Jeep website now has 2.0L Turbos as option, revealing more details

[portylexplorer]

That gvwr figure is a little ambiguous - which trims? All trims? Aren't the GVWRs different for each trim? Or is there only one trim available with the 2.0T? What happens on the 2dr? Is there a commensurate increase in the curb weight, so the increase is cancelled out?

Under "GVWR" on the configurator, it lists the gvwr as "standard" for the sport and sport s, and "not available" for the rubicon

Also, are you required to use premium in the turbo?

Sponsored

 

[NCSUSTATS]

Does the turbo engine require high-octane gas? My turbo-4 Mercedes GLC does...

 

[LeaN69]

Think 91 is recommended, all stock cars can run 89 but ECM will adjust and decrease performance.

 

[CRC]

Does the turbo engine require high-octane gas? My turbo-4 Mercedes GLC does...

Only if you don't like knock.

 

[NCSUSTATS]

Think 91 is recommended, all stock cars can run 89 but ECM will adjust and decrease performance.

That’s what I figured. The turbo-4 is hugely misleading in terms of economy...for $1k upfront pemium plus the cost of paying 30% more per gallon you can achieve...30% better mileage?? Unlikely. I’m losing at least 1-1.5 mpg running regular unleaded in my GLC...

The increased fuel cost and complexity of turbo are just a hard sell...its what happens when EPA & Auto co’s coordinate to pass some one-dimensional mileage bogey.

 

[drogers]

I thought most car manufacturers are switching to smaller size engines but with FI for better fuel economy?

Yes, but not for *our* fuel economy - it's for their *tested* fuel economy that they report to the EPA. They don't care what we get in the real word, as long as their CAFE stays below the line.

Because this is the case, they build engines that can be fun, and still do well on the EPA tests, which don't involve flooring it at 50 just to make yourself grin. If you drove the way the EPA test circuit thinks you do, then you'd always get better mileage from a small turbo vs a big V6/8.

 

[drogers]

That’s what I figured. The turbo-4 is hugely misleading in terms of economy...for $1k upfront pemium plus the cost of paying 30% more per gallon you can achieve...30% better mileage?? Unlikely. I’m losing at least 1-1.5 mpg running regular unleaded in my GLC...

The increased fuel cost and complexity of turbo are just a hard sell...its what happens when EPA & Auto co’s coordinate to pass some one-dimensional mileage bogey.

Where are you paying 30% more for premium? Here it's a lot clsoer to 30 *cents* than 30%.

Aside from that, modern turbos work just fine on 87, you just don't get as much HP/Torque. Do this all the time with the wife's Audi - still a blast to drive, and the fuel economy isn't effected much if at all. You can really have the best of both worlds - a fun turbo and cheap gas.

 

[Solidaxle]

So what’s up with the fuel cap ? , We have an explanation for the discriminator which keeps you from putting diesel in your gas motor but what’s the fuel filler door or gas cap change. Do the wranglers have a capless design like ford

 

[NCSUSTATS]

Where are you paying 30% more for premium? Here it's a lot clsoer to 30 *cents* than 30%.

Aside from that, modern turbos work just fine on 87, you just don't get as much HP/Torque. Do this all the time with the wife's Audi - still a blast to drive, and the fuel economy isn't effected much if at all. You can really have the best of both worlds - a fun turbo and cheap gas.

Charlotte, NC...yeah, premium is about 25% more expensive. I have a 2017 merc glc with the turbo 4...The mileage benefit is trivial next to the increased cost compared to a v6, at least for the merc. If Merc had offered a v6 I would have opted for that, which is why I went for that in the JL.

 

[FUHL]

I designed my hood decal

 

[56nomad56]

That’s what I figured. The turbo-4 is hugely misleading in terms of economy...for $1k upfront pemium plus the cost of paying 30% more per gallon you can achieve...30% better mileage?? Unlikely. I’m losing at least 1-1.5 mpg running regular unleaded in my GLC...

The increased fuel cost and complexity of turbo are just a hard sell...its what happens when EPA & Auto co’s coordinate to pass some one-dimensional mileage bogey.

30% more per gallon for premium is a lot. At my local station here in So Cal regular (87) is $3.60 and premium (91) is $3.80. That's only an increase of 5.5% In this case the 30% better mileage is a great return.

 

[NCSUSTATS]

30% more per gallon for premium is a lot. At my local station here in So Cal regular (87) is $3.60 and premium (91) is $3.80. That's only an increase of 5.5% In this case the 30% better mileage is a great return.

Gas is cheaper here, but much bigger spread between grades. I have no idea how much better mileage will be with the turbo, but i bet it isnt much in real world driving.

 

[56nomad56]

Interesting. The 2.0 might be a good choice in certain regions and not in others, if running costs are a concern.

 

[LeaN69]

That’s what I figured. The turbo-4 is hugely misleading in terms of economy...for $1k upfront pemium plus the cost of paying 30% more per gallon you can achieve...30% better mileage?? Unlikely. I’m losing at least 1-1.5 mpg running regular unleaded in my GLC...

The increased fuel cost and complexity of turbo are just a hard sell...its what happens when EPA & Auto co’s coordinate to pass some one-dimensional mileage bogey.

Exactly the fuel economy goals the government sets it’s just unrealistic for the timeframe especially for Jeep who’s line up is SUV only. That’s why you see baby crossovers from them with 1.4l engine lol

But as long as brand as a whole averages within requirement (on paper) all is good.

I’m a strong believer in no replacement for displacement.

 

[Disturbed1]

Everything is better once its forced fed.

Whether or not it's a 1.3l Hayabusa motor or a 25,000l Diesel boat engine... They all produce a shit load more power with boost.

Sponsored