First look at production 2.0L 4-Cylinder Turbo Hurricane engine

[MikeM1968]

The 2.0 could be a viable option, improved gas mileage is definitely a huge plus- but my other concern is reliability/ longevity. Traditionally large engines seemed to last longer in the past due to the simple fact that it doesn’t have to work as hard to produce horsepower requirements.

The potential improved gas mileage might not be worthwhile on an engine that only lasts 150-200 k miles versus one that lasts 300k plus ( for example)

Sponsored

 

[thenewrick]

The average person only drives their new car about 75k miles before selling it. It's pretty rare someone keeps a vehicle, especially a Jeep in the 300k+ territory. So, I wouldn't consider that much of an issue. If you're getting that kind of mileage, i'd expect an engine rebuild at some point.

Worrying about the 1 in 10000 situations and not about the common issues is a thing. I'd look at price/performance personally and not worry about the 1 in 10000 what-if's 15 years down the line.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

The average person only drives their new car about 75k miles before selling it. It's pretty rare someone keeps a vehicle, especially a Jeep in the 300k+ territory. So, I wouldn't consider that much of an issue. If you're getting that kind of mileage, i'd expect an engine rebuild at some point.

Actually that’s not that uncommon for Wrangler owners, that’s why I usually split my reliability comments for those who trade in near the 5yr warranty level and those that keep them for 10yrs. Especially in this forum, there are lots of people rolling old Wranglers, some of which skipped the JK to get the JL. For those folks they will definitely need to rebuild their turbo at some point (or else lose most of its benefits).

Definitely the average Wrangler will see about a 5yr ownership, but for many people in Wrangler forums that number may be significantly more, especially if they hand down their Wranglers to other family members.

The same ratio/percentage of owners split can easily be applied to people who truly go off-road, not just soft-road, but that doesn’t make us question the validity of thise needs (other than the people who get lifts and 37+s on a Sahara for an in-town-‘car’ ).

While this may not applly to the majority of Wrangler owners, longevity is an issue for many, especially in this forum, and for that a turbo’s inherent issue need to be considered for long term ownership, especially if people are using fuel savings to justify it when there is an up-front $1000 price difference, higher octane gas, and higher maintenance cost considerations added in to calculate those potential benefits. The 2.0T is unlikely to return much benefit from 3yrs and less than 70K miles, so it still needs to be taken into account for both ends of the spectrum.

IIRC for MikeM this will be his return to 4-wheels from being primarily a 2-wheel commuter in recent history, so he might hold on to the Wrangler longer than most, but some of that may depend on increased operational costs vs a motorcycle as it relates to those very issues of efficiency and reliability.

It may not be a concern for most Wrangler owners, but IMO the discussion about ‘savings’ from a 2.0T vs 3.6L needs to take all of these things into account, short-term and long-term.

 

[Bearded_Dragon]

The 2.0 could be a viable option, improved gas mileage is definitely a huge plus- but my other concern is reliability/ longevity. Traditionally large engines seemed to last longer in the past due to the simple fact that it doesn’t have to work as hard to produce horsepower requirements.

The potential improved gas mileage might not be worthwhile on an engine that only lasts 150-200 k miles versus one that lasts 300k plus ( for example)

I'd be more worried about BSG battery replacement before a turbo. I would have went for the 2.0L if it didn't have the 48v battery.

 

[thenewrick]

And of course the 2.0L may last twice as long as the 3.6L without significant repairs.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

And of course the 2.0L may last twice as long as the 3.6L without significant repairs.

Anything is possible, but a turbo rebuild by ~150K miles is more likely than the 2.0T outlasting the 3.6L, especially for anyone using a Wrangler for more than just a commuter vehicle.

 

[thenewrick]

The 2.0L is also the newer engine so newer, likely better engineering. I tend to lean towards newer technology and engineering being better than older. Especially if the newer technology is considered a premium option.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

The 2.0L is also the newer engine so newer, likely better engineering. I tend to lean towards newer technology and engineering being better than older. Especially if the newer technology is considered a premium option.

