Sponsored

Jeep JL Wrangler 3.6L vs 2.0T HP/TQ curve comparison (dyno chart)

Biscuit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2018
Threads
10
Messages
544
Reaction score
571
Location
Northeast Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sport
Occupation
Retired
No experience with the FCA 2.0L turbo but I've owned two others: 2.0L Subaru boxer and 7.0L Ford diesel. Lag? Yes, but only about 0.5 sec if that. In other words, about as long as it takes to downshift - manual or auto - and drop the hammer.
Sponsored

 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Threads
61
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
3,076
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
I have a friend who I grew up with and graduated high school with who is a Ford mechanic. He's been a certified Ford tech for almost 20 years now. Our sons were playing baseball against each other last week and at the ball field I noticed that he had a new truck. I asked him if it was an EcoBoost and he said, "H*** no. All I do all day long is work on those little turbo motors. I see those way more often than I do the V8s."

It's a common theme. Anytime you talk to people who actually know something about vehicles, not just keyboard warriors but people who have actually grown up getting their hands dirty, they'll all tell you that small displacement, direct injection, forced induction motors are NOT as reliable. It's just a fact.

Now, as far as power goes, why does everybody keep saying the Hurricane smokes the Pentastar in performance? The P-star makes more idle torque, more horsepower through the entire curve, and has a higher redline. What that means is that on the trail it'll feel better, and on the highway it'll pull harder on the top end. While cruising with a trailer or load on, the Hurricane will likely perform slightly better since the turbo will stay spooled up and the engine will be in it's small sweet spot. But in every other category the P-star is going to outperform it.

It should be noted again that the P-star is also far less money, when you add purchase cost, fuel costs, and maintenance/repair costs up over the first 100,000 miles.

This thread really needs a pause button, until we get ACTUAL dyno runs of a 2.0L vs. 3.6L back to back in the same weather conditions at lower elevation.
 

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
I have a friend who I grew up with and graduated high school with who is a Ford mechanic. He's been a certified Ford tech for almost 20 years now. Our sons were playing baseball against each other last week and at the ball field I noticed that he had a new truck. I asked him if it was an EcoBoost and he said, "H*** no. All I do all day long is work on those little turbo motors. I see those way more often than I do the V8s."

It's a common theme. Anytime you talk to people who actually know something about vehicles, not just keyboard warriors but people who have actually grown up getting their hands dirty, they'll all tell you that small displacement, direct injection, forced induction motors are NOT as reliable. It's just a fact.

Now, as far as power goes, why does everybody keep saying the Hurricane smokes the Pentastar in performance? The P-star makes more idle torque, more horsepower through the entire curve, and has a higher redline. What that means is that on the trail it'll feel better, and on the highway it'll pull harder on the top end. While cruising with a trailer or load on, the Hurricane will likely perform slightly better since the turbo will stay spooled up and the engine will be in it's small sweet spot. But in every other category the P-star is going to outperform it.

It should be noted again that the P-star is also far less money, when you add purchase cost, fuel costs, and maintenance/repair costs up over the first 100,000 miles.

This thread really needs a pause button, until we get ACTUAL dyno runs of a 2.0L vs. 3.6L back to back in the same weather conditions at lower elevation.
He should be seeing far more of them, since there are 3 of the Ecoboost F150s sold to every 1 of the 5.0. I also believe you are severly mistaken in regards to the Pentastar vs Hurricane performance. I keep hearing great things about the 2.0 advantage over the 3.6....we will soon see!

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/08/v8-market-share-just-quarter-ford-f150-lineup/
 
Last edited:

rodhotter

Well-Known Member
First Name
bernie
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
109
Reaction score
25
Location
pennsylvania USA
Vehicle(s)
2008 chevy colorado 2001 audi TT 225Q
factory tuning is usually VERY conservative for warranty purposes!!! BUT a lot more power can be made spending less money than a naturally aspirated engine + as i mentioned before take a look at what APR does with a "canned tune" on the 2.0 DI VW engine!! with todays DI more aggressive is possible as the DI cools the combustion chamber controlling pinging much better than port injection!!
 

bobzdar

Well-Known Member
First Name
Pete
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
248
Reaction score
317
Location
Richmond, VA
Vehicle(s)
'24 Rubicon X 4XE, '23 Defender 130
:clap: Do you know how often F1 engines are rebuilt?

