3.6 vs 2.0

[SecondTJ]

the 3.6 has more overall parts that could be failure prone (2x head gaskets, 1.5x valves, 2x exhaust manifolds, 1.5x coils, etc.)

Both the 3.6 & 2.0 use integrated exhaust manifolds. So they aren’t supposed to go bad and last the life of the motor without issue. Time will tell of course.

Sponsored

 

[melman8r]

I opted for the 3.6 for one reason, it's not direct injection. Plain and simple. DI motors are a maintenance nightmare, especially if you plan on keeping the Wrangler well past the extended warranty period.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Both the 3.6 & 2.0 use integrated exhaust manifolds. So they aren’t supposed to go bad and last the life of the motor without issue. Time will tell of course.

It's not really about the exhaust manifolds, it's about having 1.5-2 times as many failure points on specific items. If the exhaust manifold does happen to be an issue, you have twice as many to be concerned with on the 3.6.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the 2.0 is the simpler motor, but everyone seems to neglect these drawbacks of a V6 when compared to an inline 4.

 

[SecondTJ]

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.

It’s because of taxes.

Many European countries charge a tax based on engine displacement. Taxation above 2,000cc on a gas engine is ludicrous.

 

[Odyssey USA]

They share bore, stroke, bore-center spacing and little else.

It’s a totally different engine. People are often confused because of the same displacement.

Link to what you’ve found?

There’s a user called MacGeek that pops in from time to time on the Giulia forums (I own a 2.0 Giulia too) and he broke out blueprints on the 2.0 to show us that Allpar and many other regurgitate the same incorrect information. For example, Allpar claims a closed deck block for the Alfas but an open deck block on the Jeeps. He showed the Alfa is open deck as well. It’s suspected he’s either a secondary supplier with info access or works for FCA in Italy as he’s been dead on right with information that is requested and he sporadically answers. The Jeep 2.0 and Alfa 2.0 are both known as GME “Hurricane”. That’s just something to consider.

Like there are different accessory orientation castings for engine blocks through history, some I’ve seen firsthand in automotive machining, the differences are typically minor. An Alfa doesn’t have a belt starter generator optional on the 2.0 so perhaps the bosses aren’t there or there’s another boss for a bolt/bracket there. There could be packaging constraints that cause differences too. If you have more information to link as to differences I’d be interested to see it.

 

[Odyssey USA]

My 2019 2.0 was built in the US per my window sticker, so that’s pretty interesting. Wonder why the change.

There are two plants the GME “Hurricane” engine is manufactured in.

 

[aldo98229]

I opted for the 3.6 for one reason, it's not direct injection. Plain and simple. DI motors are a maintenance nightmare, especially if you plan on keeping the Wrangler well past the extended warranty period.

Direct Injection also adds NVH. I hated the DI 3.5 V6 in my Toyota Tacoma for that reason.

 

[Hudson]

Even though I opted for the 3.6, the doomsday speculation on the 2.0 in this thread borders on the absurd. Modern turbo engines can go the distance - easily the distance most drivers are apt to keep their Jeeps. My guess is that 150k miles is no issue for these engines, and likely to see other issues crop up well before the engine itself has problems. Things like water pumps, cooling systems, and electronic gremlins.

I have two turbo Diesel engines that i have zero worries about, and I’d have fewer worries about this engine, other than some questions about the direct injection.

I just preferred the 3.6 over the non etorque 2.0, but really liked the etorque 2.0 though not it’s added complexity.

By the time I need to worry about either engine, it will be handed down to one of my sons.

 

[Odyssey USA]

I opted for the 3.6 for one reason, it's not direct injection. Plain and simple. DI motors are a maintenance nightmare, especially if you plan on keeping the Wrangler well past the extended warranty period.

Ford added a port injector back to the Ecoboost 3.5 just for the sole purpose of fuel cleaning the back of the intake valve. I “think” there are others headed that direction unless this SN Plus significantly helps reduce deposits of which I’m skeptical of it helping significantly but hoping it does. Some DI are worse than others it seems.

 

[SecondTJ]

Link to what you’ve found?

