Anyone have 2.0 Turbo regret?

[unixfool]

I'm pretty sure Jeep has tested these over rocks, water, and other obstacles. As issues arise, I'm pretty sure they investigate and remedy those issues. The fan base is large enough to where any issues not chased down and remedied will negatively impact Jeep's bottom line (which is money).

The ESS is new tech for Jeep? Or just new for Wranglers? Probably the latter. The 2.0L is a variant of the 2.0L Guilia powerplant and that vehicle has ESS. Granted, the Guilia is no Wrangler (and the Wrangler is no Guilia). The 2.0L with ESS/BSG has to be rugged enough to handle off-roading. It just has to be proven. That's going to take time and willingness. No one likes being beta testers, but that's exactly what happened when Jeep killed the 4.0L and other engines following the I-6. This is no different.

I've the 2.0L engine. I had no issue in choosing that engine. Someone up above thinks the difference in torque between the 2.0L and the 3.6L is small. It is not (and I'm not talking about peak torque, either). Here's the thread in this forum that already explains it. I flat-out chose this engine because it's the stronger of the two. The V6 is more refined and probably is less stressed, but my experience in test driving was that the V6 was the wallflower when comparing the two, and I didn't care for the shifter and clutch feel, either (this may not be a fair comparison since I've been driving a close-ratio 6-sp the past 7 years with a short throw clutch petal).

I've no issue spending money on premium fuel (I'm coming from an STI and prior to that a Ram with 5.7L).

I've no issue with it's towing capability. I won't be towing much (maybe my motorcycle on a trailer...the cycle is an SV1000S, not a small nor large bike).

Several complained about the 8-sp hunting for gears when mated to the 2.0L. I haven't seen that. I've heard of one example where someone experienced hunting while going up a steep grade...I'm certain that was something that could've been mitigated by manual shifting.

Reliability-wise, I've a warranty. They'll fix the issues. If it ends up that the Jeep stays in the shop more than in my driveway, it will be sold (and Jeep will hear about it). I do need dependability (this is my daily) but it has to be proven that this engine and it's tech isn't dependable. That hasn't happened yet and I'm a wait-and-see type of person.

For those that disdain the ESS technology and are trying to avoid it by going with the 3.6, frankly, you're on borrowed time. Eventually, all the engines will have it. It will not be an option. Because of that, Jeep has no choice but to support and mature the technology to the point where there won't be any issues no matter where your Jeep is (in the woods, in the mountains, in the mud, in the water, or in the desert). There will be growing pains, no doubt, but it's not going to be all FUDD-like. I imagine every major leap in technology has older Jeep owners doing the hem-haw. This will be no different.

These are just my thoughts. I'm 50 yrs old and won't say I know my way around every vehicle, but Wranglers aren't so different than other genres of cars. People don't like change but change usually happens regardless of those feelings. Everyone has a threshold and some people may buy the 2.0L and have their bubbles popped. It may happen to me as well. I'll deal with it when/if it comes. Until then, I'm going to try to enjoy what I have and give Jeep a chance to sort issues out. Life is too short to worry about things that haven't happened.

Sponsored

 

[Demonic]

LOL, I remember when people used to complain that these new fangled computer controlled engines and fuel injection would ruin the internal combustion engine forever.

What do you mean "used to"? Those people are still around in the world...in this forum....in this thread...

If technology scares you, then technology is not for you.

 

[unixfool]

I've offered opinions inline:

Just my opinion but:
1. Costs more Because it's an option - both the 2.0L and the fact that it only comes mated to the 8-sp, yes, that's going to cost you. Most options will cost the buyer.
2. BSG complicatedness, coolant lines, many extra parts etc. Agreed.
3. Turbo lag Not sure where you've sensed turbo lag. These engines are using twin scroll turbochargers. They spool up very quickly and very low in the power band. I've sensed no turbo lag whatsoever but I'm coming from a vehicle that used a single scroll turbocharger that made power up top. I drove that car for close to 7 years. I'm very used to turbo lag. I've sensed none. Engine responsiveness is one thing this engine definitely has over the V6.
4. Historically turbo motors don't last as long as NA motors. Not sure on this. I've seen many turbocharged inline-4s reach 200K miles without the need for rebuild. They usually don't take kindly to being beat up on, though. With today's level of technology, there shouldn't be longevity issues.
5. A lot more parts to break with a turbo. The same case could be said for going from a V6 to a V8 (and I've seen quite a few posts of people wanting a Hemi in their Wranglers). People won't accept a turbocharged car because they have more parts that may break but will accept the idea of a V8 that will have many more parts than a turbocharged I-4?
6. First year motor. That can be said of any new motor or major technology such as ESS/BSG
7. BSG battery replacement over $1500 There is that.
8. Manual is not an option (may not apply to you) Not sure if there will be a choice in the future, but I find it difficult to believe that Jeep won't want owners to have a choice of manual. It may not be all that difficult for them to take the current manual and mate it to the I-4.
9. Yet to be proven if there is any gas mileage benefit. I imagine there would be a gas mileage benefit if comparing a V6 6-sp to the I-4 8-sp. There may be a difference when comparign the V6 8-sp and I-4 8-sp, since the I-4 will make more torque (no matter the gear or rev/min). Thus says Mishimoto's dyno thread.
10. 15 Less horsepower (concede 35 more ft-lb of torque), yet to be proven 2.0 is quicker. That's been proven, as there's been several mag tests/reviews. The 2.0 is quicker, probably due to the extra torque, but we don't buy these to be drag racers.
11. 2 recalls already There have been recalls that affect all Wranglers, no matter the engine. In fact, I was alarmed at the amount of recalls in general...enough to give me pause in my purchase decision, initially. As well, new tech will have issues that need to be sorted. It's a growing process. How many recalls from the V6s production until now has that engine experienced? Probably far more than two.
12. If there is any gas savings, that savings is eaten up by the 91 octane fuel requirement If that's what it takes to meet government-mandated standards, there's really no choice. If the engine needs 91 octane, that's what it needs. From my understanding, that's a recommendation but probably because there may be locations that don't have 91 octane. Timing is pulled when the sensors detect knock, so the engine won't take damage, but engine performance won't be optimal.