Also, invest in a trout farm now and in two years you can use your X3 to make good money making smoked trout.
Not very often, they get 3 motors per season. That's for 21 weekends consisting of 3 practice sessions, qualifying and the race. So each engine has to run a few thousand miles at close to maximum output, which is way more than pretty much any passenger car engine will do in its life.
 

Sponsored

Joe

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
251
Reaction score
185
Location
Priceville, AL
Vehicle(s)
Mustang GT
Not very often, they get 3 motors per season. That's for 21 weekends consisting of 3 practice sessions, qualifying and the race. So each engine has to run a few thousand miles at close to maximum output, which is way more than pretty much any passenger car engine will do in its life.
1.4L turbo turning 15,000rpm
 
OP
OP
laueddy

laueddy

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Threads
47
Messages
169
Reaction score
84
Location
Seattle
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep JLU Rubicon (Black - Hardtop)
I don' plan to go beyond 100,000 let alone 200,000, so it really depends on how long you intended to drive and keep your Jeep.
IMHO, NA is more reliable than Turbo simply because there are fewer things to go wrong, but a well design modern Turbo engine can also be very reliable. In order to pack more HP/TQ onto the same engine using need to go aggressive with ignition timing, which then translate into the needs for better internal components, smarter ECU programming to allow less errors, the need for good intercooler, etc. Those additional variables are what make Turbo engine less reliable. With that said, there are good Turbo cars out there? The question is does FCA has good track record building Small Turbo Engine? Some companies out there are willing to over-engineer, some may primary profit focus, and I don't know enough about FCA Jeep to answer that?!
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Threads
159
Messages
8,404
Reaction score
11,073
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
While I think the 2.0 will have a torque advantage, I still don't think we've seen the upgraded Pentastar's torque curve, which is better than the gen 1. I also don't know how many times the BSG can add power at initial acceleration if it is doing it again, and again, and again, while off-roading. Does it fall off as the battery drains? How long does the battery take to recover? Not sure. That said, I'd bet the 2.0 is going to be a pretty amazing engine.

For me, though, I picked the 3.6 for two reasons. First, it has the manual transmission. That alone is the deal breaker for me, and after sampling the combo of the upgraded 3.6 and the Aisin 6 speed, it is even more enjoyable than I thought it would be. On 35's, it is quick and has more power than any previous Jeep I've driven, 3.6 JK's included. Off road, with the Rubi and 6 speed gearing, it will pull a house off its foundation. Never have I thought, gee, I think I need more power. (Not that it wouldn't be welcome and fun). The second reason was the proven reliability of the 3.6. I've been off-roading with many, many Jeeps, and I've not come across anyone that has had a cross word for the 3.6 or that had an engine issue. I'm sure someone out there has, but it hasn't been common. I've even been around many 2012's, which had a well documented problem, and none of those guys ever had an issue.

I'll bet the 2.0 is going to prove reliable. I just felt there was enough risk in an early first year vehicle that I didn't need to take on that of the 2.0. Besides, I'll keep this JL for 15 years or more, so the longevity of the 3.6 plays into it, too.

Once we get the actual upgraded 3.6 torque curve, I'd like to see the comparison. Then, I'd like to see the BSG 3.6 coming out. I've heard FCA engineers with the Ram say it adds up to 90lbs of torque. That's a big boost, and should heave the JL off the line with authority, then the horsepower and good high rpm performance of the 3.6 will take it from there.

Still, I can't wait to hear the reports of the 2.0 and to see them on the trail. I really do think it will turn out to be a great engine.
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Threads
61
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
3,076
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
It's already been said, but the JK version of the Pentastar made less torque than the JL version, and even the JK version had the flattest torque curves you've ever seen. The torque peaks at 2,000 RPM and stays flat for a LONG time. It comes on fast and hard and stays there. Almost looks like a curve you'd see from a diesel. And at 6,000 RPM, the P-star is still pulling, something a small turbo motor isn't going to do.

It may be true that the peak NUMBER for the torque on the 2.0L is higher, but as far as getting there faster than the 3.6L or staying there as long as the 3.6L, the little turbo motor is going to have it's work cut out for it.

In terms of driving feel and smoothness it's going to be hard to beat the Pentastar until they finally release the EcoDiesel. The diesel has such a substantial increase over the other two engines that it'll be a night and day difference.