There’s a user called MacGeek that pops in from time to time on the Giulia forums (I own a 2.0 Giulia too) and he broke out blueprints on the 2.0 to show us that Allpar and many other regurgitate the same incorrect information. For example, Allpar claims a closed deck block for the Alfas but an open deck block on the Jeeps. He showed the Alfa is open deck as well. It’s suspected he’s either a secondary supplier with info access or works for FCA in Italy as he’s been dead on right with information that is requested and he sporadically answers. The Jeep 2.0 and Alfa 2.0 are both known as GME “Hurricane”. That’s just something to consider.

Like there are different accessory orientation castings for engine blocks through history, some I’ve seen firsthand in automotive machining, the differences are typically minor. An Alfa doesn’t have a belt starter generator optional on the 2.0 so perhaps the bosses aren’t there or there’s another boss for a bolt/bracket there. There could be packaging constraints that cause differences too. If you have more information to link as to differences I’d be interested to see it.

https://www.dealers-mopar.com/download/playbook/master-tech-nov-2015-update-718.pdf

“The new engine looks quite a bit like the current Pentastar (Figure 2), but nearly every component is redesigned and assigned a new part number.“

 

[Odyssey USA]

https://www.dealers-mopar.com/download/playbook/master-tech-nov-2015-update-718.pdf

“The new engine looks quite a bit like the current Pentastar (Figure 2), but nearly every component is redesigned and assigned a new part number.“

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the 2.0 and I would have been really interested to find out the Jeep and Alfa 2.0 differences even if they were minute.

As to the upgrades to the 3.6, they made a lot of changes for the better looking at your link there. Definitely not my old ‘15 GC 3.6.

 

[entropy]

https://www.dealers-mopar.com/download/playbook/master-tech-nov-2015-update-718.pdf

“The new engine looks quite a bit like the current Pentastar (Figure 2), but nearly every component is redesigned and assigned a new part number.“

This is completely normal and it happens to most engines that are out for a while. Engineering is about always improving your product, redesigning components and assigning them new numbers doesn't make it a "completely different engine" in engineering terms. It is the same concept, just upgraded. the V6 pentastar saw major changes in 2016, I am aware of that, and it was done for the good, so if anything it is even better than the older V6 pentastar. See, the pentastar when it came out had its few issues that have been fixed through the years.

 

[Bigdagdaman]

I was in Europe for 8 years where the 2.0L turbos are common along with the engine stop. It was a no brainer for me for 2.0L turbo. I have since rented a bunch of jeeps for business and funny enough after 5 minutes of driving I was wondering if I was driving the V6 or 2.0L. If I had to do it again I would still take the 2.0L due to fuel mileage and I find it quick of the mark and very quick at accelerating at highway speeds vs the V6.

 

[twisty]

I was in Europe for 8 years where the 2.0L turbos are common along with the engine stop. It was a no brainer for me for 2.0L turbo. I have since rented a bunch of jeeps for business and funny enough after 5 minutes of driving I was wondering if I was driving the V6 or 2.0L. If I had to do it again I would still take the 2.0L due to fuel mileage and I find it quick of the mark and very quick at accelerating at highway speeds vs the V6.

I have heard this from some and from others saying they really couldnt tell which was faster. In some half arse tests in videos I posted it seems they couldnt really tell that much and the v6 was faster but not by much.

So if a wash, you just pick one, sounds like you cant go wrong.

 

[TrailJoy]

I was in Europe for 8 years where the 2.0L turbos are common along with the engine stop. It was a no brainer for me for 2.0L turbo. I have since rented a bunch of jeeps for business and funny enough after 5 minutes of driving I was wondering if I was driving the V6 or 2.0L. If I had to do it again I would still take the 2.0L due to fuel mileage and I find it quick of the mark and very quick at accelerating at highway speeds vs the V6.

That's interesting! We found that the V6 has more evenly distributed power, wheras the 2L has more up front (faster to go, but slower at high speeds). To me this made the V6 feel smooth and steady, but the 2L felt FAR more zippy. If you're comparing 0-60 though, the V6 was SLIGHTLY faster (I think it was just under a second) to reach 60 but the power was all between 40-60, wheras the 2L Turbo was between 10-40. I do a lot of city driving, so for me the 2L was WORLDS more fun for me to drive than the V6.

Sponsored