3.6 WITH Etorque vs. 2.0 Turbo (no Etorque)

[hybrid3.0]

As posted elsewhere, eTorque battery and components are considered emissions equipment and covered by an 8yr/80k mile factory warranty. Since the eTorque motor servers as both alternator and starter motor for the engine, you replace these items with a controller, battery and motor components which are covered better than the 3yr/36k bumper-to-bumper warranty for the items replaced. As Wranglers continue to be used as they age and switch from DD to trail duty, one can only surmise how eTorque will be viewed in a 12+ y.o. used vehicle with these systems vs. a standalone ICE.

Sponsored

 

[Strommen95]

At what point will the 2.0 have enough history to be seen a reliable option? We're currently in the 4th model year for the JL, with parts of the engine having been in production for 7 model years.

Not to speak for the guy but I assume he bought in 2018 or 2019. At this point any glaring weaknesses would’ve showed with the 2.0.

I went with the 3.6 myself (2.0 was a non-starter due to no 6MT for it) but I don't understand all this history talk on the 3.6. The 3.6 that's in the JL is brand new...tons of new components and (very) high compression. I'm not worried about it by any means, I just don't think all the "tried and true" talk is accurate.

Sorry but that’s a straw man argument. The 3.6 was refined. It’s “technically” a brand new engine (even though 2016 was 5 years ago) but the PUG 3.6 is 90% the same as the original. Outside of 2012 with the heads it’s earned the benefit of the doubt over the years.

 

[beaups]

Not to speak for the guy but I assume he bought in 2018 or 2019. At this point any glaring weaknesses would’ve showed with the 2.0.




Sorry but that’s a straw man argument. The 3.6 was refined. It’s “technically” a brand new engine (even though 2016 was 5 years ago) but the PUG 3.6 is 90% the same as the original. Outside of 2012 with the heads it’s earned the benefit of the doubt over the years.

Straw man? No. 90% the same? Do you have some detailed parts list or are you guessing? Entirely new cylinder heads with VVT, increased compression, reduced oil capacity with different viscosity requirements (which points to a lot of changed internals). It will probably turn out to be a great reliable motor, it just isn’t as “tried and true” as everyone around here likes to say.

 

[Buddy Lee]

I came from a 2014 Rubicon with a CAI, Exhaust and a Superchip programmer setting of 93 which produced the most performance. When I purchased my 2021 JL Rubicon I went with the 2.0. Comparing the two, the new 2.0 is hands down more fun to drive and feels much stronger. As far as reliability it's been around long enough to convince me it's a solid engine. The only unknown at this point is the carbonizing issue with the valves. The guys running catch cans on the forum have yet to report any captured oil, so FCA probably designed a decent PVC system. Worst case I might have to have the valves cleaned at some point in the engines life. I know my 3.6 wasn't bullet proof and I had to replace the thermostat right before I sold it.

 

[WrangleDangle]

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 ;-)

I think that the 2.0 is designed to use PREMIUM gas. It will run on regular, but will lose gas mileage. I went with the 3.6 because it has plenty of power and the engine seems to have a good reputation.

 

[Rumplemenz]

At what point will the 2.0 have enough history to be seen a reliable option? We're currently in the 4th model year for the JL, with parts of the engine having been in production for 7 model years.

I am far more concerned with eTorque failing than the 2.0.

Dont tell me that lol. I wld have got the 2.0 after this post damit. I guess u make a good pt. But i do remember him telling me the 3.6 is a great engine so maybe hes partial

 

[AnnDee4444]

Dont tell me that lol. I wld have got the 2.0 after this post damit. I guess u make a good pt. But i do remember him telling me the 3.6 is a great engine so maybe hes partial

For what it's worth, I own a 2018 with eTorque and haven't had any eTorque related issues. There have been some charging issues documented in other threads, but they seem to only be caused by long periods of 4-low (my theory is that they're overheating the inverter with too much A/C).

Then again, the second smaller battery that you get without eTorque has been problematic for some as well. Either way it's a gamble, so you should probably just get what you like best.

 

[west tex]

I'm going with the 2.0 mainly because the E-torque system adds complexity I'd rather avoid. For that matter, I've never been a big fan of turbos, either.

But, oh, well...

 

[BenDiem]

^^^ lol, that’s my rationale as well...
Great thread. I’m still gonna aggravate over this until the day that I put in my order, lol...

 

[duckintheface]

drove both and went with the 2.0. hands down. YMMV

 

[YYCSahara]

I live at altitude and drove both. Turbo felt much better. I have the old turbo with etorque. Almost 2 year and 0 issues. Tried premium gas a few times and noticed 0 difference in mileage or power. Regular gas for most of its life now.

If I were to order again, I may try to 3.6 just to experience something different. But then again I would get a completely different trim and packages too. Like how Jeep offers so many engines and choices. Some other brands you can only get 1 engine. Wrangler now has 5.

 

[SleepEatJeepRepeat]

I went with the 3.6 myself (2.0 was a non-starter due to no 6MT for it) but I don't understand all this history talk on the 3.6. The 3.6 that's in the JL is brand new...tons of new components and (very) high compression. I'm not worried about it by any means, I just don't think all the "tried and true" talk is accurate.

you are right it was completely re engineered a few years ago, lighter and higher compression for fuel economy... but we hadthe new configuration in my wife’s grand Cherokee with the same 8speed transmission and it was bullet proof.. wife drives like a wife and beat it up for 4 years then as a last hours befttrsfing it in.. we took it on a 4500 mile RV trip thru mountain terrain with 6400lb trailer.. from SoCal upto Seattle, over too Montana and then Down to Utah and back to SoCal.. we even took it over the Teton pass in Wyoming 8500 ft pinnacle climb at 10% grade, we never dropped below 55 and heat didn’t spike in anyway... the motor and the tranny are solid!
I also have had the 2.0t in my rubicon for 18 months it’s peppy and funny but noisy with turbo lag.. just bought a new rubicon and went for the v6 etorque... both are good motors just feel the v6 is more refined and I do trust it more after owning both.. the i4 was in the shop a lot .. not for the Motor but for things around it..like water pump and transmission

 

[Headbarcode]

My 2019 JLUR with the 2.0 bsg motor now has about 47k on the odometer, and hasn't had so much as a hiccup. I started heavily modifying it at the 10k mark and its still addicting to drive the long way home after over 2 years of ownership. This motor has such a nice amount of torque in the low and mid rpm ranges that get used the most. It definitely feels like the published torque specs are underrated, on top of having less parasitic loss. Coupled to the awesome 8-speed, it drives just fine on the factory 4.10 gearing.

 

[YYCSahara]

Yeah, at this point I would probably prefer the etorque of the aux battery setup. Seems like the aux battery gives people same or even more trouble than the 48V system on here?

 

[Hogdreamer]

you ask 50 people and you will get 50 answers.

Well.........if you don't get 50 answers, it's only because someone or somebodies didn't answer the question!

Realistically, there should only be two possible answers for those 50 questions. Thumbs up on the 4 Turbo or Thumbs up on the V6.

Or maybe 4 possible answers if you include a Thumbs down on the 4 Turbo or Thumbs down on the V6.

Truth is, I got concerned about the reliability of the Turbo based on the a co-workers issue with the Turbo on his BMW X3. The cost of replacing his Turbo is going to cost between $6,700 to $7,000.

The positive side of the Wrangler is the cost of replacing the Turbo is supposed to be less than $2,000.

Not cheap but not crazy expensive either. Since I tend to keep my vehicles for extended periods though, I choose the V6.

Sponsored