3.6 without etorque?

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
3,272
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
You are absolutely correct, resale value depends on many, (many) factors not just engine failures. However, with tools today such as CarFax, it's pretty easy to detect when a repair or replacement of anything within the powertrain occurred. I know I personally would have second thoughts about buying a used car due a broken engine or transmission component.
What are you saying here, that 4-cylinder engines are more likely to be replaced than 6-cylinder engines when put into the same chassis? I don't think it has anything to do with cylinder count at all... The overworked engine is likely the to fail first.

With the introduction of the Turbo Charger on the four bangers, which was undoubtedly implemented just to add enough horsepower to make it viable, adds even more powertrain stresses. Which additionally increases the probability of failure due to the higher number of complex things that can further go bad.
You do realize that all engines go through their own separate development cycles and if a 4-cylinder happens to have a weak part or different stresses it would have been addressed at design... The GME 2.0 was designed from day 1 to be turbocharged. Crankshaft too weak? Make it stronger. Cylinder pressure too high? More head studs. Nothing about 2 vs. 3 pulses per rotation makes any problem that is impossible to overcome and be reliable, even if those pulses are stronger (to a point, but the GME is nowhere near that limit).


The normally aspirated V6 and V8s have none of this additional potential for dysfunction. Can they still fail? Of course, but not due to the same stress factors.
Not even the odd-fire V6 that I pointed out earlier or really even just ANY 90 degree V6 for that matter? Why does the spacing of the pulses and how they interact with the crankshaft only matter in a 4-cylinder? Flat-plane vs. cross-plane V8s? Stroke length? Rod-Stroke ratio? How about the fact that both the 392 & 3.6 rev higher than the 2.0? Doesn't the higher piston speed make for extra stress also (I'm assuming, don't actually know the rod length of all motors). What about the fact that you can fit 5 main crankshaft bearings on an inline-4, but a V6 could only have 4? Shouldn't the higher load per bearing cause issues? Or that two banks of cylinders have twice as many camshafts to drive (for OHC motors), resulting in more engine drivetrain loss and higher stress on the accessory side of the crankshaft. Both the 3.6 & 392 have twice as many pistons connected to each rod bearing journal as the 2.0 and they get abused from two different planes and not always at even intervals. I'm not saying this is a weakness in a multi-banked engine, but with all else being equal an inline crankshaft will always have more material per cylinder, and an inline-4 crankshaft will look very similar to a V8... so shouldn't crankshaft in the engine with only one piston per rod journal actually be under less stress?

My point is that owning a four cylinder engine introduces a higher probability of powertrain related breakage.
Yeah, I'm going to need some statistics on that. And I'm not talking about some YouTube video.
Advertisement

 

jeepoch

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jay
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
554
Reaction score
1,567
Location
Longmont, CO
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Wrangler Sport S 3.6L Auto 2 door, 2.5" lift, 35s
@AnnDee4444,

Truce. Of course engineers are going to select components to handle all the stresses, at least through what is believed to be the working life of the vehicle. My point is to highlight the differences in how power is produced between the different number of cylinder engines.

The four cylinder engine dynamics are quite a bit harsher on those components. If the design and implementation is sufficient to handle those stresses then the failure rates will be low(er). However, the physical dynamics of a combustion event staggered every 90° vs 60° or 36° is certainly harsher (more jerky). The more combustion events per crankshaft revolution the smoother (less jerky) the resultant power produced.

I'm not implying anything other than the higher probability of experiencing potential failure modes not as pronounced with the higher number of cylinders.

You make a valid point regarding stresses produced with higher horsepower output. If the powertrain components are not designed or spec'd to withstand the higher output appropriately, they too will fail.

Full disclosure, I was a Powertrain Software Engineer at Chysler up until the 2010 model year. I moved to Colorado and left the automotive industry to follow a different product career path. Regardless, over half (> 50%) of our Engine Controller feature set was to limit and manage output torque to minimize potential damage to the transmission and powertrain components, while still giving the driver the perception of full power when requested.

Clearly every power plant will have it's specific points of failure, I'm just outlining the things that could cause trouble for the four bangers. Whether that's better or worse than it's larger cousins, I really don't follow the failure rates any longer. I'm sure someone can produce whatever empirical data, statistics, charts or graphs that show this that or the other thing regarding mean time between failure(s). Our Sigma Six quality metrics were consistently better than Toyota, Honda and a host of other car manufacturers. But the general perception of Chrysler's lack of quality came from past mistakes. Perceptions are tricky things.

