EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

[kre62]

How quick or how slow it feels depends on your frame of reference. Go from a 2.4 Cherokee to the 2.0 Turbo and you're like "Yeah its fast!" @kre62 might currently drive something with a V8 for all we know. But 270 Hp in a small crossover is more than enough power to get the job done in my opinion.

Guilty. I drive a supercharged Range Rover Sport with 510hp. But, i tested the 2.0t back to back with the 3.6 in the JL and thought the 6 felt stronger.

Sponsored

 

[Sean L]

Guilty. I drive a supercharged Range Rover Sport with 510hp. But, i tested the 2.0t back to back with the 3.6 in the JL and thought the 6 felt stronger.

I knew it was going to be something like that, going from a monstrously powerful vehicle to the smaller engine. I went from a Hemi Ram to the V6 Wrangler so I do miss the raw power sometimes.

The V6 does have 15 more Hp so it will feel a little quicker on the top end than the turbo. But the Hp and Torque numbers on the turbo are similar to a mid 2000s 4.7L V8 so I still expect it will be able to move the Jeep with confidence.

 

[WXman]

The only thing it’ll be good for is outperforming the 3.6 straight out of the box. I didn’t order this motor for the mpg. But it’s a bonus.

There’s a reason Jeep is charging $1000 for this motor and it’s not because it’s lacking.

No, the reason Jeep is charging $1,000 for the motor is the same reason they're charging $2,000 for the auto trans. that's half the price in their other vehicles, $800 for a tow package you can buy for hundreds less online, $1,000 for a 7" touch screen, etc. They're greedy.

Please explain how an engine with slightly more torque but slightly less horsepower and the addition of turbo lag is going to "out perform" the 3.6 out of the box. Ain't happenin'.

And if the competitors' small displacement, DI, forced induction offerings are any indication, you should invest in the extended warranty.

 

[Sean L]

No, the reason Jeep is charging $1,000 for the motor is the same reason they're charging $2,000 for the auto trans. that's half the price in their other vehicles, $800 for a tow package you can buy for hundreds less online, $1,000 for a 7" touch screen, etc. They're greedy.

Please explain how an engine with slightly more torque but slightly less horsepower and the addition of turbo lag is going to "out perform" the 3.6 out of the box. Ain't happenin'.

And if the competitors' small displacement, DI, forced induction offerings are any indication, you should invest in the extended warranty.

Isn't greed, its covering development costs and paying their bills. I certainly believe FCA had much more profit per unit with the JK in the last few years than they do with the JL right now. Not to mention that turbochargers are expensive as well.

 

[WXman]

Isn't greed, its covering development costs and paying their bills. I certainly believe FCA had much more profit per unit with the JK in the last few years than they do with the JL right now. Not to mention that turbochargers are expensive as well.

True, that's a factor. But it's certainly not because the 2.0 is a magical engine that'll blow the doors off a 3.6. That's all I'm saying. The 2.0 is also heavier because of the complicated systems added to it to achieve those power and MPG numbers. I just don't see it smoking any other JL in a 1/4 mile race.

But, it won't be long now until there are lots of drag race videos online comparing the two, for those who are interested in performance.

 

[Sean L]

True, that's a factor. But it's certainly not because the 2.0 is a magical engine that'll blow the doors off a 3.6. That's all I'm saying. The 2.0 is also heavier because of the complicated systems added to it to achieve those power and MPG numbers. I just don't see it smoking any other JL in a 1/4 mile race.

But, it won't be long now until there are lots of drag race videos online comparing the two, for those who are interested in performance.

heh, Drag racing Jeeps... There's already plenty of footage of both engines off road at the press events, so I guess people will have to do nothing but drag race them.

Turbo with BSG and its better torque will be quicker off the line, but the V6 and its higher Hp will be better on the top end. I think they'd have a minimal difference on the 1/4 mile. The real difference will be seen in someones daily commute within city limits.

 

[ThirtyOne]

heh, Drag racing Jeeps... There's already plenty of footage of both engines off road at the press events, so I guess people will have to do nothing but drag race them.

Turbo with BSG and its better torque will be quicker off the line, but the V6 and its higher Hp will be better on the top end. I think they'd have a minimal difference on the 1/4 mile. The real difference will be seen in someones daily commute within city limits.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the real difference will be seen by people that live or wheel in high altitudes. I would think this would be very tempting in Colorado for example.

