3.6L vs 2.0 turbo?? Pros and cons of both??

[SecondTJ]

I'm wondering why it's being suggested that the V6 compels a $1,500.00 premium, vis-a-vis choosing it over the I4. Jeep's Build & Price page proves this isn't automatically so.

The 3.6L engine choice has no separate upcharge when coupling it with the manual transmission, and bypassing eTorque. The 2.0L requires the 850RE automatic, though, which does increase the bill by $1,500.00.

A $1,500.00 price bump will be incurred by the V6 buyer only if he voluntarily configures his JL build in a certain manner (and perhaps he should disclose his build config. in those posts that claim a $1.5K engine selection cost.) Yes?

The 3.6 V6 is the only engine available with the manual transmission.

For the automatic transmission, the 2.0 I4 is the base engine with a $1,500 upcharge. To get the 3.6 V6 with automatic is another $1,500.

So it looks like this for 2021:

3.6/manual is standard
2.0/automatic costs $1,500
3.6/automatic costs $3,000

Sponsored

 

[CoolToys]

Always willing to test here at COOLTOYS TV, we ran a 5 day long distance fuel test
2019 JLU 4t mild hybrid no chip changes
2020 may have slightly different anti knock sensor settings
Costco Fuel
Lucas Fuel Treatment
87 Octane, 94 degrees at sea level, slight knock at 75% down force on right foot. At 5000' in Truckee-Tahoe, passing uphill on 80 100% down force on right foot nothing noticed besides the dang roof whistle on passenger side.

My guess is for HP/Torque/mpg testing they could pull a couple more HP and MPG out of the premium fuel. That is my next test since I don't drive it like a 911 on the track, I don't go over 50% on the ri

 

[GGolds]

I placed an order a couple weeks ago and the 2 things I think I went back and forth on most were the top (black vs color matched) and the motor (2.0 versus 3.6). I went in thinking I was going to for sure want the 3.6 and that a 4 cylinder motor was going to be too wimpy for a vehicle like this.

I drove 2 different vehicles....one with the 2.0 and one with the 3.6. I had a tough time really noticing much difference. I figured the 3.6 would get up and go quicker, but didn't really feel like that was the case when I drove them. Frankly, kinda felt like the 2.0 was getting up to speed quicker and was more responsive. I did notice the 3.6 "sounded" a little better but I didn't really feel much performance difference.

I think part of it ultimately depends on your needs. I'm not looking to go off-road much at all. I'm not looking to tow stuff ever. And I'm not looking to ever go crazy with big lifts and 37 inch tires as the Jeep then wouldn't get in my garage. I'm mostly just going to be a road driver that wants to enjoy the summer weather with the top off and also have something good for snow in the winter.

So I decided to just save the $1,500 and get the 2.0 on my order and that would suffice fine for my needs. Well, actually, I didn't save the money as I just upgraded to the LED lighting instead lol as I felt that would be more useful to me and just dug the way it looked. But it was definitely one or the other as I was already over what I really wanted my budget to be.

Frankly, I guess I felt like both were good choices and since I liked them both, just went with the cheaper option.

Was the same way I decided on the top lol. I loved both the black and color matched for different reasons so just decided to save the money and get the black.

I had the same questions about the engine. Got the V6 because I felt it was a tried and true engine and the 4 was a little up in the air as it's only known use as far as I new was in the Alpha Romeo. Still a nice engine. I chose the black top because $2000 for just a painted top seemed ludicrous. Now that I have the black top I think the 2 colors on the Jeep look SO much better then the painted top because the painted top makes it just look like another SUV in my opinion. Getting up to 26k on mine and absolutely love it.

 

[flyer92]

Was pretty torn between both engines when I recently ordered my 2-door Sport, but decided on the 3.6 with AT because I plan on keeping my Jeep for a loooong time (assuming that even matters).

Don't want to get into the ages-old argument on which engine is better, but was just curious when elevation starts having an effect on performance. I usually drive at/below 1500' msl, but might be moving to a location at 2500' msl. Clearly, an FI engine will be much more responsive than NA at 10,000', but at which elevation does this difference become less apparent?

 

[entropy]

The thing is the difference in performance between turbo and V6 are negligible. Both the V6 has been out for a looong time. Makes no sense imo to get the turbo. The performance of both engines is so similar I dont even know why FCA introduced the turbo. It probably has some margin profitability reasons.

 

[Chupacabra]

The thing is the difference in performance between turbo and V6 are negligible. Both the V6 has been out for a looong time. Makes no sense imo to get the turbo. The performance of both engines is so similar I dont even know why FCA introduced the turbo. It probably has some margin profitability reasons.

If you live at altitude, then there's a bigger difference between the turbo and the V6. I live at 6,000 feet and venture up to 11-12,000 in the summer so that's why I opted for the turbo.

 

[Crusifix]

Torque is way better in the 2.0. I've had both. It gets up and goes with a lot more steam.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

Having driven both engines the v6 is more refined...but the turbo is noticeably stronger at altitude. I enjoy jeeping in the Rockies so my choice was the 2.0...and I’ve been impressed so far. Since I won’t drive my Jeep more than 75,000 miles before trading it, longevity is not a consideration.

