How did you decide on your engine?

[BuffaloBill]

a catch can which you should know with your
Extensive mechanical background prevents blow by

Please, a catch can does not prevent blow by.

Sponsored

 

[Whaler27]

There were only two options when I bought my 2019 JLUR. The 6 Cyl had gobs of power compared to my TJ, which is the only wrangler I’d driven in about five years. (My wife has a 2012 JK for about a year, but it was a disaster, so we bailed on it in 2014.)

I didn‘t drive the 2.0 before I purchased, because I didn’t need more power in a trail toy, I was worried about the durability of the 2.0, and the 2.0 was more expensive. My brother went the other way when he bought his 2019 JLUR about ten months later, because a 2.0 was the only Rubicon his tiny Colorado dealer had in stock at the time. We‘re both happy with our choices. His only complaints about his 2.0 are the complete absence of engine braking, which is particularly nice to have in the mountains, and the anemic sound of the 4 cylinder, which was improved only slightly by new exhaust. He fixed the braking challenge by swapping in Alcon brakes, which are truly amazing. We’re both running 37” KO2 tires and he’s getting 4mph to 5mpg better fuel economy. That improved fuel economy has already paid for the cost differential at purchase. I’ve now driven his 2.0 Jeep. I can definitely feel the power difference. On balance, I think my brother is ahead of the game, in terms of both money and performance. The only thing that could shift the balance the other way is if the 2.0 proves to be less durable, but so far it’s been great.

 

[YYCSahara]

I drove both, felt like the turbo was more powerful, I also live at altitude,

At the time I ordered the turbo had a much bigger incentive and it had ETorque which I found way smoother than the 3.6 for the stop/start system.

2 years later and many offroad trips, mine hasn't skipped a beat. The only negatives are how it sounds and it can be a little tough to drive smoothly with so much torque down low.

 

[Heimkehr]

The best part is that the functional benefit far outweighs its handsome looks.

I say this to Mrs. Heimkehr. It even works from time to time.

 

[Col_Sanders]

When I first bought my 2.0, I tried a few tanks of 91 and 87 to see how it changed performance. To me, it actually felt better on 87 and IIRC the economy was a tiny bit better too. Hard to tell with economy really though since it is very rare to run through multiple tanks with the exact same driving conditions and it supposedly takes time for the computer to adapt to the different octane.

Now I only run premium during the summer and when we are going to be in the mountains. I read somewhere that that is where the higher octane will be the most beneficial.

 

[steverj64]

I chose the tried and true 3.6. I test drove the 2.0 turbo and they felt pretty close. I'm just more old school I guess. I know the technology is taking over, but I've seen little engines with turbos have issues in other vehicles. My thought is you're forcing a little motor to make more power with a turbo, that the larger motor, pushing this mid size sport ute around is doing the same thing with less effort. It doesn't need electric boosters or a turbo raising the intake pressure, it just does it as designed. My CJ had a 6 in it. So does my JL.

 

[Vkgargus]

I test drove both the 2.0t and 3.6 by climbing from 5000' altitude to 8000'. The 2.0t was still raring to go at the top. The 3.6 was tired and weak from the start and just got more tired on the way up. If you need to have power at altitude, it's no contest.

The only downside of the 2.0t is the sound of the engine. But the question is do you want to sound like you have power or do you want to actually have power?

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

 

[iboostgti335]

I have had turbocharged engines my entire life (see signature), including a twin turbocharged BMW that I drove from 35k miles, up to 170k miles.

One thing I will say about my experience with turbochargers at high mileage, is that they will need maintenance regardless of how religious you are about your regular oil changes.

After 160k miles, that BMW made 0 power from the turbos because they no longer held any boost. The wastegate valve seals had completely worn out and burned up. In addition, after that many miles, the compressors in the turbos had play in them and needed to be completely rebuilt. Any high mileage turbocharger is prone to these issues. Just take that into account if you plan on keeping your 2.0 Jeep long term.

The 2.0 is has not been around long enough to know true long term reliability but the issues I mentioned apply any turbocharged engine.

 

[iboostgti335]

You just made it abundantly clear that you have a whole lot more reading to do. Stop giving advice that your lacking the knowledge to give.

Catch cans prevent blow-by? Explain in detail how.

