3.6 vs 2.0

[Canyonero JL]

Ok, I'll bite.

Just how is the 3.6L better designed for towing at high speeds than the 2.0?

I think the 2.0 L is harder to cool running at high engine load and high speed for prolonged periods.

Sponsored

 

[SecondTJ]

Ok, I'll bite.

Just how is the 3.6L better designed for towing at high speeds than the 2.0?

Jeep official response on why no 2.0 was

“the 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing”

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2020-jeep-gladiator-no-turbo-engine-heres-why/

 

[OnlyOne]

I think if you’re at higher altitudes you’ll definitely want the Turbo. I’ve had both and although the V6 is a terrific motor, it doesn’t hold a candle to the Turbo up here. No comparison.

 

[Hudson]

Had started a similar thread when I was shopping. Honest, both great engines. I do feel that the Sport and Sahara are well matched with the 2.0 and get fantastic MPGs, where the Rubicon’s 3.6 and 2.0 seem to be a wash, at least on the 2 door, with the MPGs being closer, and the cost of the premium offsetting the slightly lower MPG of the 3.6.

I would be happy with either, liked that the 2020 had no etorque - even though it added some off the line oomph, the long term viability of the etorque gave me pause. Ultimately chose the 3.6 for all reasons mentioned here (plus longer service intervals with plug changes) but would be very tempted to opt for the 2.0 with a non-Rubicon model, especially if I lived in higher elevations where the turbo shines.

 

[DonBindas]

Had started a similar thread when I was shopping. Honest, both great engines. I do feel that the Sport and Sahara are well matched with the 2.0 and get fantastic MPGs, where the Rubicon’s 3.6 and 2.0 seem to be a wash, at least on the 2 door, with the MPGs being closer, and the cost of the premium offsetting the slightly lower MPG of the 3.6.

I would be happy with either, liked that the 2020 had no etorque - even though it added some off the line oomph, the long term viability of the e-torque gave me pause. Ultimately chose the 3.6 for all reasons mentioned here (plus longer service intervals with plug changes) but would be very tempted to opt for the 2.0 with a non-Rubicon model, especially if I lived in higher elevations where the turbo shines.

I agree. The e-torque was great on the lesser models, but the Rubicon with the 3.6 and 33 inch tires pulls like a tractor with the standard 4:10 gears from the factory

 

[Odyssey USA]

It’s the BTU’s created at hwy towing speeds vs Jeeps designed cooling capacity they gave the 3.6 and 2.0. The 2.0 is creating more BTU’s under load at towing engine speeds, where it shines down low. I can see that being more of a concern with the 2.0 for heavy towing. I’d wager the diesel has as much cooling capacity as can be crammed into that engine bay as is possible. Isn’t the towing capacity low on that one, as in no more than the gas engines? Sounds like a frontal radiator problem vs BTU created limiting factor there.

 

[ViperJon]

Jeep had to clarify 2.0 octane requirement because FCA originally stated 91+ on the window sticker and owners manual.

There he is....yet again. Desperately reaching for and posting any possible negative comment on the turbo and yet doesn’t even own a JL. How pathetic.

 

[DocTwinkie]

Loved the etorque in the Ram ans when I test drove the rubicon back in 2018. But a manual is more fun and cuts thousands off the bill. To me the auto just isn’t worth the money so 3.6 it is.

 

[Strommen95]

There he is....yet again. Desperately reaching for and posting any possible negative comment on the turbo and yet doesn’t even own a JL. How pathetic.

Again, like the other forum instead of posting anything reasonable or worth discussing you just bitch and moan over supposed 2.0 naysayers.. It’s pretty pathetic at this point. FCA did say the 2.0 needed 91 and then backtracked clarifying it runs fine on 87. That’s not being negative, it’s just a fact. I don’t see what’s so negative about that or why it twists your panties so much.

If you can’t handle reading pros and cons on a discussion forum you shouldn’t be on forums at all

 

[GtX]

It’s the BTU’s created at hwy towing speeds vs Jeeps designed cooling capacity they gave the 3.6 and 2.0. The 2.0 is creating more BTU’s under load at towing engine speeds, where it shines down low. I can see that being more of a concern with the 2.0 for heavy towing. I’d wager the diesel has as much cooling capacity as can be crammed into that engine bay as is possible. Isn’t the towing capacity low on that one, as in no more than the gas engines? Sounds like a frontal radiator problem vs BTU created limiting factor there.

I've read somewhere it's due to the suspension set up on the Wrangler. At almost 450 ftlb of torque the diesel can tow more than 3500.

 

[Rolling Ragu]

The 3.5 eco ford was a beast in comparison to the 3.6?

At 450 horsepower and 510 pound-feet, 0-60 in 5.1 for a half ton truck, towed my travel trailer at low rpm's like it wasn't there...yes, a beast.

Sorry, off topic. I'm done.

 

[Rolling Ragu]

twin turbo no doubt it pulls more than the n/a 3.6. 8000lbs tow rating for a truck. meh

Actually, mine was spec'd different than the one I quoted. The tow rating on mine was 11,300lbs.

My point, related to the topic here, is that I had become accustomed to a very capable forced induction engine and I feel no deficit with the 3.6 Pentastar. It is obvious the 2.0 provides improved performance in most conditions, but for me, it adds complexity to something that doesn't require it. I bought into added complexity with the Ecoboost because the risk to reward was higher in that application. My opinion swayed the other way with the Jeep.

 

[ViperJon]

Again, like the other forum instead of posting anything reasonable or worth discussing you just bitch and moan over supposed 2.0 naysayers.. It’s pretty pathetic at this point. FCA did say the 2.0 needed 91 and then backtracked clarifying it runs fine on 87. That’s not being negative, it’s just a fact. I don’t see what’s so negative about that or why it twists your panties so much.
If you can’t handle reading pros and cons on a discussion forum you shouldn’t be on forums at all

Because he has posted negative things about the Turbo CONSTANTLY over and over both here and other forums as you know. There are no pro's....just cons. Dozens upon dozens of times for months. Usually it's a long diatribe about what "will" go wrong with the turbo down the road and all the reasons why based on absolutely nothing but future speculation. Like you said, I'm free to express my opinion as well. He's just a JK owning troll. At what point is enough finally enough and not to mention the FACT he doesn't even own a JL in any form and yet is constantly here?

 

[DonBindas]

Because he has posted negative things about the Turbo CONSTANTLY over and over both here and other forums as you know. There are no pro's....just cons. Dozens upon dozens of times for months. Usually it's a long diatribe about what "will" go wrong with the turbo down the road and all the reasons why based on absolutely nothing but future speculation. Like you said, I'm free to express my opinion as well. He's just a JK owning troll. At what point is enough finally enough and not to mention the FACT he doesn't even own a JL in any form and yet is constantly here?

Come on, enough!

I rented the 2.0 for a week and loved it, but my 3.6 in a Rubicon with the standard factory 4:10 gears pulls like a tractor.

I can make a case for either power train, so maybe we can drop the argument and move on?

 

[Wabujitsu]

Some like to drive hammers and others prefer sling shots?

I posit that the 2.0T is a hammer AND a slingshot. Acceleration is ridiculously spunky for a two-liter. And as it has more overall torque than the 3.6 and it is available at the low end of RPMs, it has more hammer in my opinion.

With that said...BOTH engines are excellent; you cannot go wrong with either!

Sponsored