-jl-wrangler-2018

 

[Steve JLUR]

How come so many are using 91 in their 2.0?

‘Cause I don’t pay for the gas, and it helps performance…

 

[jmccorm]

I wonder if some dealers put 91-93 octane in the 2.0L, making it feel faster than the 3.6L, while other dealers put cheaper 87 octane in the 2.0's, making the 3.6 feel faster?

I wouldn't say that dealers are using cheaper gasoline to put their thumb on the scale one way or another. I'd say that otherwise intelligent people are accidentally placing their own thumbs on the scales while they're trying to use them.

They're pitting two variants against each other, and they're not entirely aware that they've created more favorable conditions for one vehicle or the other. That might be air temperature (those 100F+ days) or the octane rating of the fuel.... or both. Then again, you mentioned 87 octane... which is the better vehicle? The one that can take advantage of 91 octane gas or the one that you'll never need to put premium into? Will you be willing to pay extra at the pump for the performance boost you're running or not running a comparison with?

Gaps in performance can be explained by weather or regional differences creating lower air pressure (one engine better compensates for higher altitudes). Then there's weight. Then you might look at a factory feature like eTorque. Even if both vehicle have eTorque, one might perform better than the other with eTorque, but if they both didn't have eTorque, then the situation might not be the same. Then there's the added familiarity driving the second vehicle that you didn't have when you put the first one through it's paces.

I've just read too many accounts from people test driving both engines and coming to "definitive conclusions" which continually clash with everyone else. My position is that it's more than subjective. I think that people are accidentally doing a bit of apples-and-oranges and not quite realizing what they've done. And for that reason, I also think that there is not one definitive winner between the two engines unless you get very specific and situational.

Sponsored