EPA MPG numbers published for 2.0L Turbo Wrangler JL

[Alex D]

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.

Sponsored

 

[JeepSmash]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pig-Pen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[GARRIGA]

C.A.F.E drives offerings. One day all will be electric. Change comes slow but come it does. We must adjust.

 

[Majestic]

C.A.F.E drives offerings. One day all will be electric. Change comes slow but come it does. We must adjust.

No need to adjust any sooner than you have to.
All will be electric long after everybody on this board is long gone.

 

[rodhotter]

i see the 2.0 turbo is offered in the cherokee as well.

 

[frankmorris]

As someone mentioned a few pages back, the manual does NOT say that 91 is required - that the 87 will be just fine. So, for those who want the option of higher performance OR better gas mileage, sounds like the 2.0 turbo is a win-win, provided you don't mind paying the $1,000 upfront cost.

To address the issue of the premium vs regular price spread, there are massive difference state to state. There are some good articles online (e.g. one from Edmunds) as to why this is the case, but my casual searching seems to indicate that states with higher baseline regular gas prices have a lower premium/regular spread, whereas states with cheaper 87 tend to have a larger spread. In other words, there seems to be less of a difference between state-to-state gas prices for premium.

If any owners could chime in, I'd be interested in whether 2.0 owners who have used 87 octane have noticed a significant performance difference? From what I've read with other turbos, the main difference is a loss of acceleration. I'd be fine with that as, as others have mentioned, I'm not looking at a Jeep for the lead foot performance abilities. BUT, if there were a massive difference in performance (e.g., low acceleration, engine knocking, etc.) I might reconsider.

Sponsored