EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

Drock

Member
First Name
Derek
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Location
Saugerties NY
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Mangum
Why would the manual for the JL turbo mention that the engine will meet satisfactory fuel economy and performance on 87 octane? If they truly believe that lower than 91 octane will damage the engine than that note should have been omitted all together.





Advertisement

 

Alex D

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
13
Reaction score
15
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2015 Jeep Wrangler Willy's Wheeler, tank, half doors
Here is where my "BS meter" pegs the scale! All this hubbub about the 2.0 having better fuel economy is facade and marketing BS because economically the TCO cost of the 2.0 will never pencil. In our area premium gas is consistently 70 to 80 cents MORE expensive than regular. Take the extra cost of the engine plus the need for premium fuel vs the V6 and you will never have an economic return on this investment.

Consider if I4 turbo could on average swing 4 mpg better fuel economy than the V6 using our fuel prices right now:
At 15,000 mls/yr the V6 fuel cost at 20mpg with regular at $2.68/gal. is $2,010 per year --- At the same distance for the I4 Turbo with 24 mpg requiring premium fuel @ $3.28/gal the fuel cost is $2,050 per year.
 
Last edited:

Majestic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
659
Reaction score
622
Location
NC
Vehicle(s)
2013 JKUR, 2019 JLUR
Here is where my "BS meter" pegs the scale! All this hubbub about the 2.0 having better fuel economy is facade and marketing BS because economically the TCO cost of the 2.0 will never pencil. In our area premium gas is consistently 70 to 80 cents MORE expensive than regular. Take the extra cost of the engine plus the need for premium fuel vs the V6 and you will never have an economic return on this investment.
Agreed.
I can think of no business case for the 2.0L whatsoever. It would make more sense to put the mild hybrid system on the 87 octane V6 (if they could guarantee it wouldn’t catch fire)
 

rodhotter

Well-Known Member
First Name
bernie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
109
Reaction score
25
Location
pennsylvania USA
Vehicle(s)
2008 chevy colorado 2001 audi TT 225Q
most all engines today use regular fuel, but its usually mentioned higher octane premium gives better performance + a bit better mpg's. you gotta keep your foot under control to limit boost + the xtra fueling that goes with it especially if you floor it!!! ECU tuning of the boost etc comes into play as well. a good point is the bottom line $$$$ like diesels xtra fuel cost + upkeep a good simpler naturally aspirated engine can be the best choice overall with only giving up some low end torque, your $$$ your choice but more complicated turbo engines can be more problematic + costly for sure!!!
 

Alex D

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
13
Reaction score
15
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2015 Jeep Wrangler Willy's Wheeler, tank, half doors
I am waiting for the diesel ... that one is probably worse in terms of trying to pencil savings, but I would buy it for the torque and they way the EcoDiesel drives. :)
 

JeepSmash

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
758
Reaction score
684
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon Unlimited
Agreed.
I can think of no business case for the 2.0L whatsoever. It would make more sense to put the mild hybrid system on the 87 octane V6 (if they could guarantee it wouldn’t catch fire)
That’s exactly what they’re doing. 2019 will be 3.6 with bsg.

Rating for the Ram 5.7 vs the 5.7 with BSG shows 2mpg increase city and 1 highway.

Should see similar results on the 3.6. Possibly even better? That 5.7 is pretty inefficient.
 

Saejin

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gene
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
739
Reaction score
552
Location
Colorado Springs
Vehicle(s)
JLUR - Firecracker Red
Of course this is all based on the Sport models with the euro fender. Throw in larger tires, steel bumpers, etc and you won’t see those numbers.
 

GARRIGA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alejandro
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
704
Reaction score
425
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Durango RT
Occupation
Finance
I am waiting for the diesel ... that one is probably worse in terms of trying to pencil savings, but I would buy it for the torque and they way the EcoDiesel drives. :)
If it was purely about MPG we wouldn’t drive Jeeps. SMP is my thing. However, don’t mind extended travel were both carrying the same gallons. The turbo does cost less to operate if city represents 70% or better. Each had their need and that will decide 2L vs 3.6.
 

GARRIGA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alejandro
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
704
Reaction score
425
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Durango RT
Occupation
Finance
That’s exactly what they’re doing. 2019 will be 3.6 with bsg.

Rating for the Ram 5.7 vs the 5.7 with BSG shows 2mpg increase city and 1 highway.

Should see similar results on the 3.6. Possibly even better? That 5.7 is pretty inefficient.
I’d be more interested in the low end torque performance of the BSG application.
 

JeepSmash

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
758
Reaction score
684
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon Unlimited
I’d be more interested in the low end torque performance of the BSG application.
It’ll be interesting to see if it makes an obvious difference. I think it’s gonna be a good setup either way.
 

