3.6 vs 2.0

[Kenc]

Agreed. The new auto transmission makes the 3.6 feel like is gained 100 hp from the old JK version.

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

Besides, it is a Fiat motor; good luck with that. I should know, my other car is a Fiat.

Please explain.

 

[YYCSahara]

I didn’t like 2.0T much. It felt jerky and unrefined compared to the V6.

Besides, it is a Fiat motor; good luck with that. I should know, my other car is a Fiat.

I thought I read on these forums the 2.0T in the Wrangler is a Detroit design specifically for the Jeep and only loosely related to what is in the Alfa.

 

[ChimpanZed]

... but the 3.6 with manual is very very fun to drive .. they need to offer manual in all variations

Agreed, especially when the 3.6 manual is paired with 4.10:1 gears. The new 6 speed and shifter are excellent (the JK 6 speed felt like I was driving a combine).

 

[AnnDee4444]

I thought I read on these forums the 2.0T in the Wrangler is a Detroit design specifically for the Jeep and only loosely related to what is in the Alfa.

From what I can tell, they share a block & rotating assembly. There were rumors about one being open vs. closed deck, but I think those were proven false.

 

[BRuby]

Agreed. The new auto transmission makes the 3.6 feel like is gained 100 hp from the old JK version.

Pretty much. Especially with the Rubicon 4.10 axle gear ratio. Thing is designed to go slow and crawl anyways. Way too high COG for sporty handling or really high speeds. The 8 speed is actually much better than expected and makes steep rock crawling a breeze with lockers on and sway disconnected.

We always switch into Manual Mode anyways when going up and down single track in low range. Disclaimer we do have 3 other vehicles that are stick. So no disrespect to manual shift vehicles. For plain fun - stick is always more fun rowing through the gears. No doubt about that.

 

[TrailJoy]

I have no issue with people preferring the 2.0 over my preferred engine. I’m not surprised more people seem to like it more actually. With that said I’m going to doubt any review that says the 8speed is sluggish compared to the 6speed. That’s just blatantly false especially if you’ve driven a 3.6 JK.

I don't think comparing it to a 6 speed JK is a fair comparison at all. I will absolutely agree that it's sluggish when compared to the 2L Turbo though. It has more muscle (granted) and it feels more refined (etc, etc), and it DEFINITELY wins on the highway, but it most definitely lacks in the "get up and go" in lower speed city driving.

 

[Strommen95]

I don't think comparing it to a 6 speed JK is a fair comparison at all. I will absolutely agree that it's sluggish when compared to the 2L Turbo though. It has more muscle (granted) and it feels more refined (etc, etc), and it DEFINITELY wins on the highway, but it most definitely lacks in the "get up and go" in lower speed city driving.

Comes down to preference. The 3.6 has a linear consistent delivery and the 2.0's is curvy which messes with peoples perception. I imagine those with a heavy foot would like the 2.0 more. The performance is roughly the same with a slight nod in the 2.0's favor except at elevation.

C&D

Unlimited Sahara 3.6

Curb weight: 4469 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph


Unlimited Sahara 2.0 BSG

Curb weight: 4549 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 27.7 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.6 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph

 

[Pingbling23]

surprised about the 30-50 and 50-70 times. with all that extra torque, i figured the 2.0t would be quicker there. my 3.6 feels alot quicker then i expected a jeep to feel regardless. i wonder if all the 2.0 feels so much quicker is really from the way a turbo engine performs.

 

[AnnDee4444]

I imagine those with a heavy foot would like the 2.0 more.

This is especially true for people who want to mod. $479 = +55 HP on the 2.0: https://burgertuning.com/products/j...MI9OOKkbDn5QIVzCCtBh200ACiEAQYASABEgLUzPD_BwE

 

[aldo98229]

I own a fun --but rather schizophrenic-- Fiat 124 Spider Abarth with an eager 1.4 turbo motor, a buttery smooth 6-speed manual transmission, and a raucous exhaust in a car that weighs 2,300 lbs --or half a JL!

I need my Sahara with V6 and 8-speed automatic to be my relaxed cruiser.

 

[ODDs]

Comes down to preference. The 3.6 has a linear consistent delivery and the 2.0's is curvy which messes with peoples perception. I imagine those with a heavy foot would like the 2.0 more. The performance is roughly the same with a slight nod in the 2.0's favor except at elevation.

C&D

Unlimited Sahara 3.6

Curb weight: 4469 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 28.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph


Unlimited Sahara 2.0 BSG

Curb weight: 4549 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 27.7 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.6 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 90 mph

I'm curious why the rolling start 5-60 mph times are longer that the 0-60 times? I would think they would be less.

 

[Pingbling23]

I'm curious why the rolling start 5-60 mph times are longer that the 0-60 times? I would think they would be less.

launching a vehicle is faster then staring at a low rpm that is going 5mph. from a launch, brake boost and you can feel the difference.

 

[AnnDee4444]

I'm curious why the rolling start 5-60 mph times are longer that the 0-60 times? I would think they would be less.

I just tested my 2.0 JLR, and rolling at 5 MPH is 2nd gear. The transmission has to downshift, then get past the boost threshold before anything really starts to happen.

 

[Odyssey USA]

From what I can tell, they share a block & rotating assembly. There were rumors about one being open vs. closed deck, but I think those were proven false.

Yes, they’re both open deck. I’d say they’re essentially the same even though it seems the Jeep is a twin cam and the Alfa is said to be a single cam as they are both “Hurricane” FCA GME and are rated within 10hp. I really should pop the hood on my Giulia and Jeep and take a good look some time.

Sponsored