Mods please delete

[Astro Jeep]

Yadda yadda....

Sponsored

 

[Remorseless]

What's really crazy is when you find out that they didn't derate the 3.6 to the manual transmission torque capacity but to the clutch torque capacity, they aren't the same thing. The transmission itself is capable of handling a lot more torque than what the 3.6 makes.

It's the dual mass flywheel clutch system that is the freaking problem and reasons nobody understands they won't ditch it.

The clutch is part of the manual though and, yes, it's the clutch that sucks. But I stand by the assertion that if it (the clutch) can't handle the 3.6 torque, it'd poof with the 2.0 torque.

 

[Remorseless]

Yadda yadda....

Comes with too many doors

 

[NWJeepr]

Hear me out though - manual KL Cherokee (post facelift, not the ugly one) with the full fat 2.0 in a longitudinal setup, lowered and AWD. Rally Jeep.

I'm not sure which is more terrifying. The fact you think there is a non-ugly KL Cherokee, or the idea that Jeep somehow needs to cater to the Subaru crowd?

 

[alphawolff]

The clutch is part of the manual though and, yes, it's the clutch that sucks. But I stand by the assertion that if it (the clutch) can't handle the 3.6 torque, it'd poof with the 2.0 torque.

It can handle the 3.6 torque fine. The issue is they designed the entire assembly to be so light for stop/start that it just can't clamp correctly.

 

[azjl#3]

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.

This is a simple math problem unprovable with current data. I think you missed the point, all engines have their problems, but picking on the 3.6 because it has more issues, is untrue or at least unproven, simply because of the larger numbers of 3.6 vs 2L. More engines means higher numbers of 3.6 issues, it does not mean the rate of issues is more for 3.6 than 2.0

Again I have no issue with 2.0, but have seen no issue with 3.6 over 11 years, four engines, 200,000 miles to date..

 

[yokramer]

Yadda yadda....

Why the turbo on turbo hate those dirty luddites hate you too

 

[Remorseless]

I'm not sure which is more terrifying. The fact you think there is a non-ugly KL Cherokee, or the idea that Jeep somehow needs to cater to the Subaru crowd?

There's levels of ugly, and pre-facelift isn't "grow on you" ugly.

And no, not to cater to them, to race them and win.

 

[Remorseless]

It can handle the 3.6 torque fine. The issue is they designed the entire assembly to be so light for stop/start that it just can't clamp correctly.

So it's too light for the torque

 

[yokramer]

So it's too light for the torque

Good thing they paired the engine that makes less torque with it

 

[autotragic]

So it's too light for the torque

I don't think it's the torque of the engine that's the problem.

I just think there's more to it than that. Unfortunately I'm not a Jeep powertrain engineer so I don't know what all of their requirements were. But I'm confident that the torque output of the 3.6 probably had no bearing on that whatsoever.

 

[Remorseless]

This is a simple math problem unprovable with current data. I think you missed the point, all engines have their problems, but picking on the 3.6 because it has more issues, is untrue or at least unproven, simply because of the larger numbers of 3.6 vs 2L. More engines means higher numbers of 3.6 issues, it does not mean the rate of issues is more for 3.6 than 2.0

Again I have no issue with 2.0, but have seen no issue with 3.6 over 11 years, four engines, 200,000 miles to date..

I'm not picking on the 3.6, I've owned 3. Still own one of those 3. Just bought it like a couple months ago. It's fine, but it's an engine design with flaws you gotta hope you don't end up with. Plenty of 3.6s that've kicked the bucket due to the aforementioned issues despite regular maintenance. Mainly it's this idea that it's this uber reliable, no complexity engine that is trash.

I've interacted with probably a good 6 or 7 3.6s or variants over the years and have seen a number of failures (thankfully not in my vehicles, but within my group of wheeling buddies.) Most commonly the oil filter/cooler housing. Seen 2 or 3 of those go, helped fix them. Number of cooling issues. One or two had rollers going bad, could hear them clicking and clacking, but those Jeeps aren't with us anymore anyway.

 

[Remorseless]

I don't think it's the torque of the engine that's the problem.

I just think there's more to it than that. Unfortunately I'm not a Jeep powertrain engineer so I don't know what all of their requirements were. But I'm confident that the torque output of the 3.6 probably had no bearing on that whatsoever.

It's not that the 3.6 makes too much torque but that the 6MT's clutch can't handle enough torque. It slips and gets hot and fractures because the design is stupid and they reduced torque output during certain scenarios to give the clutch a chance to not slip.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Yadda yadda....

 

[John VonJeep]

If you think the 3.6 is all rev and no beans, lemme introduce you to my friend the 3.2 in the KL Cherokee. Less torque, less gear multiplication, and a worse transmission!

How about no rev and no beans? 3.8 says hello.

Sponsored