Sponsored

EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
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...
They're both good engines, but people want to bash the 4 cyl for some reason, just like they bashed the JL before it wa
Heck, I think all you guys are crazy, I'm going to buy the diesel engine model when it comes out and sell what I have. Have you seen the torque numbers on that puppy, it's close to 445 if memory serves me right.
DPF/emissions failures kept me from considering a diesel.
Sponsored

 

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
43,739
Reaction score
260,024
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU, 2017 Honda Accord, 2014 Yamaha XVS 1300
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
Heck, I think all you guys are crazy, I'm going to buy the diesel engine model when it comes out and sell what I have. Have you seen the torque numbers on that puppy, it's close to 445 if memory serves me right.
Honestly If I had the money for it I'd skip the Jeep and have a Ram 2500 off road package with the Cummins Diesel... 650 Lb-Ft with the Manual, and 800 if you go with the Automatic, and mid 20s MPG on the highway.
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Threads
61
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
3,076
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
But this has already been done. They have already gotten a 0-60 time for the JL 2.0 and JL v6. 2.0 dusted them.
Link?

As the old saying goes, pics (videos) or it didn't happen.
 

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
Link?

As the old saying goes, pics (videos) or it didn't happen.
TFL did one a while back. You can look up their video if you want to see. Surely you’ve already seen it here.
 

jaldeborgh

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Threads
1
Messages
244
Reaction score
247
Location
Rowley, MA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk Elite, 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit, 2018 Jeep JL Wrangler Rubicon, 2017 Lotus Evora 400, 1949 Triumph 2000 (under restoration), 2004 Ducati Monster S4R, 2003 BMW K1200RS, and 4 Vespa scooters.
Occupation
Semiconductor Capital Equipment Sales Executive
A lot of interesting comments here but FCA wouldn’t have a $1K upcharge on the 2.0L if they didn’t think the engine was sufficiently differentiated. Anyone who has owned both a normally aspirated vehicle and a turbocharged vehicle will know the power delivery is very different. While normally aspirated engines are more responsive, turbocharged motors have more torque, once the turbo spools up. It boils down to owner preference and budget.

Personally, I’m not sure it makes much difference in daily use. I rarely floor my JLUR and even when I do, it’s a heavy vehicle and the acceleration is only modest by today’s standards. Coming off the line it’s not bad, the gearing and transmission are both excellent. Around town the V6 is very adequate and IMHO the Wrangler is not a great highway cruiser, so on a longer trip I’ll try and use a different vehicle. As for running costs, the higher fuel price of required premium for the turbo will likely off-set it’s marginally better mileage.
 

Sponsored

Mordin Solus

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jason
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
463
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLR
A few 0-60 numbers out there, looks like around 7 on the 2.0 and 8 on the V6? My opinion, seems odd to talk Jeep and 0-60 times and which is better, as I would classify both slower than a minivan :p

On another note, if I understand correctly ESS and BSG are disabled when you go to 4 wheel. If that’s correct then you won’t have some of the torque benefits. Perhaps I do not understand the systems well enough, so correct me if wrong.
 

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Threads
26
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,185
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
At 45% highway driving, you should see better than just the city rating on the combined then. Also still very subjective based off of where you live.
Not really because EPA mpg ratings is gathered under very controlled tests. Even at 100% highway driving you're paying more a thousand dollars and even more in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle for 1 mpg gain. Plus since this is a Wrangler, most conditions will be somewhat "city" with lots of slow crawling in higher rpm's (under boost) which negates the efficiency of a turbo. If 0-60 acceleration is the advantage, then you're paying out the ass for an under 8 second 0-60 (3.6 is also under 8 seconds) and nobody buys a Wrangler for the 0-60.

A few 0-60 numbers out there, looks like around 7 on the 2.0 and 8 on the V6? My opinion, seems odd to talk Jeep and 0-60 times and which is better, as I would classify both slower than a minivan :p

On another note, if I understand correctly ESS and BSG are disabled when you go to 4 wheel. If that’s correct then you won’t have some of the torque benefits. Perhaps I do not understand the systems well enough, so correct me if wrong.
8 seconds at 1 mile above sea level for the v6, but at sea level it's just under 8 seconds. Nearly the same as the 2.0

edit
Actually motortrend tested the 3.6 Sahara at 6.9 seconds. Hmmm
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-jeep-wrangler-unlimited-sahara-first-test-review/

not that any of this actually matters
 

56nomad56

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
132
Reaction score
169
Location
Orange County CA
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ocean Blue JLU Sahara
So the thing about direct injection engines that you will need to periodically clean the valves of soot and carbon build up. I hope that factor is being considered for those who are thinking they will own the 2.0t for more than 30,000 miles give or take.
I believe your information is a generation or two old. Original DI engines had a lot of carbon build up issues; newer designs have largely addressed this issue. They will last way past 30K miles, I talked to my BMW service advisor about it recently they often see cars with 100K miles or more with no carbon issues.
 

