New 2018 Jeep Wrangler JL 2.0L Turbo Engine (Hurricane) FIRST spy photos!

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
2,039
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
There gonna be a lot more of the plastic bumper on the JL it looks like. Any advantages for steel bumpers besides being tougher? Plastic ones are easier and cheaper to replace, save weight and won't rust.
Plus, plastic bumpers absorb the shock of Impact, instead of transmitting it directly to frame.
Thats why I prefer plastic flares, bumpers that can deform, spring back under light "Trail Events"





Advertisement

 

JeepinGeorge

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
16
Reaction score
7
Location
Londonderry, NH
Vehicle(s)
1998 Wrangler Sahara
Vehicle Showcase
2
That is one super crowded engine bay :headbang: did the engineers forget what most of us get out and do with our Jeeps? :crying:
 

JJ75

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
60
Reaction score
21
Location
Corona, CA
Vehicle(s)
2012 JKU
Any time you have direct injection, you're going to have problems. When you throw forced induction into the mix on top of that, the problems get magnified. Look at the turbo-4 used in Mini Coopers, and Ford EcoBoosts, etc. They've all had numerous issues. Coked intake valves, failed turbos, clogged oil passages, spark plugs have to be changed frequently, moisture in the intercoolers, etc. etc. It also needs supplemental vacuum source and so that's more parts and complexity you have to add.

However, this is the way the automotive world is headed, so hopefully they'll at least be wise enough to use port injection in addition to the direct injection to help keep the valves happier, and hopefully they'll specify frequent maintenance and not kill engines with extended range oil changes like BMW did with the MINI cars.
Yea carbon buildup is a problem with direct injection engines unfortunately. But like you pointed out using a combination of port and direct injection like Toyota does should help eliminate the problem. One way to help avoid buildup (doesn't eliminate it tho) it is to just drive the vehicle hard and often, making sure to rev out the engine regularly.

Do we know that the Hurricane 4 cylinder is definitely all direct injection?
 

Dart Maul

Active Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
41
Reaction score
8
Location
UT
Vehicle(s)
2010 Xterra, 2014 Dart
Yea carbon buildup is a problem with direct injection engines unfortunately. But like you pointed out using a combination of port and direct injection like Toyota does should help eliminate the problem. One way to help avoid buildup (doesn't eliminate it tho) it is to just drive the vehicle hard and often, making sure to rev out the engine regularly.

Do we know that the Hurricane 4 cylinder is definitely all direct injection?
The Alfa Giulia 2.0T engine is direct injection. And that's likely the engine the Hurricane is based on.
 

Campbell

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
62
Reaction score
18
Location
Oceanside
Vehicle(s)
Challenger
Yea carbon buildup is a problem with direct injection engines unfortunately. But like you pointed out using a combination of port and direct injection like Toyota does should help eliminate the problem. One way to help avoid buildup (doesn't eliminate it tho) it is to just drive the vehicle hard and often, making sure to rev out the engine regularly.
Just posted this in the engine poll thread but for anyone worried about carbon build up from direct injection (it's really not that huge of an issue IMO), you can go with the upgraded Pentastar which will not be adding DI afterall (it was speculated that it might).
 

Dart Maul

Active Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
41
Reaction score
8
Location
UT
Vehicle(s)
2010 Xterra, 2014 Dart
Good news for anyone potentially interested in the Hurricane 4 cylinder turbo. Supposedly the casing for the 850RE 8-speed auto that'll be mated to the Hurricane is already being cast and ready to be built, signaling that the Hurricane engine is probably nearly finished development.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,923
Reaction score
8,316
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
Just a couple of comments...

I've got the direct injected, VVT, twin turbo 3.5 Ecoboost with 400lbs of torque in my 2015 Ford Transit 15 passenger van. It has 75k trouble free miles on it, averages 15mpg with my wife and 9 kids in it, doing mostly city driving. (Compared to our 2008 Chevy Express 6.0, which got 11mpg with a tail wind.) This Ecoboost is a monster that slings that big van 0 to 60 in 7 seconds flat! The power is linear in application and is strong right off idle and pulls hard all the way to redline. If they offered this engine in the JL, I'd have it RIGHT NOW. It also is a very small package under the hood of the hulking van. I've got no worries about carbon issues or anything else. I run Mobil 1 EP 5w30 in it for 10k miles on each oil change. Btw, it gets 20mpg on the highway, a number my 3.8 JKU can't even dream about.

The turbo 4 sounds interesting. It will boil down to torque and confidence in the cooling for me to consider it. I'm wanting a manual transmission, so that may decide the engine for me, but barring that, the diesel is the one that intrigues me most. I just don't want to pay more than $3000 for it, I don't want to wait an extra year, and I want it hooked up to the manual transmission. If the auto adds another $1k, it is out.

The appeal of the V6 is reliability/dependability. With a Wrangler, the way I use it, that is paramount. I don't want to be in the middle of White Rim trail in Moab and have an engine go into limp mode, or worse, break down. That's one thing I've loved about my 3.8 mini van engine. It has been bullet-proof. There's a guy doing a 2 year, 80,000 mile trip circumventing Africa, and he messed with a diesel transplant before it blew. He then bought a tried and true 3.8 Rubi and has had zero issues on his trip, so far. That 3.8 will even run on questionable gas. That's why I'm leaning at this time toward the updated Pentastar. WIth lighter weight and a slight boost in power, it should be a solid performer in the JL.

