3.6L Auto vs 2.0L Auto

[BillyHW]

I can see the OP's logic. How much energy is needed to stop a moving car? What is stopping the vehicle? Heat from brake pad/rotor friction, tire friction, other internal friction (engine), and aerodynamic drag. Add a hybrid system and less energy needs to be dissipated by the other components, including at the tire/road interface. Less friction between the tire and road should increase tire life. Not sure how much difference it makes though.

Thought experiment: Imagine a frictionless tire and the most robust regenerative braking system imaginable. You're not stopping.

The tire is there to provide traction, not braking. It's there to provide the most traction possible so that maximum braking can be applied (without skidding), whether in the brake pads/rotors or regenerative motor, or combination of both.

Sponsored

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

1. What ever engine has faster acceleration than the 3.6 van engine the JK has I would buy.

JK 3.6L wasn’t ever really considered a van engine, it was first introduced in the Jeep Grand Cherokee right before making it to the Charger and Challenger and Wrangler.

Even the 3.8L that was mis-named a van engine wasn’t first used on a van either, but the fanbois of other brands called it that because tey had little else to say, all the while forgetting their own brand’s use of their V6 in their own vans, lorrys, and commercial vehicles not in the oblivious N.Am. market.

Chevy, Dodge, and Ford all had V8 engines in their vans, does that make those ‘van engines’ too? Because if that’s the case there’s a lot of ‘van engines’ I would’ve loved to see in a Wrangler, and some I still would including the popular existing mods people use putting the Chevy LS V8 ‘van engine’ to provide more power than their JK Wrangler’s 3.8L ‘van engine’.

 

[RockAltered]

Finally, someone brought up Europe giving up on diesel. I've loved my previous diesels and the torque lure but the added costs and potential future problems keep me with the Pentastar. As an old guy, ease getting into and out of my DD is more important to me than ground clearance and I stopped looking good long ago. Since you all tell me the Pentastar wants higher rpm's for 70mph cruise I guess I'll be saving lots of $ staying with 33's and 4:10's. Those savings pay for a Warn 9500 CTI with rollers and 125' of cable to help get me over those pesky mall curbs. If and when they offer a Hemi V8 someone will get a nice clean low mile JLU from me. Wyuka

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Hybrid regenerative braking adding to brake pad life makes sense, but not tyres.

I would love to see this in some controlled empirical study, because as mentioned the driving styles are likely very different too.

However I would also expect tyres to wear worse on a heavier hybrid system as well, just like they do on all heavier vehicles. Now the 2.0T isn’t in any way significantly heavier, but just saying ‘hybrid’ seems to be an oversimplification also.

This Jalopnik article mentions this very factor;
https://jalopnik.com/electric-and-hybrid-cars-might-produce-as-many-toxins-a-1775747577

 

[Bluerhino]

Dealership experience with hybrids show that both the tires and breaks last longer. Don't ask me why, I'm not an engineer, but it is a known fact about hybrids.

My theory would be that hybrid drivers are less aggressive drivers.

 

[WXman]

The 2.0 is heavier because of the BSG system, and because high power turbo engines are built with stronger blocks. It'll feel stronger than the 3.6L right off the lot, and it'll be tunable for big power gains.

However, I voted 3.6 because it'll be a problem-free engine for a LONG time to come, whereas the forced induction direct injection nature of the 2.0 means it'll run dirty, soot up everything, and will be more finicky as the years pass by. It'll be more likely to require service also.

 

[kiwi]

JK 3.6L wasn’t ever really considered a van engine, it was first introduced in the Jeep Grand Cherokee right before making it to the Charger and Challenger and Wrangler.

Even the 3.8L that was mis-named a van engine wasn’t first used on a van either, but the fanbois of other brands called it that because tey had little else to say, all the while forgetting their own brand’s use of their V6 in their own vans, lorrys, and commercial vehicles not in the oblivious N.Am. market.