Sponsored

word302

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Threads
11
Messages
5,146
Reaction score
5,718
Location
Oregon
Vehicle(s)
JLU
At 45% highway driving, you should see better than just the city rating on the combined then. Also still very subjective based off of where you live.
Except that you're moving a lunch box through the air. Highway MPG will not be that great with the 2.0 unless you're doing 50-55mph. At 70 I bet the 3.6 gets better MPG.
 

practicaltact

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steve
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
73
Reaction score
42
Location
philadelphia
Vehicle(s)
2019 Sport S Mojito 2 Door
I believe your information is a generation or two old. Original DI engines had a lot of carbon build up issues; newer designs have largely addressed this issue. They will last way past 30K miles, I talked to my BMW service advisor about it recently they often see cars with 100K miles or more with no carbon issues.
Can you explain the mechanism by which the newer designs have addressed the issue? I understand dual injection solutions to the problem (both port and direct injectors used) like Toyota's Dynamic Force Engines but otherwise their's simply no solution in factory engines to carbon build up behind the intake valves if there's no cleaning mechanism in place. I understand there are things like trap cans that can be used to prevent carbon build up, but again, that's not a factory solution and it's got to mess up the warranty if you try to use something like that, I imagine. here's a recent video on the issue. If you search forums for Subaru, BMW, Audi, it seems it is still a problem to this day. I would not trust a dealer service advisor for information on this issue.
 

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
43,739
Reaction score
260,024
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU, 2017 Honda Accord, 2014 Yamaha XVS 1300
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
Except that you're moving a lunch box through the air. Highway MPG will not be that great with the 2.0 unless you're doing 50-55mph. At 70 I bet the 3.6 gets better MPG.
Also keep in mind that the aerodynamics of the JL has been improved somewhat over the JK, so your "Lunch Box through the air" comment carries less weight now than it used to. At 70 Mph my V6 will do anywhere from 20-35 MPG on the instant fuel economy gauge, and 15 MPG if it holds 6th gear when I'm on an uphill at that speed. I would expect a 2 liter to do substantially better while cruising as long as I don't just gun the engine like everyone loves to do.
 

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
43,739
Reaction score
260,024
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU, 2017 Honda Accord, 2014 Yamaha XVS 1300
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
Not really because EPA mpg ratings is gathered under very controlled tests. Even at 100% highway driving you're paying more a thousand dollars and even more in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle for 1 mpg gain. Plus since this is a Wrangler, most conditions will be somewhat "city" with lots of slow crawling in higher rpm's (under boost) which negates the efficiency of a turbo. If 0-60 acceleration is the advantage, then you're paying out the ass for an under 8 second 0-60 (3.6 is also under 8 seconds) and nobody buys a Wrangler for the 0-60.
Yes, very controlled tests that give you a good Idea of what you could expect on the highway, but their city ratings are not going to be accurate for real life applications as each city is going to be completely different. I live in Winston-Salem, NC but I've also lived in Jacksonville, NC, San Diego, Twentynine Palms and I've driven in LA many times. Each city is dramatically different with their traffic. I always get much higher than the EPA ratings in any vehicle I've owned, ranging from a 1.9 liter Saturn to a 5.7 Ram 1500, just based on my driving style alone. My point being, is that the EPA ratings are only meant to give you an Idea of what to expect, and are only moderately accurate on their highway rating.
 

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Threads
26
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,185
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
Also keep in mind that the aerodynamics of the JL has been improved somewhat over the JK, so your "Lunch Box through the air" comment carries less weight now than it used to. At 70 Mph my V6 will do anywhere from 20-35 MPG on the instant fuel economy gauge, and 15 MPG if it holds 6th gear when I'm on an uphill at that speed. I would expect a 2 liter to do substantially better while cruising as long as I don't just gun the engine like everyone loves to do.
You do understand the moment you're under boost your great 2 liter mpg goes out the window right? I went through the same thing with Mustang's v6 and ecoboost. The 2.3 highway mpg is great if you never break 2k rpm, so hope you enjoy cruising at 50mph for hours on end and accelerating in a way to stay under boost in city conditions is going to piss everyone off around you including yourself. You'll definitely save on gas because you won't even be able to make the next green light before it turns red, BUT the auto stop will save fuel for you at that red light ;)
Sponsored

 
 



Top