JLUin818

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
2,011
Location
San Fernando Valley
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU
as mentioned previously, this is reminiscent of the mustang turbo 4 vs v6 vs gt wars from a few years ago. the turbo 4 and v6 were quite neck and neck in performance, though nobody really fought for the V6. it was the turbo 4 ecoboost crowd vs the 5.0 crowd. there was lots of hubbub about the ecoboost and how you could tune it to get the performance of a stock 5.0 (lol) and theyre lighter with better handling, better mpg, better insurance etc....

a few years later, you dont really see anybody talking about the ecoboost stangs any more. except maybe in the ecoboost section on the mustang forum. and you see tons of them on the used market. lots of dissatisfied people with ecoboost. seems like everyone who buys a 5.0 cant rave enough about them. Ford only made an ecoboost mustang because they were going to push the mustang as a global car and small displacement engines in europe are much more popular due to the cost of fuel but equally if not more importantly, many countries tax you on the size of your engine. so you can get "V8 performance" while only being taxed for a 4 banger. only thing is, is sort of backfired. they finally can buy a new Mustang all over Europe which carries the big bad muscle car mystique, so euro buyers were snatching up 5.0s lol. for wranglers, probably not as big of a deal as theyre not known world wide for their engine like the mustang is. i test drove an ecooost mustang and 5.0 back to back. i was looking at an auto. it sucked, bad. you'd have to get a manual if you go ecoboost. with the 5.0, its great in both forms.

lots of complaints on the "eco" boost motors not providing any economical mpg as advertised. as mentioned, you have to feather the throttle around town to get get decent mpg. i just sold my ecoboost explorer sport. even with feather footing i couldnt get that good of mpg but i prefer to enjoy the twins anyways. i averaged about 15.9mpg. others claimed about 17 or so.

if you plan to get a turbo wrangler and then modify it to add boost, then i could see the attraction. mpg and fuel costs be damned. i mean who wouldnt want more torqe in their ride?? not sure if the mpg difference will really be enough to warrant the purchase even if you live in the city. maybe if you sit in traffic a lot, but then ESS shuts the engine down anyways. FCA is pushing the wrangler to sell worldwide which explains the turbo 4 and diesel options as both are pretty all that crawls the streets in Europe due to fuel costs and taxes.

since these arent performance vehicles tuning the turbo wrangler wont be a big thing. guys arent going to be swapping out the turbos and other parts to build lots of boost. just basic tunes to add a little more. 5+ years down the road i dont think people will really be talking about it any more and the V6 resale will be higher. just like on the mustangs.

as also mentioned, durability. there's a reason why police fleet sales dont buy the explorer sports with turbos. they get the 3.7 V6 from the F150 instead. turbos are great up to 100k these days. then stuff starts breaking and needing a lot more maintenance etc... when i bought my explorer sport i grabbed the 7 year 100k mile warranty and said i would sell it before that ran out. and no way id want one without a warranty. just way too much complex/$$ stuff going on in that drivetrain. dual turbos, DI, awd, etc... great while its great lol. seems like a lot of wrangler owners keep their vehicles for a long time (while others hop from jeep to jeep). so keep that in mind while buying and considering a warranty. do you plan to keep it past the factory warranty?

and if you love turbos and are all gung ho about it then you go boy! (or girl). just, please, for the children!, dont put an exhaust on it. they will likely sound awful with exhaust. lots of turbo whistle is always cool though! pssssst!
 

GARRIGA

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alejandro
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
704
Reaction score
425
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
Dodge Durango RT
Occupation
Finance
It’ll be interesting to see if it makes an obvious difference. I think it’s gonna be a good setup either way.
It’s possible startup impression mate related to BSG than actual turbo. However, turbo produces torque earlier overall. That’s something that may outweight MPG. Only other viable option being diesel.
 

Shooting or Jeeping

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,355
Location
Mansfield, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2019 RAV4
Personally, I think jeep is positioning to pick either the 3.6 or 2.0 as the main engine (with the possible addition of a diesel). There is no sense to having 4 engine choices in a Jeep. For 10 years they had 1. This is active market research to transition to a 2.0 being standard and allowing the phasing out of the 3.6.

(And the fires on the 2.0 Show why you slowly transition a popular model...)
 

JeepSmash

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
758
Reaction score
684
Location
San Diego
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon Unlimited
Personally, I think jeep is positioning to pick either the 3.6 or 2.0 as the main engine (with the possible addition of a diesel). There is no sense to having 4 engine choices in a Jeep. For 10 years they had 1. This is active market research to transition to a 2.0 being standard and allowing the phasing out of the 3.6.

(And the fires on the 2.0 Show why you slowly transition a popular model...)
I know the 3.6 is older but it makes no sense to move to the 2.0 once the 3.6 has the mild hybrid system. It runs on cheaper gas, it’s simple, is a proven engine, has enough power and potentially gets the same mileage.
 

Shooting or Jeeping

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
919
Reaction score
1,355
Location
Mansfield, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2019 RAV4
I know the 3.6 is older but it makes no sense to move to the 2.0 once the 3.6 has the mild hybrid system. It runs on cheaper gas, it’s simple, is a proven engine, has enough power and potentially gets the same mileage.
Oh, I didn’t say it made sense... that just seems to be the way these things go. Sometimes change for the sake of change.
 

Advertisement




ATO4x4
 



Advertisement
Top