Chevy, Dodge, and Ford all had V8 engines in their vans, does that make those ‘van engines’ too? Because if that’s the case there’s a lot of ‘van engines’ I would’ve loved to see in a Wrangler, and some I still would including the popular existing mods people use putting the Chevy LS V8 ‘van engine’ to provide more power than their JK Wrangler’s 3.8L ‘van engine’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Pentastar_engine

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

* uses Wiki as only reference and loses any credibility in discussion *

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

[

The 2.0 is heavier because of the BSG system, and because high power turbo engines are built with stronger blocks.

The Hurricane is not a closed deck stronger block or even a semi-closed deck, it’s an open deck design that trades strength in favour of heat dissipation, so it won’t support the higher compression ratios of more robust turbo/tuner engines. It’ll be similar to an NA block in strength.

 

[DanW]

Dealership experience with hybrids show that both the tires and breaks last longer. Don't ask me why, I'm not an engineer, but it is a known fact about hybrids.

I can see brake pads, but tires? No. It doesn't do anything to lessen tire contact or force on the road. TIre wear will be the same, driving style being equal.

 

[kiwi]

I looked it up today and should be used more than listen to verbal nonsense.

The engine was first used in China. Now that says it all.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I looked it up today and should be used more than listen to verbal nonsense.

The engine was first used in China. Now that says it all.

It says nothing about it being a van engine, and does nada to improve your lack of credibility, when it’s not even the same variant and you misread the timelines.

We’ll stick to valuing professional assessments like Ward’s far more highly than your WikiBleats.

 

[PhoenixM3]

since the 2.0T is already turbo charged. does that mean we could add down pipe and run a stage 2 tune, intake, exhaust and a bigger turbos at a later date?

Sure why not. I voided the warranty on my ‘15 Fiesta ST with upgraded intercooler, tune, and throttle body.

 

[Boatbuilder88]

Thought experiment: Imagine a frictionless tire and the most robust regenerative braking system imaginable. You're not stopping.

The tire is there to provide traction, not braking. It's there to provide the most traction possible so that maximum braking can be applied (without skidding), whether in the brake pads/rotors or regenerative motor, or combination of both.

Rethinking this. I agree with you.

 

[Raskass77]

Please feel free to check my math but I think the 3.6L Auto is actually still the more efficient engine over the 2.0L...

So based on my local gas station (Lewisville, TX) it’s
$2.23 for 87 Octane (What the 3.6L needs) and
$2.89 for 91 Octane (What the 2.0L needs)

Let’s say we use 20 gallons of the 21.5 gallon tank that the 4 door has.
3.6L: 20 gallons X $2.23 = $44.60 per tank refill
2.0L: 20 gallons X $2.89 = $57.80 per tank refill

Well the 2.0L gets better gas mileage you say (Which it does)….
3.6L: 18/23 = 20.5 mpg avg
2.0L: 21/24 = 22.5 mpg avg

So how many miles does each engine get you?
3.6L: 20.5 mpg X 20 gal = 410 miles
2.0L: 22.5 mpg X 20 gal = 450 miles

So basically you get 40 miles more for $13.20 more. If you fill up every 2 weeks that’s 26 fill ups in a year. It will ultimately give you 1,040 more miles but also cost you about $343.20 (gas prices will fluctuate as well) more a year to drive the 2.0L over the V6. I love the idea of all that the 2.0L has to offer but when you factor in all of the things that could break on the 2.0L Turbo (Mild Hybrid) I’m starting to lean back towards the proven V6. What are y'all thinking?
P.S. I'm excited to get my first Wrangler in the spring/summer!

I head the Aluminum blocks are cracking on the new 2.0l motors and fca is having problems with them.. they are currently looking to move that motor from the Trenton plant to dundee to see if they can fix the problem.. this was info i got from someone who works at the Trenton plant now with the new 2.0L motors. I was worried that the new motor will have nothing but problems.. FCA better get that fixed quick. Going with the more reliable v6 here.

Sponsored