3.6 vs 2.0

twisty

Well-Known Member
First Name
bob
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
762
Location
Fountain Hills, Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Rubicon White
The 3.6 is proven. It's also a hoot to drive. Put on 37s and still pulls them convincingly.

Nothing against the 2.0 my mine concern was the battery. Heating and cooling lines to make them continue to work in heat and cold plus it's location and then add replacement costs. It just wasnt for me. A lease would work though.





Advertisement

 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
2,326
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
I ordered the 6. Ive had it for about a year. 13K miles. Great engine, power and torque and known reliability. The 4 is an Alpha Romeo sports car engine retuned and slightly redesigned for the Wrangler. Turning a sports car engine into a truck engine is no easy feat.
I think that the Alpha has the "truck motor". Between the 3.6 & 2.0 the one with higher horsepower, lower torque, and higher redline should be considered the sports car motor.

Its also a new engine and lots of YouTube videos on how complicated the design into the Jeep really is.
I think you are getting the 2.0 confused with eTorque. Both the 3.6 & 2.0 can be had with or without eTorque.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
2,326
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
The 3.6 is a progression of the older engines. thats what I mean with legacy. It follows the steps of older Jeep engine in terms of simplicity and reliability while still delivering needed performance. It is also a chrysler engine that was created before FCA. It is a legacy product.

The 2.0 is entirely a new animal. It is a product that is installed in an alpha romeo (fiat) sports sedan. It is a step towards a new direction.

Also, the fact that was on an older Jeep model (JK) makes it legacy by definition regardles of how many years has this engine been out for.
I concede about the definition of Legacy, but I'm not sure that concern over the other applications for the 2.0 have any validity. This is true of any motor actually. The 2.0 is also in the Stelvio (SUV). The 3.6 is a minivan motor. Hell, even the 4.0 is related to the 258, which was in the Pacer & Gremlin.
 

BullMoose1776

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bull
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
725
Reaction score
1,002
Location
South Texas
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon and 2003 Toyota Land Cruiser
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Project Manager
Let me settle this one and for all. Get the 3.6, unless you have a little extra $$$ to burn, then get the 2.0, unless you have a lot of extra $$$ to burn then get the Diesel, unless you've got a massive amount of $$$ to burn then get the Hemi.

There. It's settled! :flag:
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
2,326
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep

TXJeepScientist

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
211
Reaction score
134
Location
Ft Worth TX
Vehicle(s)
01 Nissan Pathfinder, 08 Honda Civic, 07 Toyota Avalon, 94 Jeep Cherokee, 10 Saab 9.3T
I got the V6 because it has more than enough power for the Jeep. It is a solid engine, strong and reliable. I bought a Jeep, not a pickup truck, not a sports sedan, not a muscle car, a Jeep. The 3.6 is a legacy engine and follows the steps of the old models.

The 3.6 simply fits like a glove in a Jeep, just like 2 doors look and fit much better than 4 doors.

The 2.0 is a great engine and I hope it proves to be reliable. But maintaining a turbo engine will be more costly than the 3.6 in all likelihood. It is more complicated and gets more juice out of a small 2.0.

So yeah, I am happy to sacrifice a few points in torque for a legacy engine that should be reliable and not as hard/expensive to maintain if troubles come along the life of the jeep. The amount of torque it provides is more than sufficient for a Jeep.
Thank you for answering my question before posting!
 

Timmyjoe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
208
Reaction score
357
Location
Northern Illinois
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Wrangler Sport S (2-Door)
For 43 years I've owned 4-cylinder vehicles. Been dreaming of a 2-door Jeep for decades. When we finally bought ours this past summer, I wanted something different. The 3.6 V6 perfectly fit that bill. I notice it's got good power, but I'm a rather conservative driver. My wife, on the other hand, is a bit of a lead foot and she LOVES the pickup and the sound we get from the 3.6.

Just an observation.

Best,
-Tim
 

rayvonp

Well-Known Member
First Name
Patrick
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
48
Reaction score
24
Location
Yelm Washington
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler JlU Sahara
Occupation
Truck Driver
I have an 18 with 2.0 and love it, I run regular in it and I get around 25 mpg. I would most definitely say the 2.0 is worth it and I only say that because I was out of town and rented a 19 with the 3.6 and the gas mileage was only 17.
 

