Car & Driver track tests 3.6L Wrangler vs. 2.7L and 2.3L Broncos

[aldo98229]

The 4xe fills that void with 375hp and 479ft-lbs torque.

Indeed. With a very convoluted approach.

Sponsored

 

[CorvZ061]

The performance disparity has more to do with transmissions than anything else. Put the ZF 8 speed behind the 2.7 EB and the results would be completely different. The Ford/GM 10 speed is the definition of a slush box. A truly ho hum transmission programmed for comfort rather than performance. I have driven many vehicles with that transmission and find myself underwhelmed each time. I like to feel a transmission shift.

10 speed the Ford has is a wonderful trans. They learn drive styles and change shift strategies based on that. If you're only driving rentals then it makes sense it would be underwhelming. Having had a few 10 speeds, it's really quite impressive, and keeps the engine in it's power curve when you need it to.

For example, 10 speed 5.0 mustangs are going 11.9 in the 1/4 bone stock, manuals are going 12.6-7

 

[Thunderjet]

About 120 years ago people laughed at the invention of the ICE cars. No where to buy gas and never would they dream you could drive around and compare gas stations before filling up.
EV’s are coming and will be the demise of the ICE (for the most part)
Like it, or not, that’s the facts.

 

[Ridgway Jeeper]

About 120 years ago people laughed at the invention of the ICE cars. No where to buy gas and never would they dream you could drive around and compare gas stations before filling up.
EV’s are coming and will be the demise of the ICE (for the most part)
Like it, or not, that’s the facts.

I am not convinced. It is far too rooted in political agenda and much less so in consumer demand. Another difference being, there is a completely functional system in place today, that is still superior than what you claim is inevitably replacing it. The two scenarios are not really comparable. The only reason to bother trying to reinvent the wheel here is political. ICE works great, the current system works and there is no reason, other than buying into the politics, that it couldn't continue as is, with incremental advances, for hundreds of years.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

That may be it. I drive fleet vehicles at work that have several different drivers.

 

[gato]

I was surprised by how much faster the 2.0T Wrangler was than the 3.6L Wrangler. I thought they were more evenly matched in acceleration, but it was 1 sec at 60MPH and much more by 90MPH.

 

[thance]

Even then it's only 0.1 seconds 0-60.... hardly enough to be worried about, and probably never noticeable in the real world.

If anything, it's kind of embarrassing for Ford. Two less doors, 35% larger engine, two turbos (should allow quicker spooling), 60 more HP, two more gears... and they could only pull a 0.1 second faster 0-60 time than a 4-door 2.0 JL?

Edit:
How can the Bronco's 0-90 time be 14.7 seconds, but the quarter mile is 15.0 @ 91 MPH? 0.3 seconds for the final 1 MPH in the quarter? 91 MPH speed limiter? Something doesn't seem right...

This doesn't surprise me. I had a supercharged '96 bronco that would get up to 80 real quick and then became a brick on wheels.

 

[jeep-v]

I was surprised by how much faster the 2.0T Wrangler was than the 3.6L Wrangler. I thought they were more evenly matched in acceleration, but it was 1 sec at 60MPH and much more by 90MPH.

I have to be very careful with accelerator when turning or exiting turns, because 2.0T is crazy with Rubicon final drive ratio. It takes off like a rocket with slight push on accelerator. I never floored it as the hell will brake loose. When stock tires are worn off, I will look for tires with more grip to handle the torque of 2.0T Rubicon. I fill it with premium 93 octane gas though. I pretty sure most 2.0T owners may not even understand why folks wanted V8 on Wrangler, because of 2.0T with 4.10 ratio already sets stock tires on fire.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

I have to be very careful with accelerator when turning or exiting turns, because 2.0T is crazy with Rubicon final drive ratio. It takes off like a rocket with slight push on accelerator. I never floored it as the hell will brake loose. When stock tires are worn off, I will look for tires with more grip to handle the torque of 2.0T Rubicon. I fill it with premium 93 octane gas though. I pretty sure most 2.0T owners may not even understand why folks wanted V8 on Wrangler, because of 2.0T with 4.10 ratio already sets stock tires on fire.

It all depends on what you compare with…my JLU Rubicon 2.0l is peppier than I expected but not nearly as fast as the 2.7 turbo in my wife’s Edge or the Tesla M3 I recently sold. If you are coming out of a JK you will think the 2.0 is pretty fast…it is compared to the 3.6 w/ 5 speed auto. A 392 is in a different league compared to the 2.0l…and I would like one if not for the huge price tag.

