Mishimoto's 2.0L Turbo JL Wrangler - First Ever Dyno Runs vs 3.6L Pentastar

[Mishimoto]

Hey everybody,

Thought you'd be interested to see our (and possibly the world's?) first ever dyno run with the new 2.0T JL!

Our highest run was 227-WHP 264-WTQ - these turbo engines definitely have a decent amount of torque, and lots of torque under the curve!

UPDATED:

Hey everybody,

We had a 3.6L JL in today for some product development and figured we'd run it on the same dyno that we ran our 2.0L on and share the results. Check them out! I broke out the torque and HP so you can see the differences a little clearer. All runs were done on our DynoJet, in 4th gear, both automatic transmissions, and ambient conditions were very close for each.

2.0L VS 3.6L (WTQ & WHP) | 2.0L - Blue / 3.6L - Red

2.0L VS 3.6L (Torque) | 2.0L - Blue / 3.6L - Red

2.0L VS 3.6L (Horsepower) | 2.0L - Blue / 3.6L - Red

It looks like the horsepower for the 2.0 is right about dead on with a 15% drivetrain loss, but the torque is definitely underrated. I wonder if they did their calculations with the E-Torque system disabled, but that probably wouldn't affect peak torque that much.

What's really interesting to me is that the Pentastar is supposed to make 17 BHP more than the Hurricane, but they came out pretty close on the dyno. Like I said, the 3.6L did have heavier wheels and tires, but I don't know if the difference was enough to lose 14.5 WHP.

Our 2.0L has survived 8 runs on the dyno and about 800 miles so far; we'll see how it holds up!


Thanks,
-Steve

Sponsored

 

[viper88]

What were the dyno results? Thanks

 

[aug0211]

What were the dyno results? Thanks

Lol yes, that’s what we all want.

Is this correct? Captured at 36 seconds in your video.

 

[Mishimoto]

Lol yes, that’s what we all want.

Is this correct? Captured at 36 seconds in your video.

Yup! Our highest run was 227-WHP 264-WTQ - these turbo engines definitely have a decent amount of torque, and lots of torque under the curve!

Thanks,
-Steve

 

[coukos34]

Those are great numbers

Yup! Our highest run was 227-WHP 264-WTQ - these turbo engines definitely have a decent amount of torque, and lots of torque under the curve!

Thanks,
-Steve

Agreed. Given the average 15% driveline loss, the HP seems spot on, while the torque indicates it might be underrated from the factory

 

[Mishimoto]

Those are great numbers


Agreed. Given the average 15% driveline loss, the HP seems spot on, while the torque indicates it might be underrated from the factory

Yup, pretty dead on WHP. This was also just the rear wheels, so obviously 4WD will lose some more power.

Thanks,
-Steve

 

[StingGreyTwitch]

Yup, pretty dead on WHP. This was also just the rear wheels, so obviously 4WD will loose some more power.

Thanks,
-Steve

Are you guys going to be working on a stage 1 and higher tuner for the Turbo?

 

[FUHL]

I would like to see a comparison Dyno chart on the 2 engines.

 

[Mishimoto]

Are you guys going to be working on a stage 1 and higher tuner for the Turbo?

We are not planning on releasing any tunes at this time. We mainly focus on hard parts such as radiators, intakes and intercoolers.

I would like to see a comparison Dyno chart on the 2 engines.

We'll see what we can do

Thanks!
-Steve

 

[WXman]

That's the most narrow powerband I've seen on a Jeep engine in decades. Ouch.

By comparison, the Pentastar torque curve is as flat as an Oklahoma highway.

 

[WXman]

I would like to see a comparison Dyno chart on the 2 engines.

Notice how the stock (and tuned) PUG version of the Pentastar makes a torque curve that goes flat at 2,300 RPM and stays as flat as a pancake to redline near 6,500 RPM. That's amazing.

Compare that to the chart in this thread above for the Hurricane which flattens out some between 2,700 and 4,700 RPM only.

The results are pretty typical of tiny, DI, FI engines. They can be tuned to make a higher peak torque, but the usable power band is much much smaller overall and they run out of breath quickly on the top end. That typically makes the larger N/A engine more of a joy to drive. This is likely why early reviews on YouTube often complain of more "harshness" in the Hurricane while the Pentastar is described as "refined".

In summary, the 4-cylinder turbo makes higher peak torque, but the 6-cylinder N/A engine makes torque sooner and holds it together longer.

 

[Mishimoto]

In summary, the 4-cylinder turbo makes higher peak torque, but the 6-cylinder N/A engine makes torque sooner and holds it together longer.

That's a fair assessment and pretty typical of a low-displacement FI engine VS a higher-displacement NA engine. I'm curious to see what tuners will be able to do with these engines and see if they'll be able to make more power up top. Given how fast the 2.0 revs, 2700 is a pretty usable start to the torque curve; and haven driven it, I can't say I noticed turbo lag or felt like it was under-powered at low RPM.

It's tough to say where in the RPM band it starts making peak boost, but on the dyno it sounded like it was at 100% WGDC at around 4,000 RPM. So there could be some room to hold boost into the mid-5,000s and hold that torque a bit longer. I'm not sure what the A/R of the turbo is, but I have a feeling the stock tuned turbo-dynamics are pretty conservative and can be pushed a bit.

Thanks!
-Steve

 

[Budagreg]

Notice how the stock (and tuned) PUG version of the Pentastar makes a torque curve that goes flat at 2,300 RPM and stays as flat as a pancake to redline near 6,500 RPM. That's amazing.

Compare that to the chart in this thread above for the Hurricane which flattens out some between 2,700 and 4,700 RPM only.

The results are pretty typical of tiny, DI, FI engines. They can be tuned to make a higher peak torque, but the usable power band is much much smaller overall and they run out of breath quickly on the top end. That typically makes the larger N/A engine more of a joy to drive. This is likely why early reviews on YouTube often complain of more "harshness" in the Hurricane while the Pentastar is described as "refined".

In summary, the 4-cylinder turbo makes higher peak torque, but the 6-cylinder N/A engine makes torque sooner and holds it together longer.

Are the graphs mislabeled? all show 3.6???

 

[WXman]

Are the graphs mislabeled? all show 3.6???

Post #4 shows the 2.0L, and post #11 shows the 3.6L.

 

[InvertedLogic]

It's tough to say where in the RPM band it starts making peak boost, but on the dyno it sounded like it was at 100% WGDC at around 4,000 RPM. So there could be some room to hold boost into the mid-5,000s and hold that torque a bit longer. I'm not sure what the A/R of the turbo is, but I have a feeling the stock tuned turbo-dynamics are pretty conservative and can be pushed a bit.

Can also play around with wastegate parameters and timing to improve turbo spool and hit full boost sooner. I've seen some FoSTs hitting 23psi at just over 2000rpm and making absolute gobs of torque.

Sponsored