How did you decide on your engine?

[AnnDee4444]

You can look at the forums of the last 3 generations of VW/Audi cars, there are an infinite number of threads on the topic with pictures. BMW as well. With direct injection, the gas and detergents never run over the valves so over time there is significant build up. Short trips and hyper-miling only make it worse. The only remedy is a secondary injector in the manifold, I don't think the Jeep 2.0 has one. These engines are only about 2 years old, so it has not become an issue yet. Performance gradually drops, and eventually you get a CEL for misfires. Then the intake manifold needs to be removed so the ports can be walnut blasted or chemically cleaned.
Build up can also be kept at bay with the 'Italian tune-up,' essentially hard driving at 3000+ rpm for 30 minutes will burn it off. Audi has a patent for this method.

So nothing 2.0 specific.

I had a port injected GM V6 once. It's known for the injector manifold to go bad, and when it does the air/fuel ratio goes way out of tune and causes misfires. Does this mean the 3.6 will suffer the same fate?

Sponsored

 

[zrickety]

So nothing 2.0 specific.

I had a port injected GM V6 once. It's known for the injector manifold to go bad, and when it does the air/fuel ratio goes way out of tune and causes misfires. Does this mean the 3.6 will suffer the same fate?

No. And I don't wish ill will on any of the 2.0 drivers. But the fact is the method of direct injection causes carbon buildup in the head and manifold, above the injectors. This is across the board, every manufacturer. It's not a matter of if, but when.
PCV catch cans help but do not completely mitigate the issue.
Lookup the 2.0T and carbon cleaning on a VW forum, BMW or Mini. The threads are endless. It is direct injection specific.

 

[Headbarcode]

So true, everyone that eventually buys the new Inline-4 Turbo engine doesn't do back to the NA. We all come from the lagging power climbs and lack of power in the mountains and white knuckle passing of the NA V6. Jeep research showed that Wranglers needed more power and more of it on the low RPM range. Plus the v8 & i4 bring the FUN back to the Jeep. Like the i6 4.0 did in the TJs. Yes the NA v6 is a good SUV engine and which is why its in other Jeep models, my wife gots that covered. Now lets solve this engine sound perspective... with all the mods that Jeepers do, Im surprised to hear that the sound is still an issue when deciding. Just CHANGE or DELETE the muffler... Problem solved... GEEEZUS its like the cheapest DIY mod in the history of mods.
In summary:
Like having a fun Wrangler to drive, get the i4
Like going fast in the fast lane, get the i4
Like low end torque, get the i4
Like consistent & instant power at high elevations and when rock crawling, get the i4
Like quickly passing semi-trucks uphill on the freeway, get the i4
Like getting better MPGs, get a i4 (getting 19mpgs on 37s)
Like telling people you got a NA v6, get a v6
Like having the best of both worlds, wait for the Turbo v6... or just get the v8!

I think the same, whenever someone comments about the sound of the 2.0 motor. A few hundred bucks got me a Borla Touring Climber cat-back, and it now has a tasteful rumble without sounding like I'm auditioning for the next fast and furious movie. And a cleaner rear end with more clearance makes it a multi beneficial modification.

 

[Bloody Marty]

3.6 for me because it's proven & that's all I need in a Jeep anyway, it's not a racecar. Plus I want a real Jeep & they all have manual transmissions in them.

No 2.0T because it's a 4 cyl & a turbo.
No diesel because of vehicle price, same for the 392.
And lastly, NO "E" motors for me until ALL internal combustion engines are dead & that's all that's left on the face of the planet.

 

[MattT69]

I think the same, whenever someone comments about the sound of the 2.0 motor. A few hundred bucks got me a Borla Touring Climber cat-back, and it now has a tasteful rumble without sounding like I'm auditioning for the next fast and furious movie. And a cleaner rear end with more clearance makes it a multi beneficial modification.

That's a Great Point I forgot to mention. The OEM soda can shaped muffler should be replaced on all Wranglers either way. Modifying the muffler is not only good for improved sound but also for clearance! That's a good looking rig Amigo!!!

 

[DHahn]

I drove both and I felt like the 2.0 had a little more pep. I don't think it was a major difference but it was enough that I felt it.

One note on sound, all I hear is the radio unless it's really windy out so to me that didn't matter. The 2.0 does sound different but to be fair if it's between the 3.6 and 2.0 neither sound good or bad even, they're pretty quiet.

 

[AnnDee4444]

No. And I don't wish ill will on any of the 2.0 drivers. But the fact is the method of direct injection causes carbon buildup in the head and manifold, above the injectors. This is across the board, every manufacturer. It's not a matter of if, but when.
PCV catch cans help but do not completely mitigate the issue.
Lookup the 2.0T and carbon cleaning on a VW forum, BMW or Mini. The threads are endless. It is direct injection specific.