One quick observation to echo others...That engine bay with the test mule is a MESS. I would not even consider it unless they significantly clean that thing up and simplify it. No way. I also wonder how turbos would react to high water crossing when they are at peak temperature? Again, simple wins the day in a vehicle that strays far from the road.
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
2,277
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
Just a couple of comments...

I've got the direct injected, VVT, twin turbo 3.5 Ecoboost with 400lbs of torque in my 2015 Ford Transit 15 passenger van. It has 75k trouble free miles on it, averages 15mpg with my wife and 9 kids in it, doing mostly city driving. (Compared to our 2008 Chevy Express 6.0, which got 11mpg with a tail wind.) This Ecoboost is a monster that slings that big van 0 to 60 in 7 seconds flat! The power is linear in application and is strong right off idle and pulls hard all the way to redline. If they offered this engine in the JL, I'd have it RIGHT NOW. It also is a very small package under the hood of the hulking van. I've got no worries about carbon issues or anything else. I run Mobil 1 EP 5w30 in it for 10k miles on each oil change. Btw, it gets 20mpg on the highway, a number my 3.8 JKU can't even dream about.
You are in the minority. Numerous reports on Ford forums have shown that the EcoBust engines soot up the oil pretty bad. Most guys are going with 5,000 mile change intervals. It is also speculated that the timing chain fiasco, which is so common that multiple TSBs have been issued for it, has been caused in part by the oil not being changed often enough leading to contamination. Also, those engines go through spark plugs pretty quickly for the same reasons. I'm betting that your 75,000 miles of trouble-free use is luck and if you actually saw what your exhaust valves look like right now, it would scare you to death. Better be putting some cash in savings for repairs...because the bubble is going to bust soon.

Think about this...Ford has already totally scrapped that engine, and since 2016 has been using an all-new version that they claim has "no shared parts with the original". Meanwhile, the Coyote engine which has no forced induction and no direct injection is still in use, unchanged since the 2011 model year, makes more horsepower, gets the same fuel economy, and there are many many people with 200,000+ miles on them now with zero issues.

The Hurricane is going to be an interesting engine option. But I hope FCA takes some pages from what Ford has learned and keeps the dependable engine options going as well for the guys who just want to drive their stuff, and not work on it.

Oh, and my 2011 JKU with 3.8L V6 would EASILY bag up 20+ MPGs on the highway.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,923
Reaction score
8,316
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
Well, that is interesting. I just looked under the hood of a 2017 Transit 350, and I saw exactly the same engine. Exactly. So if there are no shared parts, I'm not sure how I could see that. I also don't believe in blind luck. You say Ford calls it all new? I can't find that info from Ford, anywhere. Please provide a link to that information.

Meanwhile, anecdotal, or not, mine runs exactly the same as it did when brand new. What are the odds of it running smoothly and perfectly after 75k with no perceptible valve issues and no perceptible spark plug issues, either? If the valves are covered in carbon, then it simply doesn't matter, because I've seen no drop in mpg, either.

I know too many people with pre-2016 F150's with Ecoboost engines who absolutely love them. Several have over 150k miles, and no issues. Hell, I've had nothing but trouble lately with the old 5.4 in my 2002 F150. I hear all the time how those engines are supposed to be so much better than the 3.5. My 5.4 only has 71k miles, and right now, it sounds like a bag of junk when idling or under light acceleration. It is going in the shop in a couple days. I've had plenty of trouble from that old engine, including bad coil over plugs. I'm planning on trading it in on the new Jeep, if I can get it to last long enough.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,090
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Well, that is interesting. I just looked under the hood of a 2017 Transit 350, and I saw exactly the same engine. Exactly. So if there are no shared parts, I'm not sure how I could see that... You say Ford calls it all new? I can't find that info from Ford, anywhere. Please provide a link to that information.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-ford-f-150-35l-v-6-ecoboost-10-speed-first-drive-review

Ford calls this EcoBoost “all new,” and indeed it carries over only the old engine’s bore center dimension, piston displacement, and cylinder liners. The block is new, the turbos are new, the cooling system (which features new flow paths and a higher-volume, higher-rate water pump) is new, and the fuel-delivery system now employs both direct and port injectors for improved emissions and more power.

http://www.trucktrend.com/truck-reviews/1609-2017-ford-f-150-3-5l-ecoboost-10-speed-first-drive/

The other big news for 2017 is an extensively updated 3.5L EcoBoost V-6. Other than the bore and stroke, nearly every other area of the engine is updated, including a new aluminum block casting. On the top end, the former bucket tappet valvetrain has been replaced with roller finger followers for reduced friction and improved NVH. The new 3.5L EcoBoost also employs a new dual port/direct injection system for improved emissions. The turbochargers are also new for 2017.


I assume one of those works as links/info?
 

ModdedJK

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
194
Reaction score
118
Location
MI
Vehicle(s)
Modded JK
You are in the minority. Numerous reports on Ford forums have shown that the EcoBust engines soot up the oil pretty bad