Turbos are the cause of excessive oil consumption? Explain in detail.

I think what @Sargeoverland means is that there is more opportunity for oil to be consumed in a turbocharged engine because A) forced induction engines are generally higher compression, if a piston ring fails, oil can get forced into the cylinder and burned, B) you have to provide oil to lubricate the turbocharger where there are lots of gaskets, which are meant to keep oil where its supposed to be. Having more gaskets keeping oil in places it is supposed to be, such as the turbo, exposes the engine to more opportunities for those gaskets to fail and in the case of the turbo it can force oil where it shouldn't be (into the intake system), C) and this ties in the point about catch cans, when those turbo gaskets get worn to the point that oil can get by them, you end up with oil in the intake system, which will get burned when that air/oil mixture goes into the cylinders, if not caught by said catch can.

More complexities also allow for more opportunities of failure. Gaskets and seals only last so long, that goes for turbochargers too; with enough use they all end up needing a rebuild.

Disclaimer: This is just my experience with turbocharged engines, and I am by no means a mechanical engineer.

 

[Headbarcode]

I think what @Sargeoverland means is that there is more opportunity for oil to be consumed in a turbocharged engine because A) forced induction engines are generally higher compression, if a piston ring fails, oil can get forced into the cylinder and burned, B) you have to provide oil to lubricate the turbocharger where there are lots of gaskets, which are meant to keep oil where its supposed to be. Having more gaskets keeping oil in places it is supposed to be, such as the turbo, exposes the engine to more opportunities for those gaskets to fail and in the case of the turbo it can force oil where it shouldn't be (into the intake system), C) and this ties in the point about catch cans, when those turbo gaskets get worn to the point that oil can get by them, you end up with oil in the intake system, which will get burned when that air/oil mixture goes into the cylinders, if not caught by said catch can.

More complexities also allow for more opportunities of failure. Gaskets and seals only last so long, that goes for turbochargers too; with enough use they all end up needing a rebuild.

Disclaimer: This is just my experience with turbocharged engines, and I am by no means a mechanical engineer.

No offense, but nowhere in this thread is mention of tired engine components or their respective seals starting to fail. It's bad enough when someone chimes in about what they don't know. Don't back peddle for them.

Oil only gets introduced into the intake stream, because epa regulations disallow venting blowby to the atmosphere outside of the engine. Blowby is caused by crankcase pressure. This pressure builds as the result of the downward stroke of each piston. As piston rings wear to the point of becoming tired, combustion pressure begins to leak past them, thus increasing crankcase pressure and the amount of blowby created. Boost has no affect on blowby.

Turbochargers are extremely simply in their design. The only magic involved is quality materials to handle heat, regularly changed oil to lube the center bearing, and clean air devoid of any solids that can frag the cold side impeller. The vast majority of turbo failures are aftermarket add-ons to engines that weren't designed with boost in mind.

Answering a simple mechanical question with "lol" is not deserving of a defense.

 

[jbannick18]

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

Sounds kind of like an RC car but I like it

 

[Sparty]

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

You ever put a cat in a blender?

 

[Reinen]

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

It sounds like a small turbo engine. Less deep bass tones, more higher pitched whirring like a high speed fan or drill. The 3.6 sounds more like a baby NASCAR engine while the 2.0t sounds more like a baby F1 engine.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

Sound is loud and unpleasant when cold…after 5 minutes of warming up it quiets down. On the road it sounds great though I do hear the turbo a lot with the windows down. It is a peppy little beast. I’m able to get a 7.5 second 0-60 with a 2” lift and 35s (and a bit of power braking)….not bad considering all of the factors…though certainly not a 392…

 

[oldcjguy]

how is the sound of the 2.0t compared to the 3.6?

"Sound" is truly subjective. To me, the 3.6 sounds MUCH more sporty. It has that better sports note to it. The 2.0T is a much quieter exhaust. I can hear the turbo from outside, but barely from the inside cabin. I may be getting old, but I like the quiet of the 2.0. There are exhaust kits available for the 2.0 and some like them. To me they make it sound like a kid with a honda trying to sound fast. If you're looking for an exhaust sound the 3.6 sounds way better. That being said I appreciate the quiet of my 2.0.

If I was going for sound or fast I'd get a 6.4 LOL

Sponsored