Mods please delete

[Sean L]

Who gives a crap about displacement when those engines are producing more power across the band and getting better fuel mileage in the process? I guess its useful for bench racing but that's about it.

That's a simple reason as to why they're more powerful... not necessarily superior, just bigger.

As for the fuel economy? Any Bronco with lower than 3.73 gears and a 2.3 liter has lower fuel economy ratings than a Wrangler.

Sponsored

 

[Remorseless]

That's a simple reason as to why they're more powerful... not necessarily superior, just bigger.

As for the fuel economy? Any Bronco with lower than 3.73 gears and a 2.3 liter has lower fuel economy ratings than a Wrangler.

Nevermind that folks like @Heimkehr are out there working the 3.45s and the 2.0 to get damn near 30MPG.

 

[Sean L]

Nevermind that folks like @Heimkehr are out there working the 3.45s and the 2.0 to get damn near 30MPG.

The 2.0 Rubicon I test drove when that engine first came out got better mileage than my V6. Heavier Jeep, bigger tires, 4.10 gears and not even broken in and it still got a little better than my Sahara.

 

[agpr2016]

Here is a screenshot of the email he sent. I do hope he is correct on that.

Hopefully this email is right and they will reverse course on this...I've driven the turbo and it's fine but I really prefer the V6 + auto.

Taking into consideration you can't get the auto with the V6 and the very limited color options...the only thing still pushing me towards Jeep is being able to go to topless...and now I have to reconsider if the quality + price is worth.

 

[TheRaven]

That's a simple reason as to why they're more powerful... not necessarily superior, just bigger.

As for the fuel economy? Any Bronco with lower than 3.73 gears and a 2.3 liter has lower fuel economy ratings than a Wrangler.

No they're not superior because they're bigger, they're superior because they get more out of less. I don't care if a motor is 1L or 5L...I care about what I get out of what I put in, what it feels and sounds like in the process, and how long it lasts.

 

[yokramer]

No they're not superior because they're bigger, they're superior because they get more out of less. I don't care if a motor is 1L or 5L...I care about what I get out of what I put in, what it feels and sounds like in the process, and how long it lasts.

So the displacement is LARGER, and makes more power, yet gets MORE out of LESS?

 

[Remorseless]

So the displacement is LARGER, and makes more power, yet gets MORE out of LESS?

Yeah not sure how getting more power out of a larger engine is getting that more out of less lmao

 

[yokramer]

Yeah not sure how getting more power out of a larger engine is getting that more out of less lmao

Must be because we are young dumb kids that need a nap.

 

[Sean L]

So the displacement is LARGER, and makes more power, yet gets MORE out of LESS?

Beat me to it. lol.

 

[NWJeepr]

No they're not superior because they're bigger, they're superior because they get more out of less. I don't care if a motor is 1L or 5L...I care about what I get out of what I put in, what it feels and sounds like in the process, and how long it lasts.

I think the 2.0 checks a lot of boxes for the people who enjoy it, myself included. It provides torque where the Wrangler needs it, the fuel economy is respectable, and it's easily maintained.

I would think there are fewer hard-liners about hp/torque per liter, or specific enthusiasts for 4-cylinder engine noises.

Had Stella offered a turbo 6, that would have been my choice, because I also prefer larger displacement. You get down to that 2.0-liter range, and you start thinking about how many liters per nut, and 1 isn't much.

The choice was between the turbo 4, or an asthmatic old minivan V6, a plant that has let me down in the past and nearly left me on the hook for a head replacement. Wasn't going that route again, even though I don't particularly "love" the sound of a 4-cylinder.

 

[TheRaven]

So the displacement is LARGER, and makes more power, yet gets MORE out of LESS?

Yes. It's not a complicated concept - you get more power out of less MPGs.

I think the 2.0 checks a lot of boxes for the people who enjoy it, myself included. It provides torque where the Wrangler needs it, the fuel economy is respectable, and it's easily maintained.

I would think there are fewer hard-liners about hp/torque per liter, or specific enthusiasts for 4-cylinder engine noises.

Had Stella offered a turbo 6, that would have been my choice, because I also prefer larger displacement. You get down to that 2.0-liter range, and you start thinking about how many liters per nut, and 1 isn't much.

The choice was between the turbo 4, or an asthmatic old minivan V6, a plant that has let me down in the past and nearly left me on the hook for a head replacement. Wasn't going that route again, even though I don't particularly "love" the sound of a 4-cylinder.

I understand, everyone has their reasons. I've never been let down by a V6 that's been in production for a decade+ but i've had to fix many turbo 4-bangers. Add to that the unbearable racket the 2.0l makes in the very unrefined JL, it was an easy choice for me. But we all rank these factors differently.

For me, if the V6 becomes a problem child, or is no longer available when I need to replace my current Wrangler, then I will no longer be a Wrangler owner.

 

[Ratbert]

Take your paid forum talk somewhere else.

I'm still waiting for my check. Apparently everyone else gets one but me!

 

[Roky]

No they're not superior because they're bigger, they're superior because they get more out of less. I don't care if a motor is 1L or 5L...I care about what I get out of what I put in, what it feels and sounds like in the process, and how long it lasts.

 

[John VonJeep]

Must be because we are young dumb kids that need a nap.

Shit, bro, I definitely need a nap. Don’t hate.

 

[Remorseless]

hose engines are producing more power across the band and getting better fuel mileage

Yes. It's not a complicated concept - you get more power out of less MPGs.

I thought it was more MPGs though

Sponsored