JKdyno.jpg
 

RubiconGaby

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
99
Reaction score
110
Location
Central Florida
Vehicle(s)
2018 Rubicon granite, 2006 Rubicon beige, 1995 green Sahara, 1995 Sport aqua with splash (hers), 1995 Sahara beige (his). 2005 liberty and 2006 grand Cherokee limited
Vehicle Showcase
1
The analogy is to do with power... kind of hilarious to think that it goes beyond that. So, the 3.6 isn't a pro wrestler and the 2L doesn't talk loud due to a Napoleon complex also :cwl:

Have a look at piston aircraft engines made for endurance and reliability and see what kinds of displacements they're rocking. If the overworked small engine with turbo is the way to go, they'd all be running tiny 2L 4 banger Subaru engines lifted from cars.
...and jet engines are what?
 

Sponsored

The_Phew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
428
Reaction score
705
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
'17 GTI 6MT
I currently drive a 2L turbo vehicle (GTI), and the turbo lag then boooost is fun in a little hatchback, but I'll admit it's not the best combination with my manual transmission. You lose boost every shift, and that creates a disjointed/unpredictable driving experience.

I much prefer to bang through the gears with a naturally-aspirated engine, because you don't lose anything between shifts (except the RPM you want to lose, assuming the engine doesn't have annoying rev hang like Honda,Toyota, and others). I didn't notice any rev hang when test driving a JLUR 6MT yesterday, although I couldn't get a smooth 1->2 shift because 1st gear is so damn short (I plan on ordering a 2019 6MT, and I expect the BSG torque will allow me to start in second most of the time to avoid this issue).

I think the 2.0T and 8AT will be a good match in the JL, but I don't lament the lack of 6MT option with the 2.0T. The 2.0T will have more torque down low, but the high end will fall on its face unless you use premium fuel. And premium fuel combined with sub 20 MPG is a painful combo on the wallet, especially with an engine that starts $1k more expensive.
 
Last edited:

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
43,739
Reaction score
260,023
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU, 2017 Honda Accord, 2014 Yamaha XVS 1300
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
I currently drive a 2L turbo vehicle (GTI), and the turbo lag then boooost is fun in a little hatchback, but I'll admit it's not the best combination with my manual transmission. You lose boost every shift, and that creates a disjointed/unpredictable driving experience.

I much prefer to bang through the gears with a naturally-aspirated engine, because you don't lose anything between shifts (except the RPM you want to lose, assuming the engine doesn't have annoying rev hang like Honda and others). I didn't notice any rev hang when test driving a JLUR 6MT yesterday, although I couldn't get a smooth 1->2 shift because 1st gear is so damn short (I plan on ordering a 2019 6MT, and I expect the BSG torque will allow me to start in second most of the time to avoid this issue).

I think the 2.0T and 8AT will be a good match in the JL, but I don't lament the lack of 6MT option with the 2.0T. The 2.0T will have more torque down low, but the high end will fall on its face unless you use premium fuel. And premium fuel combined with sub 20 MPG is a painful combo on the wallet, especially with an engine that starts $1k more expensive.
Except EPA Estimates are above 20 MPG.
 

The_Phew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
428
Reaction score
705
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
'17 GTI 6MT
Except EPA Estimates are above 20 MPG.
Uh-huh. And EPA estimates are for the much lighter Sport trim.

Rubicons delivered to date don't even sniff the window sticker, although Sahara seems to be pretty close.

With current fuel prices, even 22 MPG with premium fuel is equivalent to ~18 MPG with regular. Since most of the 2.0Ts city improvement is due to the BSG (not the engine itself), the city gap will close significantly with the 2019 models.
 

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Threads
23
Messages
43,739
Reaction score
260,023
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU, 2017 Honda Accord, 2014 Yamaha XVS 1300
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
Uh-huh. And EPA estimates are for the much lighter Sport trim.

Rubicons delivered to date don't even sniff the window sticker, although Sahara seems to be pretty close.
The 4.10 axles and larger tires are to blame as the Rubicon isn't that much heavier than the other models.
 

The_Phew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Threads
4
Messages
428
Reaction score
705
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
'17 GTI 6MT
The 4.10 axles and larger tires are to blame as the Rubicon isn't that much heavier than the other models.
The gap between Rubicon and Sport is like 300 lbs, or about 7%. That should mean a roughly 7% impact on city MPG, for a 1-2 MPG city MPG penalty. Not to mention the increased aero drag due to lift/fenders/tires/etc probably causes a similar or greater highway MPG penalty.
Sponsored

 
 



Top