3.6L Auto vs 2.0L Auto

[The Great Grape Ape]

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...

Though perfectly in line with expectations of how a tinyturbo4 would perform pushing a brick into the wind. The 2.0T benefits in the city where it gets greatly improved fuel economy, but not on the highway, where even under rather easy EPA testing that averages 48MPH and nevers crests above 60, the 2.0T becomes about as fuel efficient as the 3.6L Pentastar. It’s highly likely under the EPA’s US06 testing where the speeds are more realistic highway speeds, the 2.0T would do worse than the Pentastar, but they don’t put that number front and centre when publishing results.

This is very much inline with the characteristics seen in similar platforms/setups.

Sponsored

 

[tilleo]

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?

 

[Jason]

So if we take fuel economy out of the question, what are your guys thoughts on these motors from a trail perspective? There are already lots of options for forced induction on the 3.6, but would the 2.0 with a good tune be the way to go? I really want the deasel, but I have already been waiting so damn long, i just don’t know if I can hold out another year...

 

[Euro JEEP]

So if we take fuel economy out of the question, what are your guys thoughts on these motors from a trail perspective? There are already lots of options for forced induction on the 3.6, but would the 2.0 with a good tune be the way to go? I really want the deasel, but I have already been waiting so damn long, i just don’t know if I can hold out another year...

We here in Europe are quite over the diesel hype and i'll give you my opinion.
Purely trail perspective? Diesel is the best engine to go with no doubt. Hugh torque, very good engine braking going downhill in 1st gear. I'd even say best on fuel economy down the highway. Overlanding around the world in remote areas? Probably your best option.

Diesel was all we got in Europe on the JK from more or less 2009 to 2016 (that is when the 3.6L came over and only in automatic).
It was the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel here from VM. First with 177hp then with 200hp. The latter being much more refined.

On the JL US will get the 3.0L V6 diesel and Europe the 4 cylinder 2.2 L.

Do I like them? Not at all. I have said it before here, but hey, it is a personal sentiment. They're no fun to me, they rattle, vibrate, i don't like the noise, they smell bad, pollute more (now less with the newer technology but they are getting banned in all the big cities in Europe), we have lost the cost advantage over the gasoline almost. My bet is between 2020 and 2025 the secondhand market on diesels is going to drop a lot.

Will you like the diesel? i think you will if you are not a petrol head like me.

 

[BillyHW]

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...

It was in the released specs, and I don't know why.

 

[Jason]

We here in Europe are quite over the diesel hype and i'll give you my opinion.
Purely trail perspective? Diesel is the best engine to go with no doubt. Hugh torque, very good engine braking going downhill in 1st gear. I'd even say best on fuel economy down the highway. Overlanding around the world in remote areas? Probably your best option.

Diesel was all we got in Europe on the JK from more or less 2009 to 2016 (that is when the 3.6L came over and only in automatic).
It was the 2.8L 4 cylinder diesel here from VM. First with 177hp then with 200hp. The latter being much more refined.

On the JL US will get the 3.0L V6 diesel and Europe the 4 cylinder 2.2 L.

Do I like them? Not at all. I have said it before here, but hey, it is a personal sentiment. They're no fun to me, they rattle, vibrate, i don't like the noise, they smell bad, pollute more (now less with the newer technology but they are getting banned in all the big cities in Europe), we have lost the cost advantage over the gasoline almost. My bet is between 2020 and 2025 the secondhand market on diesels is going to drop a lot.

Will you like the diesel? i think you will if you are not a petrol head like me.

Thanks for the reply, and like Dirt32 said, I am also worried about the weight on the trail, so I just have to decide on the 3.6 or the 2.0, and I am having a hard time with that.

 

[DanW]

From what we've heard on the forum, the 3.6 is 55lbs lighter than the 2.0. That's hard to believe. That's basically the weight of a winch with synthetic rope. I'm really a stickler for keeping weight down, so yet one more reason I'm happy with the 3.6.

I'm wondering which is lighter, the manual or 8 speed auto?

 

[Tyrantresister]

Until we get owner reports from the 2.0, it is a wild card for sure. I like the idea of it, and it shows promise. Is the 2.0 available without the start / stop feature? Is the high grade octane needed for peak HP performance or for the claimed MPG numbers? If using 87 is ok, and it keeps the gas mileage with just sacrificing top horsepower performance, that would be fine with me. Another benefit of the hybrid system is that breaks and tires will last a lot longer than an all gas powered one. If the hybrid will need a rebuild, or if it is likely to break down sooner, then I'd pass on it. They did a LOT of testing to the pentastar while developing it, and put hundreds of thousands of miles on single engines to ensure reliability and longevity.

The diesel is looking to be the way to go, depending on how much extra $$$ they want for it as an engine option. I am not sure of the long term reliability of the particular diesel they plan to put in it, but overall diesels are great for long term reliability.

 

[Karl_in_Chicago]

"Tyrantresister, post: 32635, member: 12086" Another benefit of the hybrid system is that breaks and tires will last a lot longer than an all gas powered one.

Why would that be?

 

[BillyHW]

Until we get owner reports from the 2.0, it is a wild card for sure. I like the idea of it, and it shows promise. Is the 2.0 available without the start / stop feature? Is the high grade octane needed for peak HP performance or for the claimed MPG numbers? If using 87 is ok, and it keeps the gas mileage with just sacrificing top horsepower performance, that would be fine with me. Another benefit of the hybrid system is that breaks and tires will last a lot longer than an all gas powered one. If the hybrid will need a rebuild, or if it is likely to break down sooner, then I'd pass on it. They did a LOT of testing to the pentastar while developing it, and put hundreds of thousands of miles on single engines to ensure reliability and longevity.

The diesel is looking to be the way to go, depending on how much extra $$$ they want for it as an engine option. I am not sure of the long term reliability of the particular diesel they plan to put in it, but overall diesels are great for long term reliability.

Why would the tires last longer? I'm not an engineer, but I don't think that makes sense.

I can see the brake pads lasting longer, but I don't think the regenerative braking is all that significant to begin with, and brake pads are relatively easy and cheap to replace, compared to a lot of other stuff on the car.

 

[kiwi]

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

 

[Tyrantresister]

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.

 

[Karl_in_Chicago]

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.

Well not to discount what you've seen and, absent actual engineering data, wouldn't one possible explanation be that the people you are seeing via dealership experience purchasing/using hybrids are ones that might tend to drive less aggressively?

 

[BillyHW]

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 they are actually not the same tire, but that the hybrids have special lower rolling resistance tires, probably less sticky so they last longer.

Just a theory though.

 

[Boatbuilder88]

Why would the tires last longer? I'm not an engineer, but I don't think that makes sense.

I can see the brake pads lasting longer, but I don't think the regenerative braking is all that significant to begin with, and brake pads are relatively easy and cheap to replace, compared to a lot of other stuff on the car.

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.

Sponsored