Mods please delete

[Sean L]

RIP all that beautiful plastic, Tis a thing of beauty

Oh they gave up on that engine cover years ago!

Sponsored

 

[yokramer]

RIP all that beautiful plastic, Tis a thing of beauty

Some old man is going to be very angry that you have a cover for your V6

 

[Sean L]

Some old man is going to be very angry that you have a cover for your V6

$500 Canadian and its yours!

 

[whitechocolate]

Some old man is going to be very angry that you have a cover for your V6

Im waiting for that... lol eTorque all the way

 

[azjl#3]

Nope, because the tool that tracks number of replacement engines (or major components) said so, in a screenshot. Big difference between that and someone scared of turbos anecdotally making a claim.

How many 2l vs 3.6l are out there? We know ten million pentastars have been built., how many 2l? I cant find any numbers. So saying v6 are a problem for things like oil cooler leaks and valve train wear, is an unsupported opinion without knowing how many 2l have been built, period.

Look, I like turbo, had a BMW 330i, the odd biturbo, sold at 100,000 miles, dependable, regular trips Phoenix to Dallas, a rocket, it lived at 110mph, using 28mpg.

But, as complex as VVT is, which it is not, that tech has been around since the 90's and is mechanical for the most part not electronic, direct injection is complex, and does add a whole level of complexity beyond the odd oil cooler leak of the 3.6. BMW does it right, will I bet jeep which abandoned the etorque and diesel can get it right? Nope. I am even cautious about the 392, why stroke a really good 347 to 392, and use VVT and a system that shuts down cylinders to save gas, why? For 1 mpg... and a lifetime of headaches... You may have seen my talk me out of a 392, well, I may be talking myself out while I look for a low mile no rust 2005 rubicon 4.0.....

I liken it to this, would you be happy with a motor that gave you 90% of what you need or 95%? Because that last 5% costs you say 20% more in complexity.

I am not anti turbo, but try one in Phoenix when its 118 from a standing start. They are dogs. The v6, does not care. My v6 at 6,000 does not care, notice no real difference from 1000 feet, but i do have 4.88 gearing.

You do you.

 

[Ratbert]

You are mistaken. It wasn't even me that coined the term.

You were just copying others when you said this? Man, I thought you invented the phrase and were brilliant. My bad.

I am paying VERY close attention...and my butt reports different results than yours. That said, just over 8000ft is about as high as i've been with my calibrated butt sensor so perhaps above that the difference becomes noticeable.

I still say it's overhyped.

 

[TheRaven]

You were just copying others when you said this? Man, I thought you invented the phrase and were brilliant. My bad.

Correct...I did "steal" it from another member, as you should have noted when you copied the post you quoted (it was a reply to that member and the butt sensor reference was in it).

Anyway apology accepted. Can you stop obsessing over my ass now?

 

[Vinman]

Makes sense to get rid of the most reliable engine/tranny combination

 

[Remorseless]

How many 2l vs 3.6l are out there? We know ten million pentastars have been built., how many 2l? I cant find any numbers. So saying v6 are a problem for things like oil cooler leaks and valve train wear, is an unsupported opinion without knowing how many 2l have been built, period.

Look, I like turbo, had a BMW 330i, the odd biturbo, sold at 100,000 miles, dependable, regular trips Phoenix to Dallas, a rocket, it lived at 110mph, using 28mpg.

But, as complex as VVT is, which it is not, that tech has been around since the 90's and is mechanical for the most part not electronic, direct injection is complex, and does add a whole level of complexity beyond the odd oil cooler leak of the 3.6. BMW does it right, will I bet jeep which abandoned the etorque and diesel can get it right? Nope. I am even cautious about the 392, why stroke a really good 347 to 392, and use VVT and a system that shuts down cylinders to save gas, why? For 1 mpg... and a lifetime of headaches... You may have seen my talk me out of a 392, well, I may be talking myself out while I look for a low mile no rust 2005 rubicon 4.0.....

I liken it to this, would you be happy with a motor that gave you 90% of what you need or 95%? Because that last 5% costs you say 20% more in complexity.

I am not anti turbo, but try one in Phoenix when its 118 from a standing start. They are dogs. The v6, does not care. My v6 at 6,000 does not care, notice no real difference from 1000 feet, but i do have 4.88 gearing.

You do you.

The 3.6 has been an issue for oil cooler leaks and roller/cam failures since it's introduction. It's been commonplace for almost 15 years in Jeeps, it's not a maybe, it exists.

The 3.6's VVT and VVL is electronically controlled via solenoid and via hydraulics after the solenoid does its thing, it is not anywhere near the same as 90s VVT.

The 2.0 and 3.6 don't have a 20% complexity difference either. They're damn near 1:1 for complexity. The only thing the 2.0 has that the 3.6 doesn't is a low pressure coolant circuit for the turbo. In fact, the 2.0, having only 60% of the cylinders of the 3.6, may be less complex. Remember the 3.6 runs 4 chains across its timing setup, has twice the number of prone-to-fail roller/cam combos, plus the janky seals on the oil filter/cooler housing, plus twice the number of head gaskets, and on top of all that the PUG engine is pushing compression up to 11:1 on an NA engine. The 3.6 is not a simple engine by any stretch of the imagination.

The 2.0T has done fine in 100F+ here in NC.

Edit: with the 4.0, get comfortable with the locations of your cam and crank position sensors as well as how to deal with vapor lock, replacing exhaust manifolds, and rear main seals seeping.

 

[TheRaven]

The only thing the 2.0 has that the 3.6 doesn't is a low pressure coolant circuit for the turbo.

