IF you were buying a new JL and all of the engines were available which one would you get? Why?

[theplankeye]

I extensively test drove both 2.0T and V6 prior to purchase and the 2.0T was the clear winner for me...I've owned plenty of forced induction vehicles in the past and the 2.0T has minimal lag...

In contrast the V6 felt fairly gutless, not nearly as responsive as the 2.0T, and you definitely could tell the 2.0T had far more torque available... The improved fuel economy is a nice bonus...

No regrets since purchase and love how the 2.0T continues to perform...

Any lag + auto shift delay + big brick vehicle = no lane change for you in Houston. That is why the 2.0 would never be a consideration for me in a major city.

Sponsored

 

[American Adventurist]

That's a bit of a misquote. FCA stated the v6 was capable of the higher heat load required when towing 7600lbs. It has nothing to do with the 2.0 having the 'Schlitz', as you put it - it's verifiable better on a dyno that is has more torque across most of the powerband (lower redline). They likely did not design the setup to endure extended periods of high heat as it hasn't been put into a towing vehicle yet, unlike the 3.6. Nobody is going to pull 7600 w/ a JL up steep grades, so that's a moot point. The powerband on the 2.0 is definitely better for a daily driver, and I would argue an off-road vehicle. Let's not mix apples and oranges; towing is not the same as daily driving or off-roading.

Bullshit. It’s not a misquote at all. FCA doesn’t trust the 2.0 to handle the Gladiator. Period. Why the fuck would I or anyone else want to buy this cute little motor when FCA doesn’t think it’s up to the task of hard use? I drive my 4x4’s hard - desert, mountains and more.

The 2.0 does have a great powerband. Buts it’s way too complex for long term reliability in a 4x4. Total soccer mom/urban dweller motor option in my opinion.

But that’s just my opinion.

 

[ormandj]

Bullshit. It’s not a misquote at all. FCA doesn’t trust the 2.0 to handle the Gladiator. Period. Why the fuck would I or anyone else want to buy this cute little motor when FCA doesn’t think it’s up to the task of hard use? I drive my 4x4’s hard - desert, mountains and more.

The 2.0 does have a great powerband. Buts it’s way too complex for long term reliability in a 4x4. Total soccer mom/urban dweller motor option in my opinion.

But that’s just my opinion.

"The 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing" is the literal quote, as reported by The Drive when they asked. There's no need to be so defensive, I think both motors have their purpose, and I have zero desire to attempt to change your mind. I just felt it important to ensure people knew the actual quote, not the opinion-colored interpretation. Towing 7600lbs is something a JL will never have to deal with. I'd prefer to use a plasma cutter any day of the week, but if I absolutely must cut through a foot of steel, I'm going to use a different tool. Apples and oranges, it doesn't mean either is a bad choice, but you do need to pick the right tool for the job. Jeep/FCA decided the 2.0 doesn't fit the needs of a 7600lb towing capacity truck from the perspective of heat management.

 

[SilverJL]

Any lag + auto shift delay + big brick vehicle = no lane change for you in Houston. That is why the 2.0 would never be a consideration for me in a major city.

I found the V6 to be far more sluggish and less responsive driving in traffic and making quick lane changes in LA than the 2.0T was...

Like I said earlier the 2.0T was the clear choice for me as a daily driver....YMMV

 

[ormandj]

I found the V6 to be far more sluggish and less responsive driving in traffic than around LA than the 2.0T...

Agreed, I tested merging in Denver, and it was especially noticeable there, but even in TX the 2.0 was far easier to deal with in traffic. There's not significant lag that would impact drive-ability. The 3.6 has to downshift significantly to get into its power-band which adds a delay, albeit a minor one. I felt the 2.0 was better in the DD capacity than the 3.6 from a usable power perspective, but YMMV.

 

[Sean L]

Easy there little fella.

I mention it because Jeep doesn’t think it’s got enough Schlitz for the Gladiator. Which is really the same damn platform. That tells me all I need to know as consumer.

For those deciding which engine to choose, this effects them. Less numbers of these 2.0’s in the field means more expensive repair parts and lots of other things for the future owners. Lots to consider.

Not the same platform, different frame built for towing. This 2.0 Engine so far has only shown up in smaller vehicles (Guilia, Stelvio, Cherokee and Wrangler) and was probably not designed with heavy towing in mind, thus the lack of inclusion in vehicles such as the Gladiator and Ram 1500. So my question remains, why is the lack of inclusion on the Gladiator relevant to the discussion about Wrangler engines?