Freebooter

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brad
Joined
Nov 9, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
197
Location
Beaufort, NC
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL 2020 Mojave
Vehicle Showcase
1
I look at this from a little different angle.

So, researched this engine stuff to death. However still open minded when we went to the dealership. Test drove both the 3.6 and a 2.0T and when you pushed on the pedal, they both took off. So no big deal. It was a little strange when one engine cut off at red lights. You just have to experience it and the technology made sense after a little more explanation.. So back at the dealership we had our "which one discussion". I just wanted to take a chance on the new technology! My wife felt the same way so we went with the 2.0T with e-torque. I know......some will say " I'm not spending my hard earned money on unproven technology". Others will just like the ole reliable 3.6. That is understandable, but thank heavens some people took a chance on technology or we would all still be riding horses! I am very comfortable and satisfied with the 2.0. Time will tell.

Here are a few observations: Great gas mileage! I drive like an old man........well, because I am one! 866 mile trip for Thanksgiving at 28.8 mpg. Had a half of tank with regular and topped off with plus. Then plus on the next tank. Don't know if that mattered or not. Usually just burn regular with 27.6 mpg average on the speedometer this afternoon. Plenty of power. 0-45 very peppy........45 to 75 amazing! I think this is where the turbo really kicks in. The 8 speed transmission is also amazing. Can not feel any shifting and cruises around 1600 rpms at 72 mph. Cruise control holds dead on,

Don't be afraid of technology, there is no telling what will be powering our jeeps one day!
 

BullMoose1776

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bull
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
725
Reaction score
1,002
Location
South Texas
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon and 2003 Toyota Land Cruiser
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Project Manager

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
2,326
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Interesting...when I purchased there was a premium for the 2.0 ...I wonder when they reversed that pricing scheme.

Obviously they are trying to sell more 2.0s. probably striving for a fuel economy rating for all vehicles sold by FCA.
I think it's a combination meeting CAFE standards, and that eTorque is an expensive "option".
 

SecondTJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
957
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Also, the fact that was on an older Jeep model (JK) makes it legacy by definition regardles of how many years has this engine been out for.
The JL’s current (PUG) 3.6 was never available in JK
 

entropy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
2,197
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Sport S JL 2-D
Build Thread
Link
Occupation
Data Scientist
The JL’s current (PUG) 3.6 was never available in JK
Same engine with slight modifications due to ESS and other efficiency/power tweaks. Still same engine. It is the reality that the pentastar V6 is a legacy engine, and also proven to be reliable. I am not sure why people keep arguing around this. And the 2.0 is the product of synergy between Fiat and Chrysler. We have a lot of Fiat in the JL even without the 2.0 that's just a fact. And that 2.0 has more Fiat than it has Chrysler. It is not a bad thing necessarily, it is just what it is. Who knows, maybe the 2.0 would prove to be a reliable engine as well, might be even better. We just don't know yet.

It is very unlikely the 2.0 will be more reliable than the 3.6. A turbocharger on a tiny 2.0 engine is not a good idea in terms of reliability, it is actually a terrible idea. It makes the already small engine work harder, increasing the pressure and temperature inside the combustion chamber. This generates strain on pistons, valves and the head gasket. Engines wear out, they all do, and the harder they work, the sooner they wear out. The 2.0 on the Wrangler is pulling a lot of torque out of a very tiny engine, it just doesn't scream "reliability". And this without taking into consideration everything that can go wrong with the turbocharger itself which is already working at very very high temps.

Turbocharged engines are very difficult to make reliable, I hope this one will turn to be a solid engine, but coming out of FCA I have to be honest to myself, the likelihood is so small. And what do you get out of it? an arguably minimal and perhaps negligible boost in performance compared to the pentastar. Is it truly worth the risk? I don't think so.

Europeans love these little engines with a turbocharger, because they have no choice. Anyone who has traveled to Europe and driven around knows the price of gas is insanely high. Europeans are left with small engines, most of their cars are under powered with 1.4 liter or even smaller engines, a 2.0L engine in Europe is considered a large engine. If they want more power out of their small engines they have to add turbochargers. I think it is something around 70% of cars in Europe have turbochargers, they really have no choice. Why do you guys think the 3.6 pentastar is not selling in Europe? Most people won't buy it, they are more likely to buy something with the words "turbo" on it. I've been trying not to be an ass, but that is why FCA put a 2.0 on the Wrangler, to sell it in Europe. It is your choice in the end, but I recommend anyone buying a Wrangler to get the pentastar, because here in America, we can.
 
