Anyone have 2.0 Turbo regret?

[GGguy77]

I am in the process of purchasing a JL 2.0 and kinda freaked out by all the electrical and quality control issues. Anyone with experience recommend avoiding the 2.0 and going for the v6 instead?
THANKS!!

No problems here as far as the engine for the last month other than the 91 Octane $$ requirement which means I have to use 93 octane because there are almost no 91 Octane stations in all of middle Georgia.

Sponsored

 

[IowaRaider]

see post 7 - I think the price went up $80 in April
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/mopar-warranty-when-where-to-purchase.2604/

 

[hutchman]

I own a 3.6 manual because that's what I wanted. Quite frankly, I could give a rip about what someone else thinks about the combo I purchased because I really like it.

But my question is not what's good or bad about the 2.0, but rather a question about the lack of a manual.

If you look at the torque curves for the 3.6 vs the 2.0, you will see that the 2L clearly has more torque than the V6 above about 2300 rpm. However, below 2300 rpm, the V6 has more torque which seems to me to be the point at which the turbo starts to build boost and the torque really takes off.

So I wonder if the lack of torque below the boost point is the reason there is no manual with the 4 cylinder? The 8 speed would clearly be a huge advantage for the 4 cylinder in covering a lack of torque up to 2300.

Thoughts...?

 

[Bri_BKT]

I test drove a two door base Sport turbo first, little lag but quick, I was surprisingly impressed. Then drove the two door base Sport 3.6 and it was no comparison. That 3.6 was flat ripping down the road. I loved it, much more spirited driving experience with instantaneous power almost anytime at any speed. The turbo wasn't even an option after that. I bought the 3.6 the same day I drove it.

Um yeah, I can guarantee you the test drive vehicle for the 2.0 just had regular unleaded and not Premium if your experience was that different. Every 2.0 owner has a complete opposite reaction when they use the premium gas. I can't wait to get my 2.0.

 

[photowiz]

I have one rule. Never buy a first year engine or transmission. Most everything else in a new, first year vehicle can be dealt with. Engine and tranny, no thanks. I hope the new 2.0L turbo becomes the best engine FCA ever makes. For me, there's just too much going on that is unnecessary. Premium fuel is a non-starter for me. I know you can use regular gas in the 2.0l turbo, but if you're looking for performance after paying extra $$$ for the engine, you need to use premium gas. Where I live, that's 50-60 cents PER gallon. That's $10.50-$12.60 extra per tank. The other thing is the 48 volt battery in the rear of the vehicle and cooling lines running to the rear to keep it cool. I'd hate to know what that would cost to replace. The 3.6L is been a very reliable engine for the Wrangler, especially after the 2013 and 2016 upgrades. Also, with the 8 speed auto transmission, my JLUS gives me all the power and pep I require.
Don't get me wrong. I hope the 2.0 Turbo becomes one of the best engines ever made for the Wrangler. It just wasn't for me right now.

 

[Bri_BKT]

I have one rule. Never buy a first year engine or transmission. Most everything else in a new, first year vehicle can be dealt with. Engine and tranny, no thanks. I hope the new 2.0L turbo becomes the best engine FCA ever makes. For me, there's just too much going on that is unnecessary. Premium fuel is a non-starter for me. I know you can use regular gas in the 2.0l turbo, but if you're looking for performance after paying extra $$$ for the engine, you need to use premium gas. Where I live, that's 50-60 cents PER gallon. That's $10.50-$12.60 extra per tank. The other thing is the 48 volt battery in the rear of the vehicle and cooling lines running to the rear to keep it cool. I'd hate to know what that would cost to replace. The 3.6L is been a very reliable engine for the Wrangler, especially after the 2013 and 2016 upgrades. Also, with the 8 speed auto transmission, my JLUS gives me all the power and pep I require.
Don't get me wrong. I hope the 2.0 Turbo becomes one of the best engines ever made for the Wrangler. It just wasn't for me right now.

Good point, get what you want. My guess is the 2.0 will be a good engine for years to come. The gas doesn't bother me, I've been paying Premium since 2012 when I bought my Si. So many folks that have bought the 2.0 and have been off-roading it say it's been great so I'm not worried about it.

 

[theplankeye]

Turbo guys swear up and down they do not have lag in their vehicles....until they get another vehicle with a turbo with less lag. Automotive journalists do the same thing in their write ups. One year the vehicle is the bees knees. The next, a turbo is modified and the previous year had objectionable lag.

Any lag is unacceptable. Period. If I want to switch lanes in traffic to get in a small gap (moving at different speed), the engine must be immediate.

 

[Huehue80]

Cost of lifetime warranty???

I paid $2745 with $100 deductible

My Dealer matched the offer from Tom
The price might have gone up some since September.

