3.6 vs 2.0

[Pingbling23]

So it could be 1hp less with 87, correct?
Since nobody seems to know.
Does anybody have a buttdyno and checked??

Is that reasonable?

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

Is that reasonable?

Of course it's not reasonable. There could be no pinging at all with the 2.0 on 87 octane, and the difference would be 0 HP.

Actually even that is not reasonable. The lower octane has a faster burn rate, which should have the same effect as advancing the timing. Assuming that there is room for ignition advancement in the tune, and If the lower octane doesn't ping, there would be an extremely small torque bump with 87 octane.

 

[srt20]

Of course it's not reasonable. There could be no pinging at all with the 2.0 on 87 octane, and the difference would be 0 HP.

Actually even that is not reasonable. The lower octane has a faster burn rate, which should have the same effect as advancing the timing. Assuming that there is room for ignition advancement in the tune, and If the lower octane doesn't ping, there would be an extremely small torque bump with 87 octane.

I agree. And to further expand on this, how many people are driving their vehicles that hard all the time that they would see timing being pulled.

If you are driving normally and somewhat reasonably close to the speed limits, and not towing over your GCVWR, show me where 91 is better than 87. Same for low speed rock crawling. How much boost are you actually building rock crawling?

Id like to see data logs at 2000 rpm at 1/4 throttle. Id bet 91 and 87 are making the exact same hp and using the same amount of fuel.

 

[Pingbling23]

If you have a 2.0, go dyno with regular and premium. If cost is an issue I’m sure we can put some funds together for this.

 

[Headbarcode]

So, just a recap...

Those that chose the v6 have nothing but pessimistic imaginings of the 2.0T, but once having that pointed out, are falling back on the need for premium over regular. Now, after having that requirement pointed out as not being a requirement, there's still the need for so-called "fellow Jeepers" to continue their campaign against what doesn't affect them by arguing the dyno difference between 87 and 93.

Is it just me, or are the sticker and Christmas light threads beginning to look more appealing?

 

[twisty]

So, just a recap...

Those that chose the v6 have nothing but pessimistic imaginings of the 2.0T, but once having that pointed out, are falling back on the need for premium over regular. Now, after having that requirement pointed out as not being a requirement, there's still the need for so-called "fellow Jeepers" to continue their campaign against what doesn't affect them by arguing the dyno difference between 87 and 93.

Is it just me, or are the sticker and Christmas light threads beginning to look more appealing?

lol, for some yeah. I wouldnt want to pay for premium or cheap out and go regular on a engine designed for more even though it says only "recommended". But I'm totally fine if others feel differently.

My main beef is BSG that comes with the 2.0. If it werent for that I'd be on the 2L bandwagon...maybe. But I think the 3.6's come with BSG now too so I probably wouldnt buy either. lol

 

[aldo98229]

To me is much simpler than that: FCA doesn’t have a good track record launching new powertrains, period.

In the past few years:

1. The 3.6 V6 needed new cylinder heads when it first came out in 2012; thankfully, that got fixed right away and the engine has proved itself.
2. The 3.0 EcoDiesel has had a much more troublesome record: engines blowing up on 2014+ Ram pickups as early as 50,000 miles. Then failed emission controls in 2016-17 motors, followed by a recall that detuned the motors and now has those owners incensed

Fiat’s idea of quality control inspires even less confidence.

I don’t want to pay my hard-earned money to fund FCA’s half-cooked 2.0T engine development.

 

[AnnDee4444]

My main beef is BSG that comes with the 2.0. If it werent for that I'd be on the 2L bandwagon...maybe. But I think the 3.6's come with BSG now too so I probably wouldnt buy either. lol

The 2.0 is now available without BSG/eTorque.

 

[18JLRubi]

The fuel economy improvement for in-town driving offered by the 2.0t is very much offset by the significant cost increase for using premium fuel. Around my area, it's at least 50 cents/gal but usually around 70 cents/gal. Assuming you're running the EPA combined mileage, you're actually spending $233 more a year on gas than a 3.6L 6MT with the turbo over 12,000 miles.

I've only put about 1,500 miles on my 3.6L 6MT but I'm averaging 22.5 mpg. No manual offered with a turbo was the dealbreaker for me. But I bet with the auto it's a better daily driver than a V6 with the auto based on how my wife's 2.0t Forester drives. The gearbox in the 6MT is very tall, so I end up having to downshift quite a lot to pass or if traffic slows slightly but I really like the sound of the V6 and the transmission in general aside from the crazy high gearing.

ive switched to 86 with no change in performance or mileage

 

[18JLRubi]

So it could be 1hp less with 87, correct?
Since nobody seems to know.
Does anybody have a buttdyno and checked??

butt dyno says same..... mpg says ditto

 

[18JLRubi]

Of course it's not reasonable. There could be no pinging at all with the 2.0 on 87 octane, and the difference would be 0 HP.

Actually even that is not reasonable. The lower octane has a faster burn rate, which should have the same effect as advancing the timing. Assuming that there is room for ignition advancement in the tune, and If the lower octane doesn't ping, there would be an extremely small torque bump with 87 octane.

 

[apb]

Speaking of "Ancient Aliens" George, I love the progression of crazy:

 

[Headbarcode]

lol, for some yeah. I wouldnt want to pay for premium or cheap out and go regular on a engine designed for more even though it says only "recommended". But I'm totally fine if others feel differently.

My main beef is BSG that comes with the 2.0. If it werent for that I'd be on the 2L bandwagon...maybe. But I think the 3.6's come with BSG now too so I probably wouldnt buy either. lol

As long as an octane that falls within the range of what the engine management programming is capable of adjusting to, it should be perfectly fine to use a lower than recommended octane in a high compression engine. But fine only as long as it's being driven in a normal, civilized fashion. If being raced around, being squeezed for every drop it has to offer, or towing a load at the higher end of its capability than you'll be better off going with the higher recommended octane because now your needing the "optimal performance " quoted from the manual.

I agree with what's been mentioned in every fuel related thread, which is that if fuel price is a concern, get one of the many flavors of fuel efficient vehicles available. I don't race around or tow anything, but I still only use Mobil 93. No clue what the price difference is compared to regular, but whatever it is, it's well worth the price of knowing that I'm doing everything I can for it to make it the long haul.

 

[JROOO]

I have the 2.0, no issues. I drive in extreme weather 7 mo out of the year and park it outside even in the sub zero. I feel that the high altitude goes well with the 2.0. Hope that helps.

 

[George999]

This fuel thing i really never unstood I think we just need to go back to leaded gasoline and forget 87, 91 .93, winter gas, summer gas. It's all a bunch of BS if you ask me, just another way to make more money.

Anyway i just turned in my 2018 JLU 3.6 Sport (issues that couldn't be fixed) and picked up a 2020 JLU Willys 2.0. I went thru the manual and added a pick from it. I think it is pretty clear

Sponsored