Quick question. Does the V6 have DI?

 

[Schipperke]

It’s interesting to note that so far the two negative reviews appear to be from folks who don’t own Turbos, and the five positive ones appear to be from folks who do.

I don’t think we can read much into that (the nay-sayers will say owners are rationalizing their decisions; the yay-sayers will say that thousands of miles of actual driving are worth more than second-hand observations). Nonetheless one should find comfort in the knowledge that owners are clearly happy.

No vehicle is perfect or risk-free (the 3.6 threads themselves are far from trouble-free), but I love the responsiveness and sporty feel of my Turbo. So far I’ve enjoyed it for 8 weeks and 2600 miles. I’ve driven on highways and mountain roads, off-roading (mud, rocks, 25+ degree slopes, etc) and fighting city traffic. Happy to report that it’s been a lot of fun in these various conditions. It feels powerful, the accelerations put a smile on my face, it’s quiet. It just feels like a modern, good quality engine. Of course the real test will be 30,000 or 50,000 miles - but so far, so good.

Classic Endowment Effect:

""In a valuation paradigm, people will tend to pay more to retain something they own than to obtain something they do not own—even when there is no cause for attachment, or even if the item was only obtained minutes ago. In an exchange paradigm, people given a good are reluctant to trade it for another good of similar value. For example, participants first given a Swiss chocolate bar were generally unwilling to trade it for a coffee mug, whereas participants first given the coffee mug were generally unwilling to trade it for the chocolate bar.""

 

[RELBUS]

Lots of 2.0 shit talkers. I’m sure the same guys will bag on the diesel when it comes out too, because it’s not what’s under the hood of their Jeep. These are probably the same people afraid of electric windows and power locks because it’s potential point of failure. You see the same folks in every enthusiast forum, afraid of change.

That’s why there are choices, not everyone likes the same stuff.

I drove them both, and I love the way my 2.0 drives.

Unless you have firsthand 2.0 experience than don’t bother posting, you just much up a thread with useless opinions that mean nothing

 

[ormandj]

Classic Endowment Effect:

""In a valuation paradigm, people will tend to pay more to retain something they own than to obtain something they do not own—even when there is no cause for attachment, or even if the item was only obtained minutes ago. In an exchange paradigm, people given a good are reluctant to trade it for another good of similar value. For example, participants first given a Swiss chocolate bar were generally unwilling to trade it for a coffee mug, whereas participants first given the coffee mug were generally unwilling to trade it for the chocolate bar.""

Not sure what value this is adding to this discussion.

As an aside, this discussion is useful. Thank you for those contributing to it. I'm debating the two options right now and heavily leaning towards the 2.0 after driving both while visiting Colorado. It's a night and day difference at high altitude. I live in TX so not as significant a difference, but still quite notable. Hearing from those with the 2.0 regarding any regrets they may have is valuable.

As a counter-point to your definition above, forums are generally a sample of a population with problems, as people without issue aren't as often hanging out on forums, they are out enjoying their vehicles. So with that segment of population in mind, there is higher probability of people posting regrets about their vehicles/engine choices than there would be if just asking a truly random sample of the population.

Keep posting 2.0 owners, those of us looking at this engine really appreciate it!

 

[Oneilc01]

Love mine as well , wouldn’t change a thing

Totally agree. My Rubi 2.0 performed like a champ (stock) on the Jeeptoberfest modified course in FL this last Sat. No regrets. Had 26 mpg on my highway trip to Ocala.

 

[Schipperke]

Not sure what value this is adding to this discussion.

As an aside, this discussion is useful. Thank you for those contributing to it. I'm debating the two options right now and heavily leaning towards the 2.0 after driving both while visiting Colorado. It's a night and day difference at high altitude. I live in TX so not as significant a difference, but still quite notable. Hearing from those with the 2.0 regarding any regrets they may have is valuable.

As a counter-point to your definition above, forums are generally a sample of a population with problems, as people without issue aren't as often hanging out on forums, they are out enjoying their vehicles. So with that segment of population in mind, there is higher probability of people posting regrets about their vehicles/engine choices than there would be if just asking a truly random sample of the population.

