If you were wondering about the MPG ratings of the 2.0L Turbo...

[pantheman75]

...I emailed the good people at http://www.fueleconomy.org about the fuel economy ratings for the new 2.0L Turbo... this was their response:

"We receive our data from the EPA weekly in batches and this week’s update did not include the 2018 Jeep New Wrangler with the turbocharged 2.0L engine so we have not seen that data yet. Unfortunately, there is no data release schedule that we can refer to so we don’t know what data we will receive until we receive it from the EPA. The release of the data is actually set by the manufacturer but vehicles must have an EPA label before they are sold. It is not uncommon for vehicles to appear on dealer lots with EPA labels before the data are released to us for posting on the website. Because manufacturers like to control the release of their data so that they can coordinate it with marketing events, you may also find media reports with the EPA estimates or EPA estimates posted on manufacturer websites before we receive the data for posting. Normally we have new data posted each week by Wednesday or Thursday. Sorry we can’t provide you with a more definitive answer."

Sponsored

 

[kurt13]

New drinking game- take a shot every time fueleconomy.org says "data."

 

[Chicago]

...I emailed the good people at http://www.fueleconomy.org about the fuel economy ratings for the new 2.0L Turbo... this was their response:

"We receive our data from the EPA weekly in batches and this week’s update did not include the 2018 Jeep New Wrangler with the turbocharged 2.0L engine so we have not seen that data yet. Unfortunately, there is no data release schedule that we can refer to so we don’t know what data we will receive until we receive it from the EPA. The release of the data is actually set by the manufacturer but vehicles must have an EPA label before they are sold. It is not uncommon for vehicles to appear on dealer lots with EPA labels before the data are released to us for posting on the website. Because manufacturers like to control the release of their data so that they can coordinate it with marketing events, you may also find media reports with the EPA estimates or EPA estimates posted on manufacturer websites before we receive the data for posting. Normally we have new data posted each week by Wednesday or Thursday. Sorry we can’t provide you with a more definitive answer."

I was more concerned about performance not concerned about gas mileage

 

[Chicago]

I was more concerned about performance not concerned about gas mileage

I’m gonna order my Rubicon on Friday just wondering if I should get the Turbo or V6

 

[Blood Type J+]

I’m gonna order my Rubicon on Friday just wondering if I should get the Turbo or V6

If you're getting an automatic anyway, the difference for the engine is $1000.

91 octane is recommended. 87 will work but may not give optimum max power and mpg. What will that mean in the real world? We don't know yet. So gasoline costs may or may not be higher and the power difference or may not be noticeable if you go 87.

Based on reviewers' writeups, power is noticeably better. More and earlier torque from the engine, enhanced further at takeoff by the BSG. Earlier HP even though peak HP is less than the 6. Bottom line is more power, earlier down where it matters. Tow rating is the same.

MPG will be better (giving better range) but if you have to run 91 octane to get it, that may be a wash or worse. One reviewer saw 27 mpg in mixed driving but just one tank from one driver doesn't mean much - sounds promising, though.

The big unknown is reliability and only time will tell.

For me, I'm going for the 4 unless they've started blowing up by the time I order.

 

[Chicago]

If you're getting an automatic anyway, the difference for the engine is $1000.

91 octane is recommended. 87 will work but may not give optimum max power and mpg. What will that mean in the real world? We don't know yet. So gasoline costs may or may not be higher and the power difference or may not be noticeable if you go 87.

Based on reviewers' writeups, power is noticeably better. More and earlier torque from the engine, enhanced further at takeoff by the BSG. Earlier HP even though peak HP is less than the 6. Bottom line is more power, earlier down where it matters. Tow rating is the same.

MPG will be better (giving better range) but if you have to run 91 octane to get it, that may be a wash or worse. One reviewer saw 27 mpg in mixed driving but just one tank from one driver doesn't mean much - sounds promising, though.

The big unknown is reliability and only time will tell.

For me, I'm going for the 4 unless they've started blowing up by the time I order.

I agree with you ,I’m going Turbo !!!

 

[eg6turbo]

Was looking around at the history of this turbo engine and the same motor is found in the Base Alfa Romeo Guilia. That cars epa is 24/33 and weighs about 500 lbs less than a JL sport. With the BSG we can assume a epa around 21/28 realistically for a 2dr and 21/26 for a 4 Dr. Hopefully better than this, but the JL isn't as aerodynamic as a Guilia.

 

[Blood Type J+]

Was looking around at the history of this turbo engine and the same motor is found in the Base Alfa Romeo Guilia. That cars epa is 24/33 and weighs about 500 lbs less than a JL sport. With the BSG we can assume a epa around 21/28 realistically for a 2dr and 21/26 for a 4 Dr. Hopefully better than this, but the JL isn't as aerodynamic as a Guilia.

The Jeep variant lacks Multiair but gains the BSG. It'll be interesting to see what the final numbers are and even more interesting to see what real world mileage looks like.

 

[Blood Type J+]

Hurricane numbers are out for the Cherokee, 23/31/26.

http://fcauthority.com/2018/02/2019-jeep-cherokee-2-0l-turbo-rated-at-up-to-31-mpg-highway/

 

[kcjl]

The 4wd trail hawk gets only 1mpg more combined with this engine over the 3.2L pentastar. Let's hope the economy boost in the wrangler is a bit more than that!

 

[eg6turbo]

If the JL could match that with 23/31, the 2.0L Turbo would be a no brainer.

 

[cdrober]

Based on this I would love to get 25 mpg on the highway, if that is the case it is a big win. Regardless I've already ordered the 2.0t, but with my '14 Sahara JKU I get (at absolute best) 19/20 on the highway and with mixed driving around 16 (stock wheels no lift).

I know going to the JLUR I will lose some, but anything above 20 on the highway is gravy and if I can get 19 mixed that would be great (20% improvement over now). This will be my first Turbo (but I did have superchargers in the past) and hopefully all goes well with it!

 

[Chicago]

Based on this I would love to get 25 mpg on the highway, if that is the case it is a big win. Regardless I've already ordered the 2.0t, but with my '14 Sahara JKU I get (at absolute best) 19/20 on the highway and with mixed driving around 16 (stock wheels no lift).

I know going to the JLUR I will lose some, but anything above 20 on the highway is gravy and if I can get 19 mixed that would be great (20% improvement over now). This will be my first Turbo (but I did have superchargers in the past) and hopefully all goes well with it!

I’m looking forward to driving it

 

[theiowan]

The Jeep variant lacks Multiair but gains the BSG. It'll be interesting to see what the final numbers are and even more interesting to see what real world mileage looks like.

My Alfa Stelvio has registered 32-33 on highway and 25 city based on 8300 miles so far.

 

[myfirstjeep]

The 2.0 has been available to order for almost 3 weeks and still no update on the EPA numbers..

Sponsored