 

[Crusifix]

I've got 44,000 miles on my 2019, and about the only thing that hasn't had issues is the power train. It's been solid, and I am anything from easy on it.

 

[entropy]

Ive wheeled at 8,000~9000 ft with my V6 and didnt notice much difference to be honest. Plenty of torque to wheel. I cant speak for over 10K though.

I had a 2.0 before my V6 and I did not notice any different offroad. It definitely had more of an initial oomph on the road (the 2.0).

Again, any difference was negligible. Yeah a bit more torque on the 2.0. It is a slightly better engine than the V6 performance wise, no questions about that. the V6 feels more refined, predictable. But not enough to make a significant difference in my opinion.

Both are a proper power platform for the JL. I wish the turbo was a little bigger to make a more significant difference. I would have pick the turbo if it had a significant increase in performance.

The 4xe is a beast. Thats where the torque is. And Diesel.

 

[CoolToys]

I too have had both and as I said way earlier in this thread, passing uphill in the Tahoe region (6000ft+) the 2.0t walks away from the Pentastar V6. I truly enjoy them both for different reasons. I agree with @entropy that the V6 does feel a bit more predictable and refined.

One of our producers still drives a V6 Rubicon and lives in the Tahoe basin most of the year. We haven't had one problem with the 2018 JLU with the V6 or the 2019 with the 2.0t except that we don't drive the 2.0t enough so the "mild hybrid" batteries don't charge. We started putting it on a trickle charger. We are thinking seriously about a 4xe to replace it since we have chargers in the parking spots. Jeep are you reading this??

 

[SleepEatJeepRepeat]

People on here will tell you the 3.6L is more reliable because it's "tried and true". What they leave out is the 3.6L had a major re-design in 2016 to get better fuel economy. To do this they went low friction by narrowing many of the bearings and going to a high compression low friction ring design. They also made the engine much lighter weight. These changes are substantial and therefore no "high mileage" examples to really see how they will do. We do know this modernized 2016 version has pre-ignition issues due to the high compression on lower octane fuel (particularly in higher temperatures), and also plagued by ESS problems with the dual battery setup and firmware around that (this one might be fixed now).

While the 2.0L has a turbo that is not new technology and should not worry you. A modern turbo with ball bearings/ceramic construction has no issues going several hundred thousand miles - and do in many different vehicles include large commercial trucks and the Ford EcoBoost trucks. The 2.0L was released in 2016 in the Alfa's so about as old as the current 3.6L.

I'd personally went 2.0L as you get better fuel economy and much better power especially if you live at higher altitudes.

I had the 2.0 it’s loud and the turbo is laggy, although my vehicle had issues the motor never did it was peppy and fun and and the mileage is maybe 1-2 higher than the v6 — 15 city 19 highway

I also had the v6 in my 2017 jk Sahara the entire vehicle platform was very reliable, much quieter and very strong. I got about 14 miles per gallon city 18highway

I also had this in a 2017 grand Cherokee we rode a 27” travel trailer that weight right around 7k lbs loaded ... we did at least 6k miles towing and 50k miles on the vehicle in total and never had a problem. The v6 even pulled three trailer over the Teton pass in Utah... which is the longest steepest climb I have ever done in a vehicle towing or not.

With my current 2020 jl 2.0t getting lemon lawed this month I got the v6 for my replacement vehicle because it sounds better , and its absolute workhorse... I am not saying I wouldn’t get the turbo again, and sleep fine... just love the v6 motor and have had great experiences with it.

 

[SleepEatJeepRepeat]

Not difficult to lose traction in 2nd in the rain for either the 3.6 JK or the JL (any of them except maybe the 2.2 diesel). Traction control being on is what stops it from happening.

With a supercharger on, you don't need rain. There are a few ways to get it done without a V8 but nothing like naturally aspirated reliable power and sound.

And now a public safety announcement: Drive safe everyone. Don't play with anyone's lives including your own.

my 2.0t will easily let loose the wheels in 2nd gear in the rain even running big heavy 35s

 

[AnnDee4444]

Don't want to get into the ages-old argument on which engine is better, but was just curious when elevation starts having an effect on performance. I usually drive at/below 1500' msl, but might be moving to a location at 2500' msl. Clearly, an FI engine will be much more responsive than NA at 10,000', but at which elevation does this difference become less apparent?

This graph goes way too far as it's meant for airplanes, but it does show that at 10,000 feet there is approximately 9 psi of atmospheric pressure vs the 14.7 at sea level. That means about 61% less air. I'm not sure how important this is for off-roading purposes, as the 4-low gearing would make the loss in torque not as noticeable, but driving in traffic would be noticeable.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the 2.0's lower redline gives it some advantage when compared to the 3.6 with the same gearing.

 

[Zandcwhite]

As a general rule of thumb, NA engines lose ~3% per 1,000’ of elevation above sea level. FI engines are approximately half that. At 10,000 feet the v6 will be down about 30% where the 2.0t will only be down about 15%. In 4 lo crawling, the difference is negligible. Pulling a steep mountain grade while maintaining 60mph, or trying to pass that rv that’s been creeping up the mountain it’s night and day.

Sponsored