 

[wv18jl]

That's a bit of a misquote. FCA stated the v6 was capable of the higher heat load required when towing 7600lbs. It has nothing to do with the 2.0 having the 'Schlitz', as you put it - it's verifiable better on a dyno that is has more torque across most of the powerband (lower redline). They likely did not design the setup to endure extended periods of high heat as it hasn't been put into a towing vehicle yet, unlike the 3.6. Nobody is going to pull 7600 w/ a JL up steep grades, so that's a moot point. The powerband on the 2.0 is definitely better for a daily driver, and I would argue an off-road vehicle. Let's not mix apples and oranges; towing is not the same as daily driving or off-roading.

"The 3.6-liter engine can handle the temperatures seen while towing" is the literal quote, as reported by The Drive when they asked. There's no need to be so defensive, I think both motors have their purpose, and I have zero desire to attempt to change your mind. I just felt it important to ensure people knew the actual quote, not the opinion-colored interpretation. Towing 7600lbs is something a JL will never have to deal with. I'd prefer to use a plasma cutter any day of the week, but if I absolutely must cut through a foot of steel, I'm going to use a different tool. Apples and oranges, it doesn't mean either is a bad choice, but you do need to pick the right tool for the job. Jeep/FCA decided the 2.0 doesn't fit the needs of a 7600lb towing capacity truck from the perspective of heat management.

So the 2.0 is fine as long as you don't work it too hard?

Not an awe inspiring defense.

And the all new partial hybrid system will probably be fine?

Enjoy paying 35K$ to be the tester.

 

[wv18jl]

Not the same platform, different frame built for towing. This 2.0 Engine so far has only shown up in smaller vehicles (Guilia, Stelvio, Cherokee and Wrangler) and was probably not designed with heavy towing in mind, thus the lack of inclusion in vehicles such as the Gladiator and Ram 1500. So my question remains, why is the lack of inclusion on the Gladiator relevant to the discussion about Wrangler engines?

It is relevant because Jeep is saying the little motor can not handle daily use in the Gladiator but the 3.6 can.

The 3.6 is proven to be fine in the larger vehicles. Therefore the 3.6 is a more robust, proven engine.

Your argument that the 2.0 should be fine in smaller vehicles under a lighter load is not impressing the majority of those polled or purchasing.

Especially considering that jeep is asking $2,000 more for the privilege of the smaller, unproven engine/hybrid combo, over the more reliable, "overbuilt for a vehicle this size" well known engine.

 

[viper88]

It is relevant because Jeep is saying the little motor can not handle daily use in the Gladiator but the 3.6 can.

The 3.6 is proven to be fine in the larger vehicles. Therefore the 3.6 is a more robust, proven engine.

Your argument that the 2.0 should be fine in smaller vehicles under a lighter load is not impressing the majority of those polled or purchasing.

Especially considering that jeep is asking $2,000 more for the privilege of the smaller, unproven engine/hybrid combo, over the more reliable, "overbuilt for a vehicle this size" well known engine.

At MSRP the 2.0 turbo is a $1000 option not a $2000 one. It's actually less then a $1000 at invoice and below.

 

[Sean L]

It is relevant because Jeep is saying the little motor can not handle daily use in the Gladiator but the 3.6 can.

The 3.6 is proven to be fine in the larger vehicles. Therefore the 3.6 is a more robust, proven engine.

Your argument that the 2.0 should be fine in smaller vehicles under a lighter load is not impressing the majority of those polled or purchasing.

Especially considering that jeep is asking $2,000 more for the privilege of the smaller, unproven engine/hybrid combo, over the more reliable, "overbuilt for a vehicle this size" well known engine.

And the discussion is about the Wrangler, designed to tow 2000/3500 lbs rather than the Gladiator designed to tow in excess of 7600 (properly equipped). The 2.0 is designed to be fuel efficient yet powerful enough to move the vehicle in off road conditions. I've driven one in a Rubicon, works pretty great and on the test drive it surprised me in how well it moved the Jeep and in the efficiency of it.
The 3.6 was designed for a much broader use to replace many different 6 cylinder engines across multiple platforms from midsize sedans to Pickup trucks. Scoots my Jeep along just fine but uses more fuel than the 2.0 would. Do I regret getting the V6? No but if the 2.0 was available I would have gotten that one instead.

Also, per MSRP the 2.0 Turbo is only $1000 more than the V6 engine, not sure where you're getting 2000.