Last edited:

DadJokes

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
1,432
Reaction score
997
Location
Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
Sahara
Same engine with slight modifications due to ESS and other efficiency/power tweaks. Still same engine. It is the reality that the pentastar V6 is a legacy engine, and also proven to be reliable. I am not sure why people keep arguing around this. And the 2.0 is the product of synergy between Fiat and Chrysler. We have a lot of Fiat in the JL even without the 2.0 that's just a fact. And that 2.0 has more Fiat than it has Chrysler. It is not a bad thing necessarily, it is just what it is. Who knows, maybe the 2.0 would prove to be a reliable engine as well, might be even better. We just don't know yet.

It is very unlikely the 2.0 will be more reliable than the 3.6. A turbocharger on a tiny 2.0 engine is not a good idea in terms of reliability, it is actually a terrible idea. It makes the already small engine work harder, increasing the pressure and temperature inside the combustion chamber. This generates strain on pistons, valves and the head gasket. Engines wear out, they all do, and the harder they work, the sooner they wear out. The 2.0 on the Wrangler is pulling a lot of torque out of a very tiny engine, it just doesn't scream "reliability". And this without taking into consideration everything that can go wrong with the turbocharger itself which is already working at very very high temps.

Turbocharged engines are very difficult to make reliable, I hope this one will turn to be a solid engine, but coming out of FCA I have to be honest to myself, the likelihood is so small. And what do you get out of it? an arguably minimal and perhaps negligible boost in performance compared to the pentastar. Is it truly worth the risk? I don't think so.

Europeans love these little engines with a turbocharger, because they have no choice. Anyone who has traveled to Europe and driven around knows the price of gas is insanely high. Europeans are left with small engines, most of their cars are under powered with 1.4 liter or even smaller engines, a 2.0L engine in Europe is considered a large engine. If they want more power out of their small engines they have to add turbochargers. I think it is something around 70% of cars in Europe have turbochargers, they really have no choice. Why do you guys think the 3.6 pentastar is not selling in Europe? Most people won't buy it, they are more likely to buy something with the words "turbo" on it. I've been trying not to be an ass, but that is why FCA put a 2.0 on the Wrangler, to sell it in Europe. It is your choice in the end, but I recommend anyone buying a Wrangler to get the pentastar, because here in America, we can.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your summation, I’d suggest that there are unknowns that you are assuming such as the durability of the short block and the low RPM operating valvetrain. I’d suggest anyone do research on the durability on the GME and earlier Multiair engines before making a guess as to the long term reliability.

VS a more simple 3.6, there may or may not be a significant difference in reliability. Back in the day - NA 4cyl vs NA V6... I’d take the V6 because you didn’t have to wind it up as much to get the power one needed in that instant. There may be some truth to this when comparing the broader torque curve of the turbo 2.0. That would depend on the owner of course. Revolutions demanded over the life of the engine will be a wear factor, more so than a properly sealed and bolstered cylinder liner and combustion chamber. The 2.0 has a low rpm ceiling which will help to an unknown degree. It’s not unlike the same principles as a low rpm operating diesel in regards to valvetrain stability & reliability perhaps. I’d be more concerned about the Etorque failing than anything and for a daily drive/part time off roading vehicle, maybe not as much.

Mercedes has a 400+ hp 2.0. Being rated and engineered for the 280-350 hp range, I won’t be concerned about the 2.0 just yet. I’m sure the bean counters and lawyers don’t want to be concerned about warranty work for a CAFE pushed engine that is likely a more expensive piece over the 3.6.

And someone shared a video where someone said the engine was “different” from the Alfa and built in a different factory. I don’t have it here with me but I’m quite sure my window sticker showed Italy as the engine plant. Even Wiki says they are built separately but we know the editors can be wrong. I’d guess the small differences are due to packaging restrictions and maybe even water fording considerations. The power and torque difference is in the 10 range for either so I’d wager the difference is insignificant thus comparing the two is a safe bet considering they are both GME’s.

After owning my Alfa, I wanted the 2.0. The Etorque’s ESS in the Jeep is better than the starter caused delay and abruptness in the Giulia.

We’ll know if the average owner sees a significant reliability difference between the two in a few years. In the Alfa, so far so good.
 

Advertisement




Smart Stop Start
 



Advertisement
Top