How old is the 2.0 T?

[Speed331]

Nice. I planned on ordering a 2022 3.6 to my spec but I found a new 2021 Rubicon with a 2.0T Auto in the color I want. Only problem it has the hard top. I really want the soft top. I don't want to have to wrench on a top to take it off and have to store it at home. But it's definitely tempting.

Here is a Post detailing my hard top removal set up. Cost less than $60 and can remove/replace in ~ 15 minutes. I have T handles in place of the bolts - really speeds up the process.

Sponsored

 

[syismaster1]

Curious as to how old the 2.0 Turbo engine is. I don't mean how long has it been in the Jeep but how old is the engine all together in other vehicles it's in?

Wondering how durable and reliable it is? How many miles it's good for and the history?

Trying to figure out the configuration of the Jeep I want.

I was hesitant due to lack of history but there have not been any glaring issues with it so far in the Alfa products that used this engine first so I chose the turbo.
I tend to think turbos are usually jerky and "snap" on the power but the 2.0 in the JL is great.
Very quick and smooth AND without trying I've been getting no less than 25 mpg which is about 500 miles per tank.
It is insane how efficient this engine is while being nice and powerful.

 

[west tex]

The fact that this same basic engine is used in expensive vehicles like Alfa Romeos and Maseratis impresses me, too.

 

[sentience]

If you have any interest in driving at elevation, you may want to consider the turbo. For example:

Spoiler

I found this on the interwebs kinda explains some of the losses involved.

Engine horsepower

No matter what type of piston engine you are working with, engine horsepower is always dependent on the amount of fuel and air the engine burns. Keep in mind that it's the density of the mixture, not the volume that determines the power that the engine is capable of generating. Power is not a function of the volume of air, it's a function of the mass, or weight, of the air - the actual number of molecules entering the combustion chamber. This is an important factor to keep in mind when discussing turbocharging. Let's look at an example.

Let's assume a standard day, and we've got a TSIO-550-cubic-inch displacement engine at sea level. At sea level field elevation, that engine will inhale 550 cubic inches of air for every two revolutions of the crank. It would also inhale around 550 cubic inches of air in Denver, at 5,000 feet altitude, on a hot day. But the actual number of air molecules entering the combustion chamber, and of course the resulting power, is going to be very different in these two examples. In Denver, there's fewer air molecules at that altitude to support combustion than there are at sea level. The result is less power for the same volume of air.

The bottom line is this. We can only burn more fuel if we build a larger engine, or we artificially cause a small engine to breathe as if it were larger than it really is. And that's what we do with turbocharging. We cause a small engine to breathe as if it were a larger engine.

Let's go over a few principles of turbocharging. Keep in mind it's not only the cubic-inch displacement of the engine that it's rated at and its rated manifold pressure that determine the engine's performance. Power is also affected by the temperature of the air as it's swept into the cylinders. The temperature of the air greatly affects the density of the air. It's the weight of the air, not the volume, that produces the power.

Now at sea level, assuming a standard day, sea level air density is 0.0765 pounds per cubic foot whereas at 10,000 feet, on a standard day, air density drops to 0.0565 pounds per cubic foot. So in a naturally aspirated engine, let's say it's rated at 100 horsepower at sea level. It generates only 73.9 horsepower at 10,000 feet.

Why turbocharge?

So why do we bother turbocharging? Well, for the simple reason that power diminishes with an increase in altitude. How much manifold pressure is lost for every 1,000 feet of altitude gained? Most of you know the answer to that. It is approximately 1 inch for every 1,000 feet of altitude. And that calculates to around 3 to 4 horsepower lost for every 1,000 feet gained. Remember, power is inversely proportionate to altitude gained. Increased altitude comes with a price - loss of power. At about 18,000 feet, the air pressure and the oxygen molecules are about half that of sea level pressure and air density. The bore stroke of the pistons hasn't changed. We are still drawing in the same volume of air. However, there's less mass, so there's less oxygen to mix with the fuel - there's less to burn. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that a normally aspirated engine is only going to produce about 50 percent of its maximum rated power at 18,000 feet. So we need some method to pump more air into the induction, to increase that air going into the induction at increased altitudes. And turbocharging provides that additional mass of air required to boost an engine's power output at these varying altitudes. AMT

Sea Level: Units of Pressure
Inches of Mercury = (in. Hg.)
Atmospheres = (atm)
Kilopascal = (kpa)
Millibars = (mb)

Pressure equivalents to: 1.0 atm = 29.9 in. Hg. = 760 mm Hg. = 101.3 kPa = 1013.25 mb

Atmospheric Pressure = 14.7 psi & 13 cubic feet of air = 1 pound
Power Loss due to Altitude

Air Density decreases at a rate of 2.9% - 3.0% for each 1000 ft. of elevation above Sea Level. See Standard Atmosphere below for background information.