Tom Winkels for the warranty. I just sent him an email with what I wanted and my Jeep details. One 5 minute phone call later, I had my Max Lifetime warranty with the $100 deductible for $2745.00


For anyone who doesn't feel like scrolling back to find his contact details:


[email protected]

Tom Winkels

Finance Manager

Hayes Jeep

3718 Stadium Drive

Kalamazoo, Mi 49008

TEL-269.488.2080

FAX-269.488.2086

 

[ormandj]

I have one rule. Never buy a first year engine or transmission. Most everything else in a new, first year vehicle can be dealt with. Engine and tranny, no thanks. I hope the new 2.0L turbo becomes the best engine FCA ever makes. For me, there's just too much going on that is unnecessary. Premium fuel is a non-starter for me. I know you can use regular gas in the 2.0l turbo, but if you're looking for performance after paying extra $$$ for the engine, you need to use premium gas. Where I live, that's 50-60 cents PER gallon. That's $10.50-$12.60 extra per tank. The other thing is the 48 volt battery in the rear of the vehicle and cooling lines running to the rear to keep it cool. I'd hate to know what that would cost to replace. The 3.6L is been a very reliable engine for the Wrangler, especially after the 2013 and 2016 upgrades. Also, with the 8 speed auto transmission, my JLUS gives me all the power and pep I require.
Don't get me wrong. I hope the 2.0 Turbo becomes one of the best engines ever made for the Wrangler. It just wasn't for me right now.

Turbo guys swear up and down they do not have lag in their vehicles....until they get another vehicle with a turbo with less lag. Automotive journalists do the same thing in their write ups. One year the vehicle is the bees knees. The next, a turbo is modified and the previous year had objectionable lag.

Any lag is unacceptable. Period. If I want to switch lanes in traffic to get in a small gap (moving at different speed), the engine must be immediate.

So you have regrets about your 2.0s? Perhaps you missed the thread topic.

 

[AMG]

So you have regrets about your 2.0s? Perhaps you missed the thread topic.

No, this thread is for 3.6 owners to tell us how badly we've screwed up.

 

[offcamber]

 

[loplop]

Thought I'd add a few thoughts to the mix... I've had a decent amount of experience with Jeeps, I owned 2 manual-tranny TJ's (a 4-banger and a 6) and a JKU Pentastar 6-speed manual. I have always chosen a manual transmission in every vehicle I've ever bought, unless it was unavailable and I was forced to get an auto. I've had 25 vehicles and only 3 have been autos.

I give that background because for our recent JL purchase (primarily for my wife) we chose the 8-speed auto/turbo over our initial and default choice manual/v6. And when I say "we" it really was "me" as I lobbied hard for the auto/turbo combination! Part of this was because I was deeply disappointed with the JL manual transmission; but also, the turbo's instant and prodigious torque really made it a lot more fun on the road (to me).

Once I had successfully lobbied for the 8-speed, we sampled engines. From my perspective, the 4 was the better driving of the 2 powertrains. The 6 is still as good as it ever was (although I preferred the louder intake/exhaust in the JK), but it's much more lethargic in comparison to the 4 unless you rev it out past 5k rpms or so. In the zone where I usually drive them, say 2000-4000rpms, the 4 had so much more available torque. It does make some 4-cyl turbo noises, including a lot of noise from the turbocharger as it builds boost, but I don't find the Pentastar all that aurally satisfying, either...

A side benefit of the 4 should be better highway mileage. It will be interesting to see how mileage shakes out, but initial results are positive: currently 22mpg on the turbo we bought vs our JK average of 16.7; obviously more time is needed to establish a true average, but initial results are promising. FWIW on the test drives, which we did on the same road circuit across multiple vehicles, I consistently averaged 20% better mileage on the turbos. This surprised me as I was happy with the boost pedal

I'm not going to speculate on engine reliability; I've had good luck with boosted 4's in the past (including a STI, which in '06 wasn't considered particularly reliable), but certainly an Italian engine didn't give me a good feeling. To hedge my bets I bought the MaxCare warranty. To be honest, with our JK experience, I would have bought that even with the Pentastar… Split radiator in 32k miles and worries of sandy heads and expensive heater core replacement, along with a few CEL's and a persistent knock that I never could get excised unless I used premium fuel. It's certainly possible this turbo will be less reliable, but I wouldn't call our JK Pentastar reliable by any means. I'm just not going to worry about it unless it becomes a problem.

From a physical reliability standpoint, I agree with many above that the cooling lines and 48v battery are likely trail failure points, down the road. Our off-roading these days is simple dirt/farm and forest usage, mostly mud, very few rocks. We live in Ohio and it's not very likely that we'll take this Jeep on hardcore trails. We see far more on-road inclement weather than trails these days, sadly. I don't expect these items to be a problem with our usage, but back in my rock-crawling days, I would absolutely skip this powertrain for now.

TL/DR: once I sampled the torque and responsiveness of the auto/turbo there was no going back. It was so much more fun on the road (to me), and the mileage is a possible bonus. Since I intended to buy the MaxCare anyway, I'm not worrying about reliability.

Enjoy your 6, or your turbo, folks. They're both good choices, that IMO satisfy different requirement matrixes. It's likely the choice you make is the right one... for you

 

[unixfool]

Turbo guys swear up and down they do not have lag in their vehicles....until they get another vehicle with a turbo with less lag. Automotive journalists do the same thing in their write ups. One year the vehicle is the bees knees. The next, a turbo is modified and the previous year had objectionable lag.