 

[MonLee]

I am not convinced. It is far too rooted in political agenda and much less so in consumer demand. Another difference being, there is a completely functional system in place today, that is still superior than what you claim is inevitably replacing it. The two scenarios are not really comparable. The only reason to bother trying to reinvent the wheel here is political. ICE works great, the current system works and there is no reason, other than buying into the politics, that it couldn't continue as is, with incremental advances, for hundreds of years.

Electric cars will replace ICE, its a matter of time, no one knows how long it will take for sure but it is an inevitability. I think it will take longer than the average EV fanboy does, and at least a few decades longer than the average Elon fanboy, but it will take over. There is just too much to gain for everyone to not pursue it.

Less pollution, Less maintenance, easier manufacturing, easier design, More power, Less noise, less reliance on a finite resource. The list goes on and on, there are a lot of advantages for EV's over ICE.

You do make a very good point about the average consumer not wanting it, but the reason they don't want it is because they aren't all that good yet. They will be eventually and when they are, everyone's gonna love them and say screw ICE.

ICE is a good system and gets better every year, however it also gets more complicated every year, more sensors, more potential points for failure, electric motors are both simple and robust. I agree that we don't need EV's, but even now in their infancy they make a lot of sense for a lot of people and help simplify their lives. As the tech matures and evolves that brush will get wider and wider until eventually everyone is painted by it.

 

[Pingbling23]

I was surprised by how much faster the 2.0T Wrangler was than the 3.6L Wrangler. I thought they were more evenly matched in acceleration, but it was 1 sec at 60MPH and much more by 90MPH.

These are 2018 models. I’m pretty sure the 2.0 had etorque and the 3.6 didn’t which now the 3.6 has etorque and the 2.0 does not. Sahara’s are usually quicker as well with lighter tires that have better roadway tread. They should have used brand new 2021 wranglers and tested the 4xe, 392, and diesel. Jeep clearly has the best engine lineup.

 

[TJJL19]

I wonder how much Car&Driver was paid by Found Off Road Dead, paid them.
Before you say oh! that don't happen, I know judges that took gifts and other things, like cash behind closed doors!

 

[TJJL19]

About 120 years ago people laughed at the invention of the ICE cars. No where to buy gas and never would they dream you could drive around and compare gas stations before filling up.
EV’s are coming and will be the demise of the ICE (for the most part)
Like it, or not, that’s the facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California buying power from other states? Let's not forget Texas, SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAR monthly electric bill?
My diesel can use the oil, in my tank, for my heater and I can piss in water for DEF!

 

[Ridgway Jeeper]

Electric cars will replace ICE, its a matter of time, no one knows how long it will take for sure but it is an inevitability. I think it will take longer than the average EV fanboy does, and at least a few decades longer than the average Elon fanboy, but it will take over. There is just too much to gain for everyone to not pursue it.

Less pollution, Less maintenance, easier manufacturing, easier design, More power, Less noise, less reliance on a finite resource. The list goes on and on, there are a lot of advantages for EV's over ICE.

You do make a very good point about the average consumer not wanting it, but the reason they don't want it is because they aren't all that good yet. They will be eventually and when they are, everyone's gonna love them and say screw ICE.

ICE is a good system and gets better every year, however it also gets more complicated every year, more sensors, more potential points for failure, electric motors are both simple and robust. I agree that we don't need EV's, but even now in their infancy they make a lot of sense for a lot of people and help simplify their lives. As the tech matures and evolves that brush will get wider and wider until eventually everyone is painted by it.

My contention is that your second paragraph claims are not all entirely fact based. Less pollution simply isn't true currently. Less noise simply doesn't appeal to everyone, certainly not me, I love noisemakers! The "finite resource" argument doesn't really hold any water either. The truth is oil is constantly being replenished within the earth, the idea that there is only so much is a political contention, not fact based. Generating electricity is still reliant in large part on the same claimed finite resources. There is no "free lunch" as so may like to suggest. Thankfully it isn't likely to happen during my lifespan or maybe just at the very tail end of it. Still I think there are better choices, hydrogen being one. Batteries are a horrible toxic option we should be shying away from rather than embracing if the environment is truly the concern.

 

[Killed by Death]

Car & Driver has been a worthless rag for a while now.

Sponsored