Um...HOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE TURBO AND ASSOCIATED PLUMBING, CONTROLS, AND WIRING?!?!

LOL the 2.0l has an ENTIRE INDUCTION SYSTEM that the 3.6l doesn't. It's definitely more complicated. 2.0 guys keep droning on about internal things...we're not concerned about internal things that every engine has. The 3.6l is missing an entire subsystem that is historically known to cause problems...not just on Jeeps, not just for FCA, but for every make that's ever produced such a system. Both these engines have internal issues, but the 3.6l isn't saddled with a compressor and all the complication that goes with it.

 

[Old Dogger]

How many 2l vs 3.6l are out there? We know ten million pentastars have been built., how many 2l? I cant find any numbers. So saying v6 are a problem for things like oil cooler leaks and valve train wear, is an unsupported opinion without knowing how many 2l have been built, period.

Look, I like turbo, had a BMW 330i, the odd biturbo, sold at 100,000 miles, dependable, regular trips Phoenix to Dallas, a rocket, it lived at 110mph, using 28mpg.

But, as complex as VVT is, which it is not, that tech has been around since the 90's and is mechanical for the most part not electronic, direct injection is complex, and does add a whole level of complexity beyond the odd oil cooler leak of the 3.6. BMW does it right, will I bet jeep which abandoned the etorque and diesel can get it right? Nope. I am even cautious about the 392, why stroke a really good 347 to 392, and use VVT and a system that shuts down cylinders to save gas, why? For 1 mpg... and a lifetime of headaches... You may have seen my talk me out of a 392, well, I may be talking myself out while I look for a low mile no rust 2005 rubicon 4.0.....

I liken it to this, would you be happy with a motor that gave you 90% of what you need or 95%? Because that last 5% costs you say 20% more in complexity.

I am not anti turbo, but try one in Phoenix when its 118 from a standing start. They are dogs. The v6, does not care. My v6 at 6,000 does not care, notice no real difference from 1000 feet, but i do have 4.88 gearing.

You do you.

I siggest that you stay away from the 2005 and 2006 TJ's. The have a serious 4.0 engine issue. OPDA Failures. The 2003 and 2004 would be the way to go.

 

[UTME]

I feel fortunate to have my 2024 auto trans + v6 engine without etorque. When I picked up my order at mark Dodge the manager said several people wanted this combo but that it was getting difficult to find.

 

[Remorseless]

Um...HOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE TURBO AND ASSOCIATED PLUMBING, CONTROLS, AND WIRING?!?!

LOL the 2.0l has an ENTIRE INDUCTION SYSTEM that the 3.6l doesn't. It's definitely more complicated. 2.0 guys keep droning on about internal things...we're not concerned about internal things that every engine has. The 3.6l is missing an entire subsystem that is historically known to cause problems...not just on Jeeps, not just for FCA, but for every make that's ever produced such a system. Both these engines have internal issues, but the 3.6l isn't saddled with a compressor and all the complication that goes with it.

Yeah, true, the turbo's there - but not historically been a problem for the 2.0 in the JL... or the Giulia... or the Stelvio... or the Ghibli... or the Levante... or the Hornet... or the Compass... or the Grand Cherokee... or the Tonale... or the Grecale... Plus, how many turbo diesels are out there that've put combined millions of miles on turbos without issue? Turbo's doing the same work on a gas engine or diesel engine, just spinning away and cramming air down a tube. A turbo isn't the liability it's made out to be.

And when the 3.6 eats cams like a fat kid eats cake, having twice the number of cams in a 3.6 is twice the liability, so internal parts really can't be discounted when they're a liability.

Also, fun fact, the 3.6 runs at a higher compression ratio than the 2.0 does... meaning it's under more stress internally than the 2.0 is, and has 50% more pistons than the 2.0 to deal with under these pressures. Might be part of why they're having so many head issues with them on engines that aren't overheating.

The 2.0 doesn't eat cams or rockers or have an oil cooler buried under its manifold that requires replacement not uncommonly, not really any widespread internal issues. Only internal issue the 2.0 might have is head/block warpage due to inadequate cooling if it leaks coolant out. But this same thing impacts the 3.6. Edit: maybe some of the early engines had timing chain tensioners that were weak? Not very widespread, but might be a thing?

 

[yokramer]

Yeah, true, the turbo's there - but not historically been a problem for the 2.0 in the JL... or the Giulia... or the Stelvio... or the Ghibli... or the Levante... or the Hornet... or the Compass... or the Grand Cherokee... or the Tonale... or the Grecale... Plus, how many turbo diesels are out there that've put combined millions of miles on turbos without issue? Turbo's doing the same work on a gas engine or diesel engine, just spinning away and cramming air down a tube. A turbo isn't the liability it's made out to be.

And when the 3.6 eats cams like a fat kid eats cake, having twice the number of cams in a 3.6 is twice the liability, so internal parts really can't be discounted when they're a liability.

Also, fun fact, the 3.6 runs at a higher compression ratio than the 2.0 does... meaning it's under more stress internally than the 2.0 is, and has 50% more pistons than the 2.0 to deal with under these pressures. Might be part of why they're having so many head issues with them on engines that aren't overheating.

The 2.0 doesn't eat cams or rockers or have an oil cooler buried under its manifold that requires replacement not uncommonly, not really any widespread internal issues. Only internal issue the 2.0 might have is head/block warpage due to inadequate cooling if it leaks coolant out. But this same thing impacts the 3.6.

 

[Remorseless]

Wonder if they grow their own food instead of eating grocery store food delivered by a vehicle that abuses the piss out of its turbo, which refuses to fail?

Sponsored