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

[Rockmaninoff]

I’d think the smaller guy that’s a little stronger could run circles around the big lethargic guy...........just like the 2.0t is faster 0-60 then the 3.6.............

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.

Sponsored

 

[Joe]

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.

The reason planes today aren't using turbos is more to do with the market shrinking and manufacturers being forced to cut back than whether the actual engines themselves were reliable, etc. It states in the article they are more reliable today more than ever. Interesting tidbit.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/turbocharging/#.WvhDeNBOnqA

 

[BlackRook]

I'm on board with turbo reliability. I really am. But I'm not on board with new Fiat engine reliability, which this is. In 3-5 years, the issues will be worked out, and 2.0L will be the place to be. But I wouldn't gamble on the motor at this point.

 

[Paluss]

all turbos have lag, its the way turbo charging works, however with twin turbos it has been greatly reduced, but there will always be some lag. With a manual transmission its much easier to keep the rpms up and avoid most of the lag, but an auto tranny you will notice it more. For Zero lag a supercharger is the only way to go, just more of a fitment issue with a supercharger...

 

[JLU_rubi18!]

Have a look at the illustration in the link and tell me which one is the sensible one... assuming that you have any knowledge of physics
http://sophistijeep.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/turbo-small-engine-vs-na-big-engine.html

I don’t know what you drive or what you think you know.

I currently drive a 2015 Jeep GC SRT with a 6.4L hemi. My wife has a 5.7L hemi in her 2015 GC. We are trading her GC in tomorrow on an X3 with a 2.0 turbo. I’m also trading in my SRT for a JLUR with a 2.0 turbo. Before that I drove a 3.6L JKU for 5-1/2 years and before that I drove a Mazdaspeed 3 with a turbo 2.3.

I’ve sampled all sorts of displacements and vehicle types. Big displacement = horrible fuel economy with great low end torque. Medium displacement = still kinda crappy fuel economy and ok torque. Small displacement turbos = pretty decent fuel economy and better than average torque.

Your “illustration” as you call it is the most ridiculous analogy. Formula one, the fastest cars around a racetrack in the wold, use 1.6 liter turbo motors that put out 800-870HP. How’s that for physics.

 

[Joe]

all turbos have lag, its the way turbo charging works, however with twin turbos it has been greatly reduced, but there will always be some lag. With a manual transmission its much easier to keep the rpms up and avoid most of the lag, but an auto tranny you will notice it more. For Zero lag a supercharger is the only way to go, just more of a fitment issue with a supercharger...

I will have to disagree with your auto/manual opinion. 8 speed auto plus, autos have a torque converter. Autos have the advantage when it comes to keeping in boost. Boost is not directly related to engine rpm like a supercharger is, it is exhaust flow related.

 

[Rockmaninoff]

Your “illustration” as you call it is the most ridiculous analogy. Formula one, the fastest cars around a racetrack in the wold, use 1.6 liter turbo motors that put out 800-870HP. How’s that for physics.

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.

 

[Rockmaninoff]

I'm on board with turbo reliability. I really am. But I'm not on board with new Fiat engine reliability, which this is. In 3-5 years, the issues will be worked out, and 2.0L will be the place to be. But I wouldn't gamble on the motor at this point.

But the point is if they can make a turbo engine reliable to last X miles, they can make a non-turbo last Y miles where Y>X.

 

[Rockmaninoff]

The reason planes today aren't using turbos is more to do with the market shrinking and manufacturers being forced to cut back than whether the actual engines themselves were reliable, etc. It states in the article they are more reliable today more than ever. Interesting tidbit.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/turbocharging/#.WvhDeNBOnqA

Your article also says:

Turbochargers do, indeed, change your perspective on flying high, and for many of us, the positives far outweigh the negatives.
​

Turbos, when used on aircraft engines, help with the lack of air density at high altitudes... engines made for endurance and reliability don't run crazy boost levels that stress the engines.

Also, you can bathe in any number of positives but all you need is one negative for a closed casket

 

[Joe]

Your article also says:

Turbochargers do, indeed, change your perspective on flying high, and for many of us, the positives far outweigh the negatives.
​

Turbos, when used on aircraft engines, help with the lack of air density at high altitudes... engines made for endurance and reliability don't run crazy boost levels that stress the engines.

Also, you can bathe in any number of positives but all you need is one negative for a closed casket

That goes both ways, positives and negatives. They don’t use crazy boost levels these days, which is why you don’t need to drop the compression ratio nearly as much as you did before. Modern engines make more horsepower using new techniques and the insane boost levels of the 80’s and 90’s are gone. This isn’t some massive turbo setup like the doom and gloom here would suggest. Nobody said the turbo would outlast the naturally aspirated engine.

 

[rtf500]

I see things haven't changed much here, people are still deathly afraid of a turbocharger, i guess it is still such ground breaking technology for some. Bringing horizontal large displacement aircraft engines into it? LOL I hope no one actually is listening to these "illustrations".

 

[Glamisfan]

I could care less how long an aircraft engine will last. Or how much power it has.

The fact is the 2.0t has a better torque curve then the 3.6. That’s a fact. Or 2.0>3.6. Nothing will change that. It also has more hp under the curve, where the engine will spend 95+% of the time.

I am a little afraid of this being an open deck vs the proven Alfa Romero’s closed deck. But I do love these modern turbos. My wife’s car is a CTS V-Sport, 3.6 twin turbo, 420hp/430 torque. 87,000 miles and it runs real nice!

 

[BlackRook]

I don't think anybody [reasonable] is arguing about the superior performance. As I noted earlier, the 2.0L is certainly the more athletic. And I'm not worried about turbos; my past Audi, F150, and Explorer all had reliable turbo engines.

Issue isn't turbo reliability, but rather new FCA motor reliability. Look no further than the launch of the 3.6L a few years ago as proof of my concern. 2021 Wrangler turbo? Yes, please. 2018 WRANGLER turbo? NFW.

 

[Saejin]

Also take into consideration the torque curve and how it will make the Jeep feel when accelerating. My wife got car sick in our Audi A4 which has a 2.0 turbo due to the way the power was applied. In the Jeep, less so since the power is applied more linearly.

I think the 2.0 in the 2-door is going to be a blast to drive and may pick one (sport s) up down the road in addition to the Rubicon Unlimited I have now.

 

[Joe]

I don't think anybody [reasonable] is arguing about the superior performance. As I noted earlier, the 2.0L is certainly the more athletic. And I'm not worried about turbos; my past Audi, F150, and Explorer all had reliable turbo engines.

Issue isn't turbo reliability, but rather new FCA motor reliability. Look no further than the launch of the 3.6L a few years ago as proof of my concern. 2021 Wrangler turbo? Yes, please. 2018 WRANGLER turbo? NFW.

Unless I am mistaken, neither engine is new and both are redesigns. So, both the currently available options are technically unproven from that perspective.

Sponsored