3.6 WITH Etorque vs. 2.0 Turbo (no Etorque)

MaineLine

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Location
ME-->MA North Shore
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Tahoe
I apologize if this topic has been discussed but I can't find this specific comparison. Can someone tell me what engine feels quicker and more responsive (fun to drive)? The 2.0 Turbo or the 3.6 WITH Etorque? I know the original 3.6 is a little sluggish and the new 2.0 Turbo sounds a little "pingy" or is more noisy, but also has more torque and less HP. People seem to like both motors. Wondering if the new 3.6 with Etorque really makes the old 3.6 quicker and more fun to drive or I should just go with the 2.0 Turbo. I'm not going to do a lot of mods, but going to go up a size in tire and put 33s on. Anyone drive them both or have experience with these that can share an opinion?
Advertisement

 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,776
Reaction score
3,103
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
You'll never get everyone to agree on this topic.

Now where is that dead horse gif...
 

JeepinJason33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
556
Reaction score
517
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon V6 with Etorque - just starting build. 2019 Grand Cherokee SRT, 2001 XJ mild build, 97 TJ supercharged, Atlas, cage, 1 tons, OBA etc. 83 Cherokee Chief Restored
I test drove both engines here in Denver. I did not notice enough of a difference with the turbo to make me go that direction. However, I have never driven a 3.6 without the eTorque for a reference on the difference between the 3.6 without it. Would be curious to know if anyone has driven both to know if there is much difference between the 3.6 offerings.

My decision on the 3.6 was more long term. I expect at some point after the warranty runs out I may supercharge it as I did my 4.0 in my TJ. It is a fairly bolt on process and one I enjoyed working on and was very happy with the results. I also did not like the sound of the 4 banger turbo... Had to really wind it up and it sounded more like a ricer than a Jeep.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,776
Reaction score
3,103
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
sounded more like a ricer than a Jeep.
The 2.0 sound always reminded me of a tractor, with it's noisy direct injection and low-ish redline. FWIW: It's literally half of a V8 with a flat-plane crank, and people seem to like those a lot.

I don't particularly enjoy the sound of a 60° V6 either (especially Infiniti/Nissan).
 

HarleyMike

Active Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
68
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2021 Rubicon, 2013 Ford Raptor
Occupation
Retired US Navy
I was out looking for my Rubicon and NEVER even considering the 2.0. The only Jeep on the lot that had everything I wanted on it had the 2.0 so I walked away from it. The sales guy challenged me to do a little research on it and test drive both saying it might surprise you as it did all of them. A few days later wife and I did just that and were both so impressed we recently ordered our Rubicon with the 2.0. As said here go test drive them......for us it just felt lighter on its feet more nimble and more fun to drive. I didn't buy it for the sound I have a 6.2 Raptor for that ;-)
 

TheRaven

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
519
Reaction score
644
Location
Reading, Pennsylvania
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU 80th, 2020 Challenger Scat Pack, 2010 Tahoe Z71
FCA really makes some head-scratching decisions, and the engines for the Wrangler are a great example. The 2.0l has more peak power and torque, but the 3.6l has a flatter and broader torque curve, so it makes good power earlier and later than the 2.0l. In practice, there's very little difference between the two. The V6 should be the better choice if you tow or haul, and the 2.0l should get you slightly better gas mileage while being just a tick faster than the V6. That's on paper...from my test drive the 2.0l felt laggy, and as a result the V6 felt faster to me.

The big decider for me was NVH...the 2.0l is LOUD and rough. I have a Challenger 392 and you can't hear or feel that thing idling in the garage while in my son's second floor bedroom on the other side of the house, but the 2.0l you can clearly hear and feel. That's ridiculous. Furthermore, if you plan to keep your Wrangler for the long term you are virtually guaranteed to spend more on the 2.0l.

Having said all that, if you plan to buy a Wrangler off the lot you are almost definitely going to end up with a 2.0l. V6's only end up on lots if they're canceled orders.
 

Zandcwhite

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
2,221
Location
Patterson, ca
Vehicle(s)
2019 jlur
If you mostly drive at sea level, the engines are very similar in performance. At 6,000 feet the 3.6L will lose roughly 18% of its power and the 2.0t will lose ~6%. N/A motors generally lose 3% per 1,000 ft of elevation, forced induction motors are closer to 1% per 1,000 ft. Go up to 12,000 feet and the 3.6 is a total dog. The 2.0t at that elevation will still zip right up even the steepest grades. Yes I've driven both at altitude, and I'm glad we went with the 2.0t.
 

