Mods please delete

[2nd 392]

Shoes are more reliable than powered vehicles for off roading.

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

Bricks and shoes have no bearing on the fact NA powered vehicles are better and more reliable than forced induction for offroading.

This argument is just like the "No replacement for displacement" post a few pages ago.

X is better than Y with no consideration of Z.

 

[NWJeepr]

Bricks and shoes have no bearing on the fact NA powered vehicles are better and more reliable than forced induction for offroading.

The backhanded remarks are garbage.

I'd agree, maybe, if we were talking about the simplicity of the reliable 4.0's or an older SBC.

But we're talking about the garbage Pentastar 3.6 that's had head and cam issues since it came out in 2011.

I'd literally rather have a Chrysler 3.8 over that hot junk.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Even more reliable than (human) shoes...

 

[acheron800]

Someone really should tell all those SxS manufacturers that they don't know what they're doing putting turbos on their desert-oriented machines

Many, many failures. Small, shitty turbos. Tons of dust bypass. I should know.

Funny how the top of the block nowdays is a NA 2.0...

I raced this for a few years. If I was buying a new UTV right now, it would be a ProR NA2.0.

UTV manufacturers had a handshake agreement that 1000cc was the max size engine. The only way to pull more power and to one up each other was to put turbos. Turbos weren't used for reliability.

Polaris broke that deal. And they are ahead. Go and put a turbo on a 2.0 right now, tons of failures.

 

[NWJeepr]

I thought we were talking about Jeeps, not sand lice...

 

[alphawolff]

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.

The 2.0 is significantly more complex to the 2.0. Direct injection, turbo charged, with an additional cooling loop. Just taking the valve cover off takes longer than taking *both* off on the 3.6L. And when you go to put it back together, you better pray that high pressure fuel line doesn't leak. That's assuming you even managed to houdini the pump side back on properly. Go and try to replace a throttle body on one. It isn't fun.

The 2.0 sucks to work on. It has just as many build quality concerns as the 3.6L, they're equally reliable as far as I'm concerned. The only difference is I can rip apart a 3.6 in a fraction of the time a 2.0 takes

 

[acheron800]

I thought we were talking about Jeeps, not sand lice...

Talk to your boy @Remorseless

 

[AnnDee4444]

The 2.0 is significantly more complex to the 2.0. Direct injection, turbo charged, with an additional cooling loop. Just taking the valve cover off takes longer than taking *both* off on the 3.6L.

So Jeep designed the 3.6 for easy valve cover removal but not the 2.0. I wonder why...

 

[alphawolff]

So Jeep designed the 3.6 for easy valve cover removal but not the 2.0. I wonder why... There must not be any consumables under a 2.0 valve cover.

Just the warped head from the 3 separate coolant leaks it left the factory with.

 

[Terrymo]

Arriving late to this thread and trying to follow it is like listening to a roomful of schizophrenics on crack.

 

[blackwater]

Im suddenly even more happy I went with the V6 + Auto. I almost went turbo

The only reason manufacturers are quickly going to 4 cylinders is because of the climate change nuts. Like the 8 cylinder is almost nonexistent, the 6 will follow and soon everyone will mandated to use electric scooters. Government control is a terrible thing.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Just the warped head from the 3 separate coolant leaks it left the factory with.

There's a gauge for that.

 

[Dusty Dude]

Bring me the good ol days when they made a V6 by chopping two cylinders off of a V8. My 3.9 Dakota sounded AWESOME... All 180ish Hp of it.

My 3.6 would leave it in the dust for sure, but doesn't quite have that sound.

BAH! In the good old days, we had an inline slant six that was indestructible. Forget HP…. It had torque! (Mopar, not Jeep)

 

[Brad Hearing]

The only reason manufacturers are quickly going to 4 cylinders is because of the climate change nuts. Like the 8 cylinder is almost nonexistent, the 6 will follow and soon everyone will mandated to use electric scooters. Government control is a terrible thing.

What sucks more do you think - the fact that its happening, or that you can see it coming for miles and no one bothers to do anything about it?

Sponsored