Edit: Or those willing to do a custom tune on it.

 

[JLU_rubi18!]

No, the reason Jeep is charging $1,000 for the motor is the same reason they're charging $2,000 for the auto trans. that's half the price in their other vehicles, $800 for a tow package you can buy for hundreds less online, $1,000 for a 7" touch screen, etc. They're greedy.

Please explain how an engine with slightly more torque but slightly less horsepower and the addition of turbo lag is going to "out perform" the 3.6 out of the box. Ain't happenin'.

And if the competitors' small displacement, DI, forced induction offerings are any indication, you should invest in the extended warranty.

I’m not trying to be rude here, but you really don’t know what you’re speaking of. Look at the peak HP and Torque delivery numbers. The 2.0 makes both HP and Torque at drastically lower RPMs than does the 3.6.

 

[JLU_rubi18!]

Don’t take my word for it

 

[56nomad56]

As with most purchase decisions, buyers will have to weigh pros and cons. My experience from having owned several 2.0T and 3.0T engines:

Pros
1) MPGs on the 2.0T have been really good. Our VW CC made it from Brian Head Utah to Orange County California on 3/4ths of a tank of gas. Our X1 got mid-30s on the highway consistently.

2) Power is strong down low in the RPMs. The 2.0T in the 328i will do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, while my 435i turbo-six can only muster 5.4 (manual trans). The straight-6 in the E90 3 series was 0.4s slower to 60. Stay off the gas and you'll do great with mileage, tap into the juice and there's plenty there.

3) Turbo lag has been reduced significantly in recent years.

4) Easy tuning of turbo engines.

Cons
5) 91 octane recommended. This is a bigger issue in some areas than others. Here in CA 87 is running @ $3.69 and 91 is $3.89. That's a difference of 5.5%. You'd have to run numbers to determine where your break even point would be considering the extra cost of the engine and fuel vs. the better MPGs.

6) 2.0T engines can sound a little industrial. The X1 engine was silky smooth and powerful, but almost sounded like a diesel with the direct injection.

7) Increased repair costs. This may be true, but I've had 4 turbos in a row (VW CC and BMW 335is/X1/435i) and not had a single issue with repair or malfunction. Admittedly small sample size but been fortunate so far. If something had happened all of the cars were under warranty during ownership.

Again, the 2.0 will make sense to some and not to others, that's why it's nice we have options. Since we're looking at an auto already, the extra $1,000 for the turbo makes more sense to us than to someone shopping a 3.6 manual who would need to shell out the extra $3,000 for the turbo.

 

[olmectech]

91 Octane is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Covfefe]

If this is anything like Ford's Ecoboost, good luck staying under boost to get EPA city numbers. My Ecoboost is suppose to get 21city, but I've been averaging 15city for the past 3 years. Not that I really care, because it's all about SPG.

 

[Arkewn]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the real difference will be seen by people that live or wheel in high altitudes. I would think this would be very tempting in Colorado for example.

Edit: Or those willing to do a custom tune on it.

I'm no expert nor mechanic but altitude is the enemy of the turbo in my WRX. Thin air changes the air/fuel ratios which can be a problem. I've had several misfire/detonation events going over Vail or Loveland Pass due to crappy gas that didn't have the right octane balance or maybe bad fuel map.

I'm sure they've figured this out these days with auto adjusting computers but the turbo engine in a Jeep at high altitude makes me nervous. Placed my order for a 3.6L Saturday instead.

 

[Covfefe]

I'm no expert nor mechanic but altitude is the enemy of the turbo in my WRX. Thin air changes the air/fuel ratios which can be a problem. I've had several misfire/detonation events going over Vail or Loveland Pass due to crappy gas that didn't have the right octane balance or maybe bad fuel map.

I'm sure they've figured this out these days with auto adjusting computers but the turbo engine in a Jeep at high altitude makes me nervous. Placed my order for a 3.6L Saturday instead.

But at altitude a turbo charged engine is preferred over a n/a

 

[am1978]

Lol. Glad I passed on the 2.0. Unimpressed. It was the reason I decided to look at Jeeps for the first time in 20yrs, but I took the V6 instead. The 2.0 is not worth the gas pricing and engine upgrade cost.

Sponsored