Naturally Aspirated: Atmospheric Pressure 14.5 psi (It's hard to ride at sea level 14.7 psi)
Atmospheric Pressure @ 9000 feet = 10.5 psi
Pressure Loss = (14.5 - 10.5) = 4.0 (4.0/14.5) = 27.58 % @ 9,000 feet
Does a Turbo lose power with altitude? Yes!

Atmospheric Pressure = 14.5 psi, Boost = 10 psi, Total Pressure = 24.5
Atmospheric Pressure @ 9000 feet = 10.5 psi + Boost of 10 psi = Total 20.5 psi
Approximate Pressure Loss = (24.5 - 20.5) = 4.0 (4.0/24.5) = 16.32 % @ 9,000 feet

The power loss due to altitude is much less with the Turbo. The critical difference is that you can flip the switch on the Turbo to 15 lbs boost and get your sea level HP!!

Turbo considerations: As altitude is increased the turbo fan must increase rpm to maintain a constant boost pressure. With large displacement engines (read 1000cc 4-strokes) the turbo fan may have to spin faster than is efficient. The result is slower acceleration. The cure is a larger turbo or lower elevation.

 

[JeepViking13]

I was hesitant due to lack of history but there have not been any glaring issues with it so far in the Alfa products that used this engine first so I chose the turbo.
I tend to think turbos are usually jerky and "snap" on the power but the 2.0 in the JL is great.
Very quick and smooth AND without trying I've been getting no less than 25 mpg which is about 500 miles per tank.
It is insane how efficient this engine is while being nice and powerful.

Wow 25mpg? What size tires you running and gearing?

 

[Gregj]

Wife's 2.0 Turbo has 33,000 miles on it and has been great! They are a little course running, it is an inline four after all, but we have no complaints.
Gregj

 

[syismaster1]

Wow 25mpg? What size tires you running and gearing?

I know right? Kinda ironic how the Jeep is the most efficient car I have now
But to answer your question it’s completely stock.
32” Firestone Destination Mud Terrains and honestly I don’t know the gearing I think it’s 3.56.
And yes I calculated the MPG by hand to make sure the trip computer was correct (25.102mpg was the actual MPG from the full tank).
Also in prolonged bumper to bumper the range doesn’t tank which is very nice..

 

[lpasq]

6+ years

 

[Odyssey USA]

Over 11….

IE, small block Chevy first came as a 283, then a 327, 350. Same for this 2.0. It’s not a completely new design.

 

[F2F]

Wife's 2.0 Turbo has 33,000 miles on it and has been great! They are a little course running, it is an inline four after all, but we have no complaints.
Gregj

I would definitely describe it as coarse. I have nearly 20K on mine and love it. Just needs a good throttle controller as the stock pedal feel is spongy.

 

[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 so basically the turbos needed to be completely rebuilt. Any high mileage turbocharger is prone to these issues. So just take that into account if you plan on keeping your 2.0 Jeep long term.

 

[YellOhJL]

I drove a 2003 WRX 5MT (Stage 2) before my 2.0 for 210,00 miles (all my miles). After installing a throttle controller in the Jeep I am more that satisfied with the performance of the 2.0 Auto. Doesn't have top end like the WRX, but I don't need it in the Jeep.

 

[F2F]

I drove a 2003 WRX 5MT (Stage 2) before my 2.0 for 210,00 miles (all my miles). After installing a throttle controller in the Jeep I am more that satisfied with the performance of the 2.0 Auto. Doesn't have top end like the WRX, but I don't need it in the Jeep.

Nice! Which throttle controller did you get?

 

[AnnDee4444]

Over 11….

IE, small block Chevy first came as a 283, then a 327, 350. Same for this 2.0. It’s not a completely new design.

What was it in earlier, and what was the displacement?

 

[Sanchese]

Yes the 2.0 is not new in alfa Romeo.
I would go with the 3.6L because it is a tried and tested engine in jeeps since 2012.
Turbo will need to be rebuilt in future.

Sponsored