Any lag is unacceptable. Period. If I want to switch lanes in traffic to get in a small gap (moving at different speed), the engine must be immediate.

You're acting like most of us have no prior experience with turbocharged cars and that we should be seeing something (lag) we're not. I don't know what to tell you other than, no lag perceived here.

My last vehicle was a turbocharged vehicle that definitely had turbo lag, but the car was designed to be wound out...it's HP and torque was top heavy, in the upper reaches of the rev band. That car had lag but a big-ass bang when the boost arrived (and even then, I didn't have to wait long, because the car had pretty aggressive gearing). Trust me, I know what lag is. I don't need you to tell me by offering up an apples/oranges comparison. I drove with lag for almost 7 years. That wasn't the only turbocharged car I've owned, either. Good gearing also helps with turbo lag. The Wrangler 2.0L's transmission mitigates what little lag there is.

I'm comparing turbocharged cars to turbocharged cars, which is an apples/apples comparison. Compared to a normally aspirated engine, yes, there's going to be lag, but there's not going to be a lot of it with this engine (or most twin-scroll setups), especially at interstate speeds. The 2.0L in the Wrangler is tuned for low-down and mid-range power. Twin scroll setups offer little lag when compared with single scroll turbochargers. Most low displacement turbocharged cars nowadays utilize twin scroll setups (in both economy and performance cars). The main reason most car makers use twin turbocharged setups is to mitigate lag. This isn't anything new.

A good lag measurement would be rolling 60 MPH tests (5 MPH to 60). Or, 30-50 MPH measurements. That will show the results of lag (or lack of torque for non-turbocharged cars). Bum-ometers are not good measuring tools. Using the word "period" is not acceptable. When you can provide those numbers and it can show significant lag compared to a like-engined (with no turbocharging) and weighted vehicle that has a similar mission, with a similarly geared transmission, then we'll be in agreement.

The biggest question is, if you don't have the 2.0L engine and don't plan on owning a Wrangler with one, why are you in such a huff about something that doesn't affect you? I'm not even sure it matters because compared to my last vehicles, ANY Wrangler is going to be slow as hell and not so maneuverable on pavement or even dirt. I've taken a serious downgrade in that department, but that's not why I bought a Wrangler in the first place.

 

[offcamber]

You're acting like most of us have no prior experience with turbocharged cars and that we should be seeing something (lag) we're not. I don't know what to tell you other than, no lag perceived here.

My last vehicle was a turbocharged vehicle that definitely had turbo lag, but the car was designed to be wound out...it's HP and torque was top heavy, in the upper reaches of the rev band. That car had lag but a big-ass bang when the boost arrived (and even then, I didn't have to wait long, because the car had pretty aggressive gearing). Trust me, I know what lag is. I don't need you to tell me by offering up an apples/oranges comparison. I drove with lag for almost 7 years. That wasn't the only turbocharged car I've owned, either. Good gearing also helps with turbo lag. The Wrangler 2.0L's transmission mitigates what little lag there is.

I'm comparing turbocharged cars to turbocharged cars, which is an apples/apples comparison. Compared to a normally aspirated engine, yes, there's going to be lag, but there's not going to be a lot of it with this engine (or most twin-scroll setups), especially at interstate speeds. The 2.0L in the Wrangler is tuned for low-down and mid-range power. Twin scroll setups offer little lag when compared with single scroll turbochargers. Most low displacement turbocharged cars nowadays utilize twin scroll setups (in both economy and performance cars). The main reason most car makers use twin turbocharged setups is to mitigate lag. This isn't anything new.

A good lag measurement would be rolling 60 MPH tests (5 MPH to 60). Or, 30-50 MPH measurements. That will show the results of lag (or lack of torque for non-turbocharged cars). Bum-ometers are not good measuring tools. Using the word "period" is not acceptable. When you can provide those numbers and it can show significant lag compared to a like-engined (with no turbocharging) and weighted vehicle that has a similar mission, with a similarly geared transmission, then we'll be in agreement.

The biggest question is, if you don't have the 2.0L engine and don't plan on owning a Wrangler with one, why are you in such a huff about something that doesn't affect you? I'm not even sure it matters because compared to my last vehicles, ANY Wrangler is going to be slow as hell and not so maneuverable on pavement or even dirt. I've taken a serious downgrade in that department, but that's not why I bought a Wrangler in the first place.

I drove a 2.0 turbo over the weekend. It doesn't feel like a 4 cyl at all. It pulls well. That said, it definitely didn't feel as peppy as the 6. From the CJ's video above it looks like the 4 turbo is about a second slower 0-60, which is'nt much. If it gets a lot better mileage, it's a good tradeoff, i would think.

 

[DirtyDina]

Um yeah, I can guarantee you the test drive vehicle for the 2.0 just had regular unleaded and not Premium if your experience was that different. Every 2.0 owner has a complete opposite reaction when they use the premium gas. I can't wait to get my 2.0.

It has lag...I despise the lag. You all are welcome to it.

Sponsored