Is there any way to tell a 2.0 just by looking at it?

[JeezAJeep]

Not to discriminate, but are there many drivers that are blind?
[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic

Sponsored

 

[Retrograde]

Any distinguishing external features?

They're the ones lined up outside the dealership for warranty work.

 

[Wkaz]

 

[OutlawBeard]

where'd you get that? I love it

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

They're the ones lined up outside the dealership for warranty work.

Based on what I’ve seen in these threads I suspect the V6 might be the more immediately problematic of the two….at least until the little turbo ages a bit. Who knows then…..

 

[Wkaz]

where'd you get that? I love it

pixeldecals.com

 

[JeezAJeep]

https://www.pixeldecals.com/shop/4-Squirrels-Inside-Decal?search=4 squirrels inside

 

[jjvincent]

I challenge all you drivers who are blind....sit next to a 2.0 and you can tell upon start up. Normal drivers who can see, cannot tell the difference at all by looking

I can tell when I put them up on the hoist for an oil change. Filter is right there next to the drain plug. At least they got that right.

 

[RoadiJeff]

Not to discriminate, but are there many drivers that are blind?

I did see a pic of a braille shift knob recently. I think it was on a BMW.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Maybe, but there is a reason the 2.0T isn't offered in vehicles that the 3.6 is - like the Gladiator, Challenger, Charger, 300, Grand Cherokee, 1500, Rubicon Extreme Recon...etc. At the end of the day to each their own. Cheers

I Wonder why. Could it be that they haven't gotten around to offering it as an option yet? the Cherokee & Grand Cherokee have the 2.0 as an option.

All fun on my side too. As far as robust drivelines the 2.0T really doesn't make that much torque over the 3.6 - they both use the 850RE tranny.

The 2.0 has around 75 lb-ft more at the wheels, which is about 35% more than the 3.6.

 

[Gunfighter]

I Wonder why. Could it be that they haven't gotten around to offering it as an option yet? the Cherokee & Grand Cherokee have the 2.0 as an option.


The 2.0 has around 75 lb-ft more at the wheels, which is about 35% more than the 3.6.

3.6 = 285hp / 260 ft/lbs
2.0 = 268hp / 295 ft/lbs

They both use the same tranny so the reality is the 2.0 doesn't put enough power to warrant an upgraded transmission or driveline.

as far as an option on the other vehicles described - won't happen.

 

[AnnDee4444]

3.6 = 285hp / 260 ft/lbs
2.0 = 268hp / 295 ft/lbs

I'm aware of the official peak crankshaft numbers. Manufacture's official numbers don't always reflect reality.

The chart I posted is an average of many third party dyno charts (at the wheels). Yes comparing individual dynos against each other from different times/parties isn't good practice, but compiling every dyno I can find and taking the average should give a fairly accurate representation of what the torque curve looks actually looks like. And to me it looks like the 2.0 is producing more than 295 lb-ft of torque at the motor (assuming the drivetrain loss is equal between the 2.0 & 3.6). Either that or all the 2.0 dyno operators are getting results that are artificially high, and getting low results on the 3.6.

They both use the same tranny so the reality is the 2.0 doesn't put enough power to warrant an upgraded transmission or driveline.

True, the automatic has a high enough torque rating that covers the 2.0. Going by the official 295 lb-ft figure, the 2.0 also has more torque than the Aisin AL6/D478 is rated for (370 Nm = 273 lb-ft), which might be one of the reasons why there is no 2.0 manual.

as far as an option on the other vehicles described - won't happen.

Gladiator, Challenger, Charger, 300, Grand Cherokee, 1500, Rubicon Extreme Recon...etc.

We can rule out a 2.0 Gladiator, since it likely doesn't have the cooling capacity to support towing. Maybe the Ram's body allows for enough cooling capacity, but only the engineers will ever know this, and it probably wouldn't sell well anyway. I think the 2.0 Rubicon Recon Xtreme is likely to happen eventually. And the Challenger/Charger/300 would be pretty logical with the 2.0 (see 4-cylinder Mustang & Camaro) if it will fit or maybe a next generation will share a platform with the Giulia.

The Grand Cherokee? Highly likely. From here: "While Jeep isn’t even telling its dealer body which engine option will be under the hood of the 4xe, our sources have said it will be an almost identical setup to the Wrangler Unlimited 4xe utilizing a turbocharged 2.0-liter GME-T4 inline-four, a ZF-sourced 8HP hybrid 8-speed automatic transmission, and plug-in capability."

 

[IdahoJOAT]

You sure can hear the difference.

 

[Gunfighter]

Manufacture's official numbers don't always reflect reality.


The Grand Cherokee? Highly likely. From here: "While Jeep isn’t even telling its dealer body which engine option will be under the hood of the 4xe, our sources have said it will be an almost identical setup to the Wrangler Unlimited 4xe utilizing a turbocharged 2.0-liter GME-T4 inline-four, a ZF-sourced 8HP hybrid 8-speed automatic transmission, and plug-in capability."

The numbers are the numbers released and generally accepted as good - sure an individual engine may prices a few better or worse than those numbers, but....anyway. Dynos certainly can vary depending on a host of factors.

If the 2.0 find it's way into the Grand Cherokee (not as a 4XE version) I'll buy ya a case of beer/beverage.

 

[LITTLE WILLYS]

The engine sounds crappier.

I had a 2020 Silverado 2.7T 4 cylinder with big snail. 310HP/348TQ. Other than the crappier sound, it flat out out performed my 19 Silverado 5.3 v8 in every way. My 2021 Willys 2.0T has a big Garret snail, and it outperforms my 2015 Wrangler in every way as well. Facts are facts, I have owned some of the fastest American muscle cars ever built, and I am still impressed with the power of these late 4 cyl turbo engines. The sound may not roar like some would want, but they perform better than most expect.

Sponsored