3.6 without etorque?

MillsRubicon

Member
First Name
Aaron
Joined
Apr 19, 2021
Messages
18
Reaction score
20
Location
Salisbury , North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Rubicon JL V6 “NON ETORQUE!”
So a large displacement 4-cylinder (something around 4 liters) would be OK then, correct?
There’s no replacement for displacement…





Advertisement

 

JeepTime

Well-Known Member
First Name
Justin
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
163
Reaction score
215
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLU Rubicon
Cylinders and displacement aren’t the same thing. The 6 cylinder engine in my airplane is 8.849 liters. That’s larger displacement than just about every factory V8 engine out there in a car. To make the argument for displacement one of cylinder count is just not a good way of making your argument. The very definition of displacement in reference to engines is the total volume of all the cylinders. Has nothing to do with actual cylinder count. In the jeeps case the 4 has less displacement of course but saying it has less displacement solely because it has 4 cylinders is not the correct argument.

in the past people wanted bigger engines because that’s how we got more power. Now that we have more technology we don’t need as big engines to get the same power. The old muscle car era was about getting as much power as you could, somehow the translation has been lost over the years and people think it’s all about getting the biggest engine you could.

that being said I want Rubicon 392 haha
 

LongTimeListener

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
189
Reaction score
454
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
JKURHR
No way man you’ll never see the Rams off roading Moab , Uwharrie Forrest beside of me or any of the other trails for that matter
I've got two buddies who overland with full-size rigs. They don't shy away from tough trails, and I often think their long wheelbases are an advantage on hill climbs and descents. You do have to be willing to live with some trail rash, though.

What I never, ever on the trail see are "gentlemen's" 4x4s like resto-modded Land Cruisers or Icon 4x4s. Near as I can tell, those are pure poser-mobiles.
 

Jeep1969

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
3
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
JLUR
If Jeep comes back with 3.6 non eTorque automatic, I’ll get another Jeep. Was on the verge of trading in my 2019 until I realized on the build process u can’t have it all!
 

drichard989

Well-Known Member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
69
Reaction score
85
Location
Spokane, WA
Vehicle(s)
08KK, 21JLU on order
Occupation
Sales Engineer
If Jeep comes back with 3.6 non eTorque automatic, I’ll get another Jeep. Was on the verge of trading in my 2019 until I realized on the build process u can’t have it all!
You can order this today on the sport S. 24S package. I did last month
 

jeepoch

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jay
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
467
Reaction score
1,224
Location
Longmont, CO
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Wrangler Sport S 3.6L Auto 2 door, 2.5" lift, 35s
Cylinders and displacement aren’t the same thing. The 6 cylinder engine in my airplane is 8.849 liters. That’s larger displacement than just about every factory V8 engine out there in a car. To make the argument for displacement one of cylinder count is just not a good way of making your argument. The very definition of displacement in reference to engines is the total volume of all the cylinders. Has nothing to do with actual cylinder count. In the jeeps case the 4 has less displacement of course but saying it has less displacement solely because it has 4 cylinders is not the correct argument.

in the past people wanted bigger engines because that’s how we got more power. Now that we have more technology we don’t need as big engines to get the same power. The old muscle car era was about getting as much power as you could, somehow the translation has been lost over the years and people think it’s all about getting the biggest engine you could.

that being said I want Rubicon 392 haha
Justin,

You are spot on. There always seems to be confusion over delivered power from the number of cylinders vs total displacement debate. The larger the area of each piston head obviously the more power produced. That's pretty much a no-brainer. And typically engines don't have different sized cylinders so each piston contributes the same amount of force within it's combustion stroke. Assuming of course that each cylinder is operating nominally with a proper stociometric ratio for fuel/air mixture and this is all being evenly applied to each cylinder.

Most non-gear-head savvy people simply believe that with more cylinders, the more total piston head area. And they are usually (but not always) correct. You can have a larger number of smaller pistons that won't produce the same power as a smaller number of larger pistons. The overall instaneous power is but a single characteristic of the particular power-plant. This is most important to some but very misleading nonetheless.

The number of pistons contribute to more power being delivered per crankshaft rotation. Four cylinder engines produce power only at 90° intervals of crankshaft rotation (360° ÷ 4). But this is staggered somewhat due to the typical four-stroke cycle. Intake -> Compression -> Combustion -> Exhaust. Each piston does not combust on every rotation, rather every other. So this rotation angle is generally found to be set at only two combustion events per crankshaft revolution, thus only once within any 180°. The other two cylinders are within their intake strokes and won't contribute until the crankshaft rotates further than this one particular half revolution but at the next 180° of crankshaft rotation. It should be easy to see that one (and only one) piston ever contributes to producing power at some 1/2 revolution interval, each at their own 90° specific position.

For any higher number of cylinders this revolution distance (angular rotation) length is reduced proportionally. For a 6 cylinder engine the angular displacement is now 360° ÷ 6 = 60°. A combustion (power) event now happens 33% more often. For an 8 cylinder this becomes 360° ÷ 8 = 45°, or 50% more often. For those amazing 10 cylinder power-plants they have a possible combustion event at any 36° position within every crankshaft revolution, thus power is produced 60% more often than a four cylinder for each revolution of the crankshaft.

Of course further complicating things a little as described above is that with a four-stroke mechanism, each piston will only contribute power on every other revolution. But it should still be obvious that the more cylinders, the more combustion events per crankshaft rotation will occur.

