EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

[kre62]

I think most people are assuming this because literally every reviewer that drove both said the turbo 4 was faster, felt faster, and clearly had more power down low.

Not this guy:



He says the v6 felt more responsive. After testing the v6 JL back to back with a 2.0t cherokee I agree.

Sponsored

 

[Joe]

Not this guy:



He says the v6 felt more responsive. After testing the v6 JL back to back with a 2.0t cherokee I agree.

Looks like he has a Sahara and also drove a Rubicon. Sahara has 3.45 gears and Rubicon has 4.10. Not really comparing like to like.

 

[Covfefe]

So not only do you save $1,000 by not choosing the 2.0, but you also save $750 in fuel costs! :cwl:

 

[WXman]

Why wouldn't someone buy this engine in a Rubi? It's got more torque, and more low-end than the 3.6, all while giving a bit more range for overlanding - sounds like a win all around.

Because people who overland do not want to break down in the wilderness hundreds of miles from civilization, and forced induction, direct injection, small displacement engines have a very poor reliability record compared to naturally aspirated, larger displacement engines in the U.S. over the last 10 years.

So you're giving more money at purchase time, more money in fuel, having to change plugs and do maintenance twice as often, and increasing your odds of needing repair all for gaining 35 lbs/ft of torque. Is that really a win all around? For some guys, maybe. For most people, no.

 

[Joe]

Because people who overland do not want to break down in the wilderness hundreds of miles from civilization, and forced induction, direct injection, small displacement engines have a very poor reliability record compared to naturally aspirated, larger displacement engines in the U.S. over the last 10 years.

So you're giving more money at purchase time, more money in fuel, having to change plugs and do maintenance twice as often, and increasing your odds of needing repair all for gaining 35 lbs/ft of torque. Is that really a win all around? For some guys, maybe. For most people, no.

I will be over landing with my turbo. The days of turbo engines being unreliable are a thing of the past as far as I am concerned. The configuration of this one is meant to improve reliability and guess time will tell if that is the case. What specific turbo firect injection engines are you speaking of that have known "very poor" reliability?

 

[Sean L]

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.

well I was more referring to the Mild Hybrid function than high altitude performance but you're right on the money too.

 

[UrbanRogue]

thought about waiting for the Turbo. But Im a manual guy since day 1 and I will continue to be until they stop making them for good. When I found the Turbo was going to be Auto only I went ahead and ordered my manual 3.6L.

Thinking now about it, it was a good choice. With our government raising Gas prices (carbon BS tax) to a level its becoming unaffordable, I couldnt imagine how much a fill up of the turbo would be on Premium gas being around $1.60+/L.

Not to mention the savings of the Auto transmission and additional $1000 for turbo that didnt get added to my already pretty overpriced Rubi.

 

[NEO Bill]

Not this guy:



He says the v6 felt more responsive. After testing the v6 JL back to back with a 2.0t cherokee I agree.

That Cherokee does NOT have the ETorque system that the Wrangler does. HUGE difference! Electric motor torque is 100% available from 1 rpm to max rpm. Gas powered Torque is variably available when rpm is in the torque curve usually starting at ~1500 rpm, peaking at ~2500 rpm. Look at the specs on the same engine when placed in the Alfa Romeo Giuila, which is where FCA sourced it from. The numbers for HP and torque are slightly higher in the Wrangler.

 

[Sean L]

So not only do you save $1,000 by not choosing the 2.0, but you also save $750 in fuel costs! :cwl:

So according to Fueleconomy.gov you'll never go on the highway with your 2.0 wrangler? I find their "Combined" ratings to be laughable. I look at the Highway numbers mainly, as the city and combined ratings are very very subjective to where you live. Los Angeles Traffic is different than New York Traffic is different than Winston-Salem, NC Traffic.

 

[Sean L]

Not this guy:



He says the v6 felt more responsive. After testing the v6 JL back to back with a 2.0t cherokee I agree.

Look, I love Doug Demuro's videos, they're hilarious but I think he's more of an entertainer than anything. This is the guy that will daily drive a Ferrari and a Viper because his viewers tell him to.

 

[MotoMax]

Is there an overall weight savings going with the turbo 4 over the V6?

 

[mtbikebear]

Unless your the kinda of guy/gal that actually ejects a Thumb Drive before removing it... do you REALLY think most people will REALLY put 91 EVERYTIME?

I have a 2015 EcoBoost Mustang and a 2015 Explorer Sport (3.5 L v-6 EcoBoost engine). I run the cheap crap through every time and they do great!

Here is a thought:

Maybe it's the Italian's telling us this engine needs 91..

---> 87 octane in the USA = 92 octane in Europe <--- (yeah..i'm sure its more than just numbers, but....)

 

[Sean L]

Is there an overall weight savings going with the turbo 4 over the V6?

The 2.0 has a bit more weight with the bigger 48V electrical system involved instead of the 12V system on the V6

 

[boon4376]

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.

Subaru / Kia / Hyundai are still fairly bad at turbo charging. Subaru is by far the worst with lag and knock. Their technology is bare bones basic. Volvo, Saab, VW / Audi / BMW have been decades ahead. My SAAB took ionization readings after every combustion in each cylinder to adjust the ignition timing. Hit peak torque and full boost by 1800 RPM. Computer adjusted for lower octane automatically (just limits peak boost to avoid knock). Driving through the mountains would send that turbo screaming to hit its pressure and keep power up.

I had a forester XT that would just knock when cold or on anything less than premium gas, took 3,000 RPM to hit peak boost.

For the good brands, turbocharging at high altitude means you lose nothing. With subaru, it's probably not smart enough to adjust for the different air mixture and different octanes and just punishes you.

I have not tried the new Jeep motor, but I assume they've got this technology from the Fiat, that have a long history of high performance turbo engines.

 

[MotoMax]

So... $1000. more, must use premium gas, weighs more and is missing a couple cylinders. I'm pretty happy with the V6 in our Rubicon.
I get better than 23 mpg around here on the island. (which is mostly highway/ cruise control driving this time of year) My wife gets 22+ because she doesn't use the cruise control. The V6 JL hauls azz when you put your foot into it passing out slower traffic. Comparing the Rubi to our GC with the similar V6 and 8 speed auto I actually thing the Wrangler version of the V6's HP rating is underrated in both torque and HP. Possibly done just to promote the 4 cylinder???
Only a side by side chassis or hub dyno comparison could confirm that though...

Sponsored