Keep posting 2.0 owners, those of us looking at this engine really appreciate it!

It's not over everyone's head. What nerve was it that was hit?

 

[ormandj]

It's not over everyone's head. What nerve was it that was hit?

No nerve; just an observation and refutation of "endowment effect" in this particular situation as it doesn't necessarily apply due to the demographic present. We've all dealt with the "the only reason you say that is you own it..." comments before and they generally don't add much value to discussions. No offense was intended, I just wanted to make my appreciation of those who own the 2.0 posting either positive or negative feedback known to stoke the feedback fire. I'll bounce out of here before I derail the thread myself.

 

[DanW]

I've offered opinions inline:



Quick question. Does the V6 have DI?

No. That's one of the reasons I went with the 3.6. For the record, while there were lots of reasons I went with the V6, if it were not available, I'd have no problem with the 2.0. I think it will be a great engine. I wouldn't worry about complexity, either, as someone said, the basic design is not so brand new. The 3.6 has LOTS of plumbing, too, that could scare someone off. Look at it next to a Chevy LS engine. It has enough wires and hoses that it looks like it has hair. Still, it is very reliable and has a rep for longevity. I think the 2.0 will turn out to be a classic Jeep engine that one day people will look back upon fondly. I hope you guys have a blast with these engines in your Jeeps! In fact, I know you will!

 

[Schipperke]

No nerve; just an observation and refutation of "endowment effect" in this particular situation as it doesn't necessarily apply due to the demographic present. We've all dealt with the "the only reason you say that is you own it..." comments before and they generally don't add much value to discussions. No offense was intended, I just wanted to make my appreciation of those who own the 2.0 posting either positive or negative feedback known to stoke the feedback fire. I'll bounce out of here before I derail the thread myself.

Cool.. I mean if you have a 2.0 Turbo and have had no problems, then of course why wouldn't people like it.

But: From a design stand point, I just disagree defending all the cooling lines, 48v battery etc. for negligible return vs all the cost and yes, potential failure. I love new technology, but not so much when it looks slapped on as an after thought. Basically, I guess they couldn't find a reasonable place to attach that battery, then whip out a plumber to get coolant to it. One noted power windows and locks. I've seen vehicles with manual backup for power windows, which may never be necessary, but good engineering. The 91 octane out of the box was a killer for me, when there are heavier vehicles doing 14 second 1/4 miles on 89 octane. As to the V6, that is crazy enough needing two batteries, but at least there is no plumbing to one.

 

[RELBUS]

Cool.. I mean if you have a 2.0 Turbo and have had no problems, then of course why wouldn't people like it.

But: From a design stand point, I just disagree defending all the cooling lines, 48v battery etc. for negligible return vs all the cost and yes, potential failure. I love new technology, but not so much when it looks slapped on as an after thought. Basically, I guess they couldn't find a reasonable place to attach that battery, then whip out a plumber to get coolant to it. One noted power windows and locks. I've seen vehicles with manual backup for power windows, which may never be necessary, but good engineering. The 91 octane out of the box was a killer for me, when there are heavier vehicles doing 14 second 1/4 miles on 89 octane. As to the V6, that is crazy enough needing two batteries, but at least there is no plumbing to one.

From a design standpoint
Um yah, I would not want a manual backup for my power windows. If we are going with your line of thinking we are now adding complexity by adding another system to the mix for negligible return vs all the cost and potential failure

 

[Schipperke]

From a design standpoint
Um yah, I would not want a manual backup for my power windows. If we are going with your line of thinking we are now adding complexity by adding another system to the mix for negligible return vs all the cost and potential failure

Better not get in an airplane.

If you think a manual option to operate a power window adds complexity, you have not even a basic clue of engineering. Many cars with power moon roof, have manual process too.

 

[RELBUS]

Better not get in an airplane.

If you think a manual option to operate a power window adds complexity, you have not even a basic clue of engineering. Many cars with power moon roof, have manual process too.

I'm quite familiar with how a power window works, thanks.

We aren't discussing aircraft, where redundant systems can mean the difference between life and death. We are talking turbo JL's.
We get it you wouldn't buy a 2.0, but you don't own one so your posts are nothing more than opinion....and I'm sure you know what those are like! (hint: everyone has one)

 

[sdynak]

My regret would be that I didn't have the balls to purchase one.. Our first test drive was a turbo. Only issue was the color and there was not another in our color choice on the spot. Salesman didn't know if it was the 6 or 4 when he handed us the keys (I asked). I knew instantly it was the 4 as soon as I pulled on the highway. Had to pull over on the test drive and pop the hood. I was like "I knew it!" .. This sucker is the 4 cylinder. It was impressive for sure. I wish the 6 ran like it to be honest. In the end, I just didn't have enough knowledge (aka balls) to go for the 4 based on that. Premium was another factor in the decision. But what I can say is I don't stop thinking about how she ran. There is a difference in my butt dyno for sure.

I hope everyone that had the balls to go for it enjoys their ride. I know I would if I had one. I'm just weaker than you.

Sponsored