 

[SilverJL]

 

[c20040215]

What reliability issues have you seen with the 2.0, which has been in use in slightly different trim in other vehicles for a while now? The etorque system is not complex, it's just a battery, a motor, cooling lines, and wire. There's plenty of that already in your Jeep, aside from the BSG, which is nothing but an electric motor.

The battery is tucked up higher than the fuel tank, and I don't know if you've looked at it, but it isn't just a lipo battery sitting exposed and ready to hit every rock and be destroyed. The pack looks extremely solid and we'll protected. The motor is in the engine bay.

I could be wrong. It could be a good engine and time will tell. I personally would not do it if I had to choose again.

 

[JlURT]

Bullshit. It’s not a misquote at all. FCA doesn’t trust the 2.0 to handle the Gladiator. Period. Why the fuck would I or anyone else want to buy this cute little motor when FCA doesn’t think it’s up to the task of hard use? I drive my 4x4’s hard - desert, mountains and more.

The 2.0 does have a great powerband. Buts it’s way too complex for long term reliability in a 4x4. Total soccer mom/urban dweller motor option in my opinion.

But that’s just my opinion.

Dude, stop spreading incorrect information. Like somebody else mention they are not designed to tow 7600 lbs, it has NOTHING to do with it being unreliable. You just sound dumb and I'm sure anybody with common sense will know that. Just STOP with your opinions.


I really don't get why so many people are bashing the 2.0T, I've had 2 JKU's with the 3.6/Auto. While they were not bad engines they were very close to be boring like a camry. I overlooked a lot of things buying the JKU twice but that's a whole other thread, lmao. The 3.6/8-speed was a huge improvement and was pretty nice. The 2.0T is just really a different animal. It's almost exhilarating when that small baby turbo starts to boost.

Lets go over some facts:
3.6-
Proven
Smooth
Takes 87 octane gas (Yuck)
Cheaper
Less Parts
Lesser Gas Miles
Sounds Good

2.0T
Newer and more efficiency technology
Torquey
Tinny Sounding In higher RPMs
Takes 93 Octane (yay!)
$1000 more if you were going to get an auto anyways
More parts
Better gas miles (21- 22mpg's all city driving)
Doesn't sound as good as the 3.6
Two easily swappable parts and a stage 2 ECU flash should put it over 300 whp and 350tq to the wheels. Give or take.
More torque


At the end of the day, people pick what they want for their self pleasure, goals and direction. I ordered my jeep the day the books open for the 2.0T engine as I knew that would be the best engine for me after seeing the specs. In my eye, it was a no brainer. Obviously, that is not the same thought for most folks.

Different stroke for different folks.

 

[Demonic]

It is relevant because Jeep is saying the little motor can not handle daily use in the Gladiator but the 3.6 can.

The 3.6 is proven to be fine in the larger vehicles. Therefore the 3.6 is a more robust, proven engine.

Your argument that the 2.0 should be fine in smaller vehicles under a lighter load is not impressing the majority of those polled or purchasing.

Especially considering that jeep is asking $2,000 more for the privilege of the smaller, unproven engine/hybrid combo, over the more reliable, "overbuilt for a vehicle this size" well known engine.

Every engine in every car is a compromise. The statement that the 2.0t can’t handle daily use in the gladiator would likely be more accurately written as saying the 2.0t would likely have heat management issues routinely towing over 5,000 or 6,000 pounds. If I were towing that in a wrangler, which I can’t anyway, then sure I may be more inclined to lean to an NA engine. Much of the appeal when I bought my gt350r was that it’s an NA engine without direct injection. For a track car application I prefer that over the low end torque of a boosted engine. But again, I’m not towing 5000 lbs or tracking the wrangler. So the priority becomes the increased performance of low end torque. As a thought experiment, we could design the 3.6 to be even more reliable and suffer even more on performance. We could de-bore it to 3.2 liters, allowing for thicker cylinder walls and increased water jacket size, reshape the cylinders to decrease the compression, and retard the timing for a softer ignition. It would likely be even more bullet proof, but run like a dog. Would you then choose this molasses 3.2 because it’s even more reliable? I’m simply illustrating that Jeep has now given us multiple points on the sliding scale of performance vs potential reliability or simplicity. And this thread therefore comes down to a bunch of people saying “my compromise is better than your compromise”.

 

[TrailTorque]

While the 3.0L Eco Diesel is projected to be a torque monster, I don’t want to deal with potential Turbo failures after my warranty is up. I went with the 3.6L V6 Gas. NA all the way! I love turbo vehicles I’ve worked on and owned plenty, but I don’t like keeping 2k-4K in my dash for potential issues down the line. Been there done that..

Sponsored