3.6L gets better cost per mile than the 2.0L?

[thenewrick]

I did a quick google search and found plenty of results for Duramax GM tuners. Just gotta look around. Super small niche vehicles won't have as many tuning options though. But the 2.0L from Fiat will certainly be a popular tuner platform.

Sponsored

 

[Joe]

New tech or not, I’m really looking forward to the arrival of my JLUR 2.0!

 

[Chicago]

New tech or not, I’m really looking forward to the arrival of my JLUR 2.0!

Me too , can’t wait

 

[seguerski]

I called the Jeep USA customer support number a few days ago (I called twice to confirm the MPG for the 2.0L engine via 2 different support agents). They said the 2.0L turbo MPG is 21/24 (US version). The owner's manual recommends 91 octane gas for the 2.0L engine. I did some number crunching below. Can someone verify my math? Seems odd that the cost per mile is higher for the 2.0L than the 3.6L.

$2.43 (87 octane gas) / 18 MPG = $0.135 per mile (3.6L engine)
$2.90 (91 octane gas) / 21 MPG = $0.138 per mile (2.0L engine)
$2.43 (87 octane gas) / 21 MPG = $0.115 per mile (2.0L engine)

If you use the recommended 91 octane for the 2.0L per the owner's manual, it costs you more ($0.003 per mile) than the 3.6L (if my math above is correct). You save $0.02 per mile (2.0L vs 3.6L) if you use 87 octane for both (if the MPG is still 21 with 87 octane), but possibly void your warranty (see notes below).

Also, the owner's manual says you need to change the 2.0L turbo's spark plugs at 48K, 96K, 144K, 192K, etc. The 3.6L just says to replace the spark plugs at 160K.

References / Notes:

Spark plugs: https://www.mopar.com/moparsvc/tweddle/publications?id=9510 page 417 or control F and search for spark plugs.

Octane: https://www.mopar.com/moparsvc/tweddle/publications?id=9510 page 488. "For optimal performance the use of 91 or higher octane “Premium” gasoline is recommended in these engines (2.0L). 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".

Gas prices: My local gas station.

reading through the manual, it says 87 octane is recommended for both 3.6 and 2.0... for optimum results in 2.0L, use 91 octane. the part where it talks about using lower than recommended would be if you put anything less than 87 in either.

 

[thenewrick]

I just think it's silly to spend $40-$60k on a toy then quibble about saving $20 a month to lower your performance by using either cheaper gas or granny'ing the car. If you're getting the turbo you're getting it as a performance option, not a cost saving option. Put 93 in it and tune it and enjoy the big power and pay the extra $1000 up front and extra $500 for the tune and $20 a month or whatever it is for you. Most naturally aspirated engine guys would dream of paying $1500 to get another 50+hp out of their engines.

 

[Joe]

I just think it's silly to spend $40-$60k on a toy then quibble about saving $20 a month to lower your performance by using either cheaper gas or granny'ing the car. If you're getting the turbo you're getting it as a performance option, not a cost saving option. Put 93 in it and tune it and enjoy the big power and pay the extra $1000 up front and extra $500 for the tune and $20 a month or whatever it is for you. Most naturally aspirated engine guys would dream of paying $1500 to get another 50+hp out of their engines.

Agree and already have to use 93 with the tune in my Mustang GT, so no extra cost to soak up when comparing the two. I would be afraid of spark knock when using less than 91, not matter what the owner's manual says.

 

[Biscuit]

IMO, mpg/fuel cost comparisons between the two engines will be a wash at best.

I know it's apples to oranges, but my Subaru Forester with a 2.0L turbo ranged from 21-33 mpg with premium - similar to the 2.5L NA on regular, but with a little more oompf. OTOH, premium here costs almost a dollar more than regular.

I liked the car, but fuel cost played a role in deciding to sell it and get the 3.6L in a JLU Sport. The Jeep has fewer creature comforts, but it's a much more utilitarian and versatile vehicle for me.

 

[Joe]

IMO, mpg/fuel cost comparisons between the two engines will be a wash at best.

I know it's apples to oranges, but my Subaru Forester with a 2.0L turbo ranged from 21-33 mpg with premium - similar to the 2.5L NA on regular, but with a little more oompf. OTOH, premium here costs almost a dollar more than regular.

I liked the car, but fuel cost played a role in deciding to sell it and get the 3.6L in a JLU Sport. The Jeep has fewer creature comforts, but it's a much more utilitarian and versatile vehicle for me.

It is less than a dollar difference here, but keeps climbing. Regular is up to $2.48 and we are one of the cheaper areas. Going to be an expensive year for fuel no matter what your fueling up with.

 

[Brad41]

I don’t believe one is “better” than the other. Just depends on what you want. Whatever floats yer boat! I have family that think I was crazy for buying a new wrangler instead of a new Camry or something like that. They can have their “driving appliances”, I’m having fun!

 

[VanSchmittenstein]

It is less than a dollar difference here, but keeps climbing. Regular is up to $2.48 and we are one of the cheaper areas. Going to be an expensive year for fuel no matter what your fueling up with.

I think we’ve gotten too used to the cheap gas over the past few years if $2.48 seems high to you. Granted, in MI we’re closer to $2.90 but I still don’t think that’s expensive. I just keep reminding myself how happy I was when gas first dropped below $3 back in 2014ish! Puts it in perspective for me.

 

[GARRIGA]

When I was going to college gas was $.099. Those were the days. When my pop had his 54 Chevy it was pennies. Hopefully gas stays at around $3. I don't see it getting cheaper.

As for this topic. The 3.6 may cost less to operate but if that 2.0L has more power off the start and gives better overall performance than it's like comparing a Hemi to a V6 (within reason). You just get the Hemi.

 

[badtux]

So the EPA released the official numbers today.... yep, fuel costs basically come out at a wash, at least if you're feeding premium into the 2.0L. Unknown is what kind of fuel economy the engine will get when running on regular gas. It can do it, but that's not what the "official" fuel economy measures were measured with.

 

[thenewrick]

Why would someone pay extra for the premium engine then try to save a few bucks putting cheap gas in it and killing its performance. Smh

 

[badtux]

Why would someone pay extra for the premium engine then try to save a few bucks putting cheap gas in it and killing its performance. Smh

If they don't care about performance? The Pentastar already has more than adequate performance, even if regular gas reduced its performance to that of the Pentastar I wouldn't care.

 

[srbbnd]

If you happen to be living as a ex Pat in a foreign country where gas is out of control and difference between premium and regular is nearly the same the 2.0 is a great advantage.

Sponsored