Vinman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Vince
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
361
Reaction score
769
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon
I had the luxury of having a rental Sahara 2.0 for a couple of months (in fact, driving that rig caused me to buy my Rubicon) while also having my 3.6 e-torque Rubicon.
Both had auto trannies and I can say the 2.0 was more fun to drive, it felt peppier and simply accelerated much quicker from any speed.

Now, in the Rubicon’s defense, it does weigh about 350-400 lbs more than the Sahara so if you’re comparing two Rubicon’s with different engines it may feel closer in power.

I researched a bit before choosing the 3.6 and the general consensus was they are similar power wise.

I chose the 3.6 primarily because I’m still not sold on small displacement turbo charged engines lasting as long as a NA engine.

One other thing, the Sahara got significantly better fuel economy than the still stock Rubicon, like about 20% better.
 
Last edited:

Packnbeer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jamie
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
91
Reaction score
125
Location
Davenport, Iowa
Vehicle(s)
2021 Jeep Wrangler Sport S 2-Door
you ask 50 people and you will get 50 answers. I encourage you to drive both. I liked the 2.0 better. I have a 2" lift and am running 33's with 20" rims. This thing has a lot of snap and i still get over 22mpg on the interstate. The 2.0 just felt more zippy to me than the V6. I was very surprised because I was hell bent on the V6 until I drove both.
 

JeepinJason33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
556
Reaction score
517
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon V6 with Etorque - just starting build. 2019 Grand Cherokee SRT, 2001 XJ mild build, 97 TJ supercharged, Atlas, cage, 1 tons, OBA etc. 83 Cherokee Chief Restored
As mentioned before, this is a never ending topic. The one figure I always see quoted is the amount of power the 3.6 losses at altitude. This is almost always posted by people that don't live at altitude for some reason, which is funny because below 1,000 feet the loss is minimal if any! I can tell you that I drove both at 7,000 feet and could not feel enough noticeable difference between the two. I went with the 3.6 and have since driven above 11,000 feet many times, including up to Pike's Peak and Estes Park which are both among the highest drivable summits in the US and never wished for more power as I could easily stay within the speed limit fully loaded with gear and passengers.
 

Xcoaste

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
281
Reaction score
386
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR - Past - '13 JKU, '97 TJ, '93 YJ
You won’t tell a difference between the 3.6 w/eTorque or just the 3.6 besides the auto start stop. They both drive the same way.
 

Zandcwhite

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zach
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
2,221
Location
Patterson, ca
Vehicle(s)
2019 jlur
I had the luxury of having a rental Sahara 2.0 for a couple of months (in fact, driving that rig caused me to buy my Rubicon) while also having my 3.6 e-torque Rubicon.
Both had auto trannies and I can say the 2.0 was more fun to drive, it felt peppier and simply accelerated much quicker from any speed.

Now, in the Rubicon’s defense, it does weigh about 350-400 lbs more than the Sahara so if you’re comparing two Rubicon’s with different engines it may feel closer in power.

I researched a bit before choosing the 3.6 and the general consensus was they are similar power wise.

I chose the 3.6 primarily because I’m still not sold on small displacement turbo charged engines lasting as long as a NA engine.

One other thing, the Sahara got significantly better fuel economy than the still stock Rubicon, like about 20% better.
The Sahara has 3.45 gears and still felt like it had more pep. Imagine the difference of they were geared alike. If you don't drive them hard, I could see why some don't feel a difference. If you use quick throttle inputs to get into boost quicker, the 2.0 is definitely more fun to drive to me.
 
OP
OP

MaineLine

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Location
ME-->MA North Shore
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Tahoe
Hahah I'm sorry guys. I'm obviously new to this forum and this is my first Jeep (trading in a Chevy Tahoe). I'm overwhelmed by the choices and it's not easy to find answers. It's like going to a restaurant and the menu is 15 pages long and it takes you an hour to decide what you want and then right after you place your order you reconsider and think you ordered the wrong thing. I don't want to get stuck eating a shitty salad and wish I got a burger.

I also would have test drove them both but the dealer only had the 2.0T on the lot. I'm going to another dealer today to drive them both and will report back. Thank you all for the advice.
 
Advertisement

Bestop
 
Advertisement
Top