Waited for the automatic 2.0 L Turbo. Would not have bought a V6 (or standard). Only downside is the need for premium gas. Still, not regrets.
This from a loser who names his Jeep “hoss” and challenges people to meet him in a mud field.Thanks for giving us guidelines on how to conduct our opinions... what would we ever do without your brilliant guidance? FYI, you totally sound like a guy that put a 2016 "I'm with her" sticker on your last rig. Gross.
The dyno isn't "close". There's a night and day difference. MPG I haven't seen enough reliable data to make a call on, but the early reports are a fairly decent increase for the 2.0. May be offset by the cost premium for premium right now, but that will change as oil prices go up. Not sure what to say on the TFL comments, I've not driven the 2.0 or 3.6 offroad, only on-road. The 2.0 was clearly better on-road to myself as well as my passenger. TFL isn't known for being a good judge of much of anything. They're the clown of the car review organizations, the numbers for 0-60/etc they report are all silly.Why was the 2.0 Made that is the question? with the numbers so close what drove the innovation? MPG/CARB/EPA in my research I chose to pass on the 2.0 hoping for the owners it proves to be reliable ...so I'm definitely not a hatter ..just trying to understand its Reason for existence we do know that huge fines are paid for bad EPA and Less MPG's by Car manufacturers etc... so it appears that the one reason for it is to Save FCA money. and give comparable results of what's already Proven and in production, I don't know for sure but it all seems to lead to cost-cutting that combined with the 3 cooling systems and other Maintenance complexities a little scary for me .but when TFL./youtube drove both on the Rubicon they loved the turbo @ first but after wheeling the 3.6 they just said they would buy the 3.6 they said the power delivery was better and the V6 had that Ummph