I think diesel owners would disagree with you that newer equates with greater reliability.

Newer, especially a first of it’s kind in a line-up, usually means more gremlins, not improved reliability, just ask early Pentastar owners. Tried & true usually trades greater reliability for less impressive PR numbers vs newer options.

And as mentioned, the added complexity of the 2.0T and its ancillary components doesn’t imply reliability, more often it portends an increased possible number of potential issues.

 

[MikeM1968]

Historically Turbochargers can be problematic for the average, less “anal retentive about maintenance” - ( especially oil changes ) - type driver. As others have mentioned though, new technology- could show vast improvement over those issues.

 

[rodhotter]

lack of water cooling which is very common will stress that cheap turbo!! better get some Redline oil for that puppy as its a REAL synthetic + Ester based which tolerates more heat while protecting against coking, a common issue when a hot turbo is suddenly shut off!! idling a while before shutting off can help after spirited driving!! my 01 TT has an after run pump that circulates coolant after the engine is shut off until the temps drop. new tech can be good but cheaply built turbocharged engines can be problematic!!!

 

[BaldEagle]

Turbos will use less fuel in general to get the same hp. The biggest difference you'd notice is the torque curve shifts to the left drastically. So even if they're the identical hp/tq as a NA motor, it'll feel a lot more powerful because you'll hit max torque earlier in the rpm range. Turbos are *better* all things considered.

So if you were ordering a Rubicon Jl 2018 performance wise out on trails you would get the turbo vs the V6

 

[rodhotter]

turbocharged engines CAN be built to make power wherever you want it. smaller turbos tend to be torquier but quickly run out of breath, big turbos are just the opposite. the 2001 WRX i tested in 2001 was a DOG until higher RPM's, + from reading this was partly to protect their fragile drivetrain. you need more torque at lower rpm's to move a porky jeep!!! before direct injection boost was severly limited + generally pump premium was required!!

 

[BaldEagle]

turbocharged engines CAN be built to make power wherever you want it. smaller turbos tend to be torquier but quickly run out of breath, big turbos are just the opposite. the 2001 WRX i tested in 2001 was a DOG until higher RPM's, + from reading this was partly to protect their fragile drivetrain. you need more torque at lower rpm's to move a porky jeep!!! before direct injection boost was severly limited + generally pump premium was required!!

So

turbocharged engines CAN be built to make power wherever you want it. smaller turbos tend to be torquier but quickly run out of breath, big turbos are just the opposite. the 2001 WRX i tested in 2001 was a DOG until higher RPM's, + from reading this was partly to protect their fragile drivetrain. you need more torque at lower rpm's to move a porky jeep!!! before direct injection boost was severly limited + generally pump premium was required!!

so you don’t recommend it in a Jeep

 

[rodhotter]

like everything its your choice + your $$$$. if the engine is done well it will have a lot of lower rpm power + just enough top end. i have my 2nd turbo'd car, both similar being 1.8L by VAG volkswagen auto group. my 2001 jetta had a smaller turbo + was limited by the factory tuning as well as power robbing very small exhaust. a better exhaust + ECU tune i went from 150 hp + 162 tq to 204 hp + 242 TQ on 93 octane + port injected!!! after a slightly bigger torque biased turbo + tune yielded 245 hp + 275 TQ, torque steer was my biggest issue before getting a locking front differential!! my now turbo is a slightly more powerful audi TT with quattro, look at goapr to see what a modern 2.0T can do with DI + a tune!!! as i noted it all depends what FCA gives you, + although you can easily get more out of a stock setup generally kiss your warranty bye. i would wait to see what they build + how it works before i plop down the $$$$, but if you got lots who cares, just dump it if you don't like it!!

 

[thenewrick]

Yea, the bottom line is, if you get the 2.0T for the extra $1000 you'll probably get 10% better mpg, spend 10% more on fuel, and if you tune it, you'll get significantly more power than any other Wrangler engine option.

Sponsored