3.6L Auto vs 2.0L Auto

[Lurvis33]

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!

Sponsored

 

[DanW]

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!

You are onto it! I'd love to have that extra 40 miles of range, but as you showed here, fuel economy is more than just miles per gallon. When you factor price into it, the 3.6 gets better fuel economy, unless you run the 2.0 on 87. It won't get peak performance on 87, but it won't be drastically different, so the reality is that the 2.0 will probably get better fuel economy on 87 octane, too, even if not by as wide a margin. I'd bet in most everyday driving, I'd never know the difference if it was running 87 vs. 91.

I'd like to do the same calculation for the diesel, but I'm laying here eating a Milky Way and just barely have the energy or desire to lessen my comfort by making the effort.

 

[Lurvis33]

You are onto it! I'd love to have that extra 40 miles of range, but as you showed here, fuel economy is more than just miles per gallon. When you factor price into it, the 3.6 gets better fuel economy, unless you run the 2.0 on 87. It won't get peak performance on 87, but it won't be drastically different, so the reality is that the 2.0 will probably get better fuel economy on 87 octane, too, even if not by as wide a margin. I'd bet in most everyday driving, I'd never know the difference if it was running 87 vs. 91.

I'd like to do the same calculation for the diesel, but I'm laying here eating a Milky Way and just barely have the energy or desire to lessen my comfort by making the effort.

True! However from the new user guide posted in http://www.jlwranglerforums.com/for...nual-and-user-guides-appear-on-jeep-com.2196/ they say "Use of gasoline with a lower than recommended octane number can cause engine failure and may void or not be covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty". I'd personally be a little worried to risk running a lower octane. I'm not really knowledgeable in the differences between the three octanes other than the fact that the lower the number the "cleaner" or "more watered down" it is.

 

[DanW]

True! However from the new user guide posted in http://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/official-owner’s-manual-and-user-guides-appear-on-jeep-com.2196/ they say "Use of gasoline with a lower than recommended octane number can cause engine failure and may void or not be covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty". I'd personally be a little worried to risk running a lower octane. I'm not really knowledgeable in the differences between the three octanes other than the fact that the lower the number the "cleaner" or "more watered down" it is.

I swore we had good info that the 2.0 can run 87, but that the computer will compensate and it won't attain peak power? Octane is simply a measure of the fuel's ability to resist spark knock. The higher it is, the more resistant. The quality of the fuel may be no better, but usually retailers, like Chevron, put more detergents in the higher octane, or premium fuels. Their low octane fuel is outstanding, though.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I swore we had good info that the 2.0 can run 87, but that the computer will compensate and it won't attain peak power..

Both old and new User guides still have it as being designed to run on 87 Octane.... and 91 recommended for optimal...

But there’s also that criptic Recommended comment, whic is contrary to the prior paragraphs.

Seems like poor writing, and th meant to say minimum vs recommended regarding warranty.

Weird.

Old Guide

New Guide

 

[Bearded_Dragon]

I'm still waiting on 2.0L torque curves because for me it isn't about what engine will be cheaper, but rather which one will serve me best (I'm looking at you diesel).

 

[randyp]

waiting to see how good the 2.0T is and if it has any turbo lag, which I hate.

 

[randyp]

wait - is the 2.0T the same engine as in the Alfa Romeo Giulia?

 

[Euro JEEP]

wait - is the 2.0T the same engine as in the Alfa Romeo Giulia?

Yes it is. And it comes with 280HP and 400Nm(=295Lb ft).

I have checked and with only a chiptune (turbos get better results than atmospheric engines on this), the 2.0L gets about 30HP more and between 60Nm(=44Lb ft) and 84Nm(=62Lb ft) more and some 15% better fuel economy. (Differences depend on chip brands)
And then you can still add better air inflow and exhausts to it, or do a turbo ball bearing upgrade.
So, I don't want to make this engine into a "Fast and Furious" machine, the only point I am making here it is a more tune-able engine for sure.

I have driven other car brands with these new engine architectures (fewer cylinders with smaller displacements + new tech turbos) and they are very impressive on power delivery without the traditional turbo lag feel. On the other hand, the feeling of the push with those new 8 or 9 step gearboxes have become more linear in my opinion.

I read surprisingly that the 2.0L engine is heavier than the 3.6L due to the E.Torque system?.. Can someone confirm that?

Looking at the numbers, it looks like the 4 banger should be the better engine to cope with bigger wheels and additional weight. Let's see what the first test drivers have to say.
And then their is the reliability doubt in the long run...

 

[BillyHW]

wait - is the 2.0T the same engine as in the Alfa Romeo Giulia?

Looks similar, but with DOHC instead of Multiair.

 

[kiwi]

New Turbos with direct fuel injection save fuel if you nanny the gas peddle. As soon as you drive it harder your gas milage will match or even be less than the V6.

The news we are getting in New Zealand is the right hand drive will see a 2.2 diesel in the new Rubicon third quarter of 2018.

 

[Euro JEEP]

New Turbos with direct fuel injection save fuel if you nanny the gas peddle. As soon as you drive it harder you gas milage will match or even be less than the V6.

The news we are getting in New Zealand is the right hand drive will see a 2.2 diesel in the new Rubicon third quarter of 2018.

Yes, i heard that too for export markets. Another Fiat-group engine. I hope this doesn't mean we will have to wait so long to see the JL oversees.
In fact: Jay, or other admin members, what news do we have confirmed as export engines available?

 

[whatroads]

Turbo, at some point, will need to be rebuilt. Not cheap. Simply web search the Ford truck turbo. Many are needing a turbo rebuild at 80-100K miles. I'm also sticking with the 3.6 for increased reliability due to less moving parts and less strain on the engine.

Diesel is a different question due to higher strength heads and block that support higher compression. I've owned a couple of cars with gas turbo engines. In the future, I will try to avoid these. Until, it's no longer possible

 

[Euro JEEP]

Looks similar, but with DOHC instead of Multiair.

I didn't know that, are you sure? Doesn't make much sense to revert a multiair intake to a more mechanical DOHC?
You would lose on power, torque, fuel efficiency, polution...
Looking at the numbers between the Alfa and the Jeep it seems to indicate just that, but i would hope it is for another reason.

Besides that, though no official numbers have come out the fuel efficiency, the ones that were published on this site make it seem way to similar to the 3.6L to me...

 

[theiowan]

I have a 2018 Alfa Romeo Stelvio with the 2.0 engine and it is terrific IMHO. We get 32-33 mpg on the highway at 75. Very smooth with a slight initial turbo lag.

Sponsored