The more cylinders generally means 'smoother' power because there are more power events per unit rotation. Larger displacement 4 cylinders may produce more power, but at longer intervals. Many may perceive this as a more distinct bang, bang, bang feeling since the power is being produced at a lower frequency independent of RPM shaft speed.

Lastly, there is a definitive threshold for the size of 4 cylinder engines. This is where the combustive power delivered at 90° quanta can overwhelm the overall strength of the crankshaft component materials. The higher number of cylinders produce power at lower angular displacement values (higher frequency) so the 'jerky' nature of the torque produced is smaller. These engines deliver power in shorter (higher frequency) quanta so the 3rd derivative stresses (jerkiness) on the crankshaft isn't as great. The larger the number of cylinders the smoother and less jerky the produced torque becomes. Therefore the less overall stress being exerted on the crankshaft, it's component material and especially it's bearings.

Granted, with today's automatic transmissions, most of this uneven torque is averaged out downstream of the engine with the mass of the torque converter. With all transmissions, regardless of type, the total flywheel effects will tend to dampen the variance of the overall rotational (applied) power produced. So the overall powertrain will also certainly factor and contribute to any engine's perceived performance. Regardless, all jerkiness produced by the engine will be felt by all powertrain components in some way or another.

The science (art) of any engine design is finding the proper proportions of not only raw instaneous power, but how it contributes to the overall intended solution. One has to understand the engine's intended purpose before judging whether it is mated to any particular application properly.

So any debate of cylinder number vs overall displacement is very context specific. And like most everything technical, it always comes down to - 'it depends'. And of course, more often than not, it's always cost vs quality, precision and especially longevity.

So even though the Turbo 2.0L four banger may have higher rated torque in some specific conditions, the six cylinder 3.6L will still provide smoother power in all applications. The 392 V8 even smoother yet. I'll wager that your wallet size will tend to sway your opinion more than anything else. Technical, emotional or otherwise.

Cheers,
Jay

[Edit] To keep the spirit of this thread intact, while the eTorque system can certainly help a 4 cylinder engine more, by helping to deliver power between the 180° of crankshaft rotation, it's need or usefullness on the 3.6L is greatly diminished. However with that said, it's a much (much) better ESS system than the stupidly designed mini-AUX battery of it's predecessor models. So be very (very) careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,479
Reaction score
2,612
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
So even though the Turbo 2.0L four banger may have higher rated torque in some specific conditions, the six cylinder 3.6L will still provide smoother power in all applications. The 392 V8 even smoother yet.
You know, I understand why some people are concerned with fuel mileage even though there are many on this forum that will accuse them of buying the wrong vehicle. But did anyone really get a Jeep for it's smoothness? I mean, it's a Jeep...

Oh, and the "higher rated torque in some specific conditions" seems to be about 75 lb-ft at the wheels from 1900-4100 RPM, with the 2.0 still making more torque at 5600 RPM (which is 100 RPM below it's redline). Most dyno sheets don't go lower than 2000 RPM, but assuming no eTorque on either the 3.6 should have the advantage from idle-2000, and also 5700+ RPM. The 3.6 eTorque also has a 20 lb-ft (@ crank) advantage over the 2.0 eTorque from 0 RPM-idle (although, I'm not sure how much makes it to the wheels considering the stronger BSG is probably needed to spin-up the larger displacement motor).
 

Rodeoflyer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bert
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
808
Reaction score
548
Location
Conifer, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2020 Jeep JLUR; 2016 Ram Powerwagon
Vehicle Showcase
1
I sometimes regret not going with the 2l turbo when I'm climbing grades above 10k feet on 37'' tires, but the etorque is what steered me towards the 3.6l manual trans. I wanted as simple a Jeep as I could get. 5.13 gears and a heavier flywheel will have me *exactly* where I want/need to be with this Jeep so meh...less stuff to worry about later on.
 

MillsRubicon

Member
First Name
Aaron
Joined
Apr 19, 2021
Messages
18
Reaction score
20
Location
Salisbury , North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Rubicon JL V6 “NON ETORQUE!”
As goofy as the ESS is, why not just disable it and be done with it? I’ve read countless horror stories of people having issues with it who have not disabled it on the gladiator forum. I don’t believe I’ve come across any horror stories about the aux battery causing issues from those who have disabled it.
How do you disable it permanently? I have seen there is a plug and play option for $129 anyone used this ? ( https://zicmoto.com/engine-stop-start-or-auto-stop-ess-override-for-2018-2020-jeep-wrangler-jl/) . Can someone direct me to a fix for disabling the ESS permanently as long as it doesn’t void warranty .
 

MillsRubicon

Member
First Name
Aaron
Joined
Apr 19, 2021
Messages
18
Reaction score
20
Location
Salisbury , North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Rubicon JL V6 “NON ETORQUE!”
If Jeep comes back with 3.6 non eTorque automatic, I’ll get another Jeep. Was on the verge of trading in my 2019 until I realized on the build process u can’t have it all!
Wow that’s crazy I didn’t realize you can’t even order the new Jeeps with Non Etorque Auto V6 , so glad I got my Ruby 2019 V6 non Etorque Auto , this thing actually rips too for a V6 , keep in mind I had the old JK with the shitty V6 that thing was a Dog … loved the Jeep other than that , here’s a pic of her not long ago just sold it for almost $19k

FBC78FE9-ED7A-4ACE-B0C6-1950F113557F.jpeg
 

Advertisement




Diode Dynamics
 



Advertisement
Top