Is it possible that a manufacture has solved the carbon buildup issue? The catch cans that have been installed on 2.0s haven't really been able to catch much of that sweet SN+ oil, making me think that it either doesn't have much blow-by or the PCV oil separator is well designed (or both).
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...2-0t-catch-can-kit.27322/page-24#post-1004586

NO "E" motors for me

I know you can get crank windows, but it must really be a base model if it didn't come with a starter motor.

 

[MattT69]

3.6 for me because it's proven & that's all I need in a Jeep anyway, it's not a racecar. Plus I want a real Jeep & they all have manual transmissions in them.

No 2.0T because it's a 4 cyl & a turbo.
No diesel because of vehicle price, same for the 392.
And lastly, NO "E" motors for me until ALL internal combustion engines are dead & that's all that's left on the face of the planet.

Naturally Aspirated Engines are like the Original iPhones, its not fast like the new Generations but it still works, it gets the job done, and its been a round a long time so why upgrade... My dad still uses old tech and loves it. No need for new 5G speed and complex cameras and hyper thread snapdragon turbo processors... He says: hey If it works it works...

 

[oldcjguy]

Was that said in jest?

Nope. There are 4 things there that wouldn't be on an etorque. Heat exchange, cooling lines, pump, and battery cables. Non-etorque will have an alternator instead of a generator, so +1 -1, an aux battery instead of a battery back, so + 1 -1. And I'm not counting the different battery cable and wiring for the non-etorque aux battery cables. Still not seeing the huge complexity being added. Maybe it's just me. To each their own.

 

[Headbarcode]

Apparently, a byproduct of over 30 years of mechanical experience and its associated skillset, is being able to easily spot the knowers from the guessers/regurgitaters. The former are most certainly the minority here. These threads always remind me of that hotel commercial, where staying a night makes the guy an immediate authority on the subject. Only difference is that's mildly amusing, whereas it's kind of sad here because a fellow member is looking to make an informed purchase.

To the OP. Both the 2.0 and 3.6 will serve you well. The best advice is that you thoroughly test drive both motors in equivalent geared trims (don't mix a Rubicon with a Sahara or Sport) and focus on their raw performance. Do multiple direct comparisons, as many as it takes to make a confident choice.. Both options will go the distance, as long as you feed them only high quality fuel and oil and don't stretch out service intervals for oil, oil filter, and the air filter. Go with the one that speaks to you and grabs your attention.

 

[mwilk012]

So nothing 2.0 specific.

I had a port injected GM V6 once. It's known for the injector manifold to go bad, and when it does the air/fuel ratio goes way out of tune and causes misfires. Does this mean the 3.6 will suffer the same fate?

Those two issues are not comparable in any way. Carbon buildup on valves in a GDI motor is guaranteed by design. Intake valve cleaning is to be considered part of standard maintenance on these engines.

 

[zrickety]

Is it possible that a manufacture has solved the carbon buildup issue? The catch cans that have been installed on 2.0s haven't really been able to catch much of that sweet SN+ oil, making me think that it either doesn't have much blow-by or the PCV oil separator is well designed (or both).
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...2-0t-catch-can-kit.27322/page-24#post-1004586


I know you can get crank windows, but it must really be a base model if it didn't come with a starter motor.

Probably not much blow by, that's a good thing. I don't know that anyone has solved it without using an extra injector up stream.

 

[VNT]

And no one on here with a 2.0 with some miles will bore scope via spark plug removal to take a peak. maybe they are clean as Kleenex ? Time will tell if it is an issue. I went with the 3.6's in both mine to avoid any potential issues with the DI. With DI you can get gas dilution in the oil or the build up or both on other brands. Maybe since Jeep was late to the game on DI, they designed around those 2 issues?

how difficult is it to remove the intake on the 2.0T?? If it isnt a big deal then one could mechanically and or chemically clean the intake valves and live with it. I can yank the intake on my 2.4 Turbos on my Cruisers in 10 minutes, but not sure on the Jeep since I have only scene 1, which was a 4Xe that I drove for a morning.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Those two issues are not comparable in any way.

Which was my point.

I've also seen a gasoline powered vehicle explode once. Only the future electric JL can escape this demise.

Carbon buildup on valves in a GDI motor is guaranteed by design. Intake valve cleaning is to be considered part of standard maintenance on these engines.

I disagree that direct injection automatically means there will be carbon buildup on the valves. Standard maintenance? I must have missed that part in the owner's manual.

Probably not much blow by, that's a good thing. I don't know that anyone has solved it without using an extra injector up stream.

Maybe not. But until we know, everything else is just speculation. Personally I find it hard to believe anyone would design an engine without at least attempting to fix the problems found in previous generations.

 

[XJfanatic]

Got my 2.0T because it was the only used JL in my price during the emergency buy I had to make. It was any easy choice.

Sponsored