I obviously struck a nerve. That was not my intention. Please feel free to critique my theory until you're satisfied in defending the four cylinder power plant to the point that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Cheers and drive on. Bang, bang, bang, bang.
Jay
 

davers

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
55
Reaction score
74
Location
Brownstown, Michigan
Vehicle(s)
2021 Jeep Willy's 4 door Sarge Green
Occupation
Software Engineer
So glad I got my 2019 JLR when I did. No one will ever convince me a 4 cylinder engine will last, especially in a 4 door. That e-torque is garbage, couldn’t agree more with previous opinions. I probably wouldn’t buy a new Jeep today if I were in the market to buy. That is really too bad. Love the 392 but can’t see myself in a 4 door. No Bronco here either, as a 4 cylinder engine is not a good option. Hopefully my JLR will last a long time, and if the day comes when the engine needs replacing I will replace with a new 3.6 or install a 5.7 or maybe a 392. I feel bad for every customer for the lousy engine options in today’s vehicles.
On another note, I would like to buy a Ford Raptor but a 6 cylinder engine in a full size truck is beyond laughable, it’s totally disappointing.
What’s the saying.. “the only thing that should come in 2 liters is milk and juice..” 😜
 

LooselyHeldPlans

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brandon
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
636
Reaction score
618
Location
Denver
Vehicle(s)
2020 3.6 JLUR
Occupation
Several
While etorque seems to be a decent system, personally I just prefer a normal v6 or v8 - or full electric. I’m not a fan of the added complexity of these hybrid systems.
YES! I love electric cars and my next purchase will be a Model Y. BUT I see no long term benefit in having a hybrid. Tons more complexity but hardly any added benefit

ESS systems are plug and play fixed for $99 if anyone is interested and can be removed
Nope! All those devices will do is turn off the start/stop functionality. I know, I’ve got the tazer. Even when that’s disabled, you’re still left with the main weakness of the ESS system and that is the starter relay being energised by the tiny battery

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.
See above comment. Disabling the start stop does not rid yourself of any issue other than stop/start. All the other flaws if the system still persist.
 

slowpoke387

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
55
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
in the market - 2022 Rubicon
So as a used car dealer I can confidently say that after real world use and miles - not new out of the box, we see far more 2.0T issues than with any N/A sixes or fours for that matter. Regardless of manufacturer too. People can argue about being designed for a turbo, torque, hp, mpg's, etc. all day long and never be able to convince me that long term they can compete in terms of reliable longevity. We see this design with miles down the road. They are designed to perform and make the warranty and anything after that is a bonus. Of COURSE theyre the cat's ass new. To me that's irrelevant though. Let's revisit this thread in ten years and chat again. And overall resale is def going to be less with a four banger, turbo or otherwise. Been doing this for almost forty years, I watch people open hoods, see the four popper, slam the hood and leave routinely. Wholesale auction prices are lower for fours too. I'm there and I watch. Emissions mandates are killing the reliability in today's vehicles and the result is heavy vehicles that overwork these throwaway drive trains.
When we can order a Rubi with the 3.6 and no SS we will. Still waiting...
 

rriglesias

Active Member
First Name
Raymond
Joined
Oct 16, 2021
Messages
27
Reaction score
27
Location
Miami, FL
Vehicle(s)
2005 Jeep Liberty 3.7L
@FloridaMan,

Be careful what you ask for. The 'mild hybrid's eTorque isn't what most people think it is. It's not a 4xE 'lite'. It's a system to assist in take-off up to just a couple of mph. For some, they would state that this helps in initial torque. Maybe hence it's name.

In reality it replaces the 'really (really) lame' little 12v AUX with a 48v battery, BUT not the 17kwh water cooled contraption in the 4xE. Also, the alternator is replaced with a 48v generator.

I believe this was done for the 3.6L to remove the god-awful ESS implementation with this putrid AUX battery. The 48v eTorque system was mandated mostly just to rid themselves of the stench of their ESS disaster they bumbled themselves into with the 2018 and 2019 model year JLs.

I have a 2019 Sport S 2 door with the 3.6L 8-speed Auto. I'm 'loving' everything about this Jeep, (except for this crappy AUX battery lunacy). I don't even mind the ESS functionality itself. I know, I'm the only person on the planet who does. But charging two dissimilar sized batteries in parallel is indeed a recipe for disaster. My alternator is constantly pumping out it's maximum 14.5 volts during normal city driving. I notice the alternator taking it easy with sub 14v output only when I'm taking long trips on the highway.

So, my worry is about getting stranded, not just due to this silly AUX piece-of-shit battery always seems to drain my main, but the alternator failing from being constantly overworked. The dealership always reports that my AUX passes a load test. They just don't want to replace it.

My future looks like this:

1. Replace both the Main and AUX batteries (as a pair) every couple of years just out of over-abundance of caution.

2. Replace the entire battery fiasco with something like the very expensive Genesis Dual Battery system which replaces the AUX with a similar sized battery. However, this only allows for a very limited ESS.

3. Same as #2 but also manually rewire it to support ESS. As I said I'm the odd-ball who really doesn't mind the true purpose of not burning fuel while idling.

4. Sell my beloved JL just because of this insane battery design and opt for the eTorque system which has a much better 48v battery / generator in order to implement the govt mandated ESS (whether you like it or not).

So again, be very (very) careful what you wish for.

Jay

P.S. I really don't want to sell this Jeep. But I DESPISE the AUX battery to the point I may have to. Make me an offer...

IMG_20200605_180738.jpg


InShot_20200915_223133135.jpg
slick wheels and tires, what’s your build?
 

jeepoch

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jay
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
554
Reaction score
1,567
Location
Longmont, CO
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Wrangler Sport S 3.6L Auto 2 door, 2.5" lift, 35s
slick wheels and tires, what’s your build?
Raymond,

2019 Sport S 3.6L Auto
2.5" Mopar Lift
Fuel Ammo Anthracite 17x9 -12mm wheels
Goodyear Duratrac 35x12.5x17 A/T tires
Teraflex Sway-Bar Quick Disconnects

Best vehicle I've ever owned. Blast to drive both on and off-road all over my home state of Colorado.

[Edit]
Of course, still hate this AUX motorcycle battery BS. The only way I can keep the ESS from being disabled due to "Battery Charging" is to put on a battery tender once or twice a week. Granted, most people would welcome the permanently disabled ESS but I like not burning fuel when idling. I have fun playing with letting it stop the engine (or not) during various stopping conditions. Just another dimension of fun with this thing. Call me the true oddball.

Jay
 
Last edited:

rriglesias

Active Member
First Name
Raymond
Joined
Oct 16, 2021
Messages
27
Reaction score
27
Location
Miami, FL
Vehicle(s)
2005 Jeep Liberty 3.7L
Raymond,

2019 Sport S 3.6L Auto
2.5" Mopar Lift
Fuel Ammo Anthracite 17x9 -12mm wheels
Goodyear Duratrac 35x12.5x17 A/T tires
Teraflex Sway-Bar Quick Disconnects

Best vehicle I've ever owned. Blast to drive both on and off-road all over my home state of Colorado.

Jay
I just ordered one, can’t wait to receive it.

love your setup
 

Wolfy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
233
Reaction score
247
Location
SLC & Ivins Utah
Vehicle(s)
2020 Jeep Wrangler Sport S
I love the 3.6 non-eTorque on my two door. Hated the ESS. Got a plug in auto stop-start eliminator.
The little two door is very quick with the 3.6. I've had faster, more powerful cars (and my GSXs-1000 certainly beats any cars I've owned), but I'm loving it so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OBD

Fatboy97

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
138
Reaction score
260
Location
N.C.
Vehicle(s)
2 Door Rubicon JL
Funny you write this we had just sold one of our Jeep’s we had for 11 years 2008 JK and I was on the hunt for a newer Rubicon and that’s when I found out Jeep started sticking a Etorque Hybrid system in there “Jeep’s” . I did some research and I’m so baffled at the decision Jeep made to stick this in there vehicles, I was actually pissed that most salesman didn’t know what the heck it was . I actually got in a argument with one in Virginia that says Every Jeep from 2019-2021 has Etorque , and he said it’s only the start stop system 🤦🏻 and that it’s not a “Mild Hybrid” system ... Let’s see take a rugged Jeep that bashes on rocks , mud crawls , crosses Rivers and let’s throw a 48v Hybrid system in it and oh let’s put the $1500+ battery on the bottom of the Jeep with not much protection and run a bunch of coolant lines back and forth exposed .... Really . Well this led me on a very tiring hunt fo a good ole 2019 Rubicon Penestar V6 Non-Etorque . Simplicity is the key , I’d love to speak to the engineers that designed that . I hope Jeep dumps this Etorque system like a bad habit, but with Compliance they all have to meet I don’t see it getting any better . But then again there is a 392 😁There’s always Hope !
And let’s not forget about the longevity of these things. I think the resale value on all the
E torque Jeep’s 10 years from now will drop drastically. Who wants those headaches.
Maybe we will find good candidates for engine swaps.
 
Advertisement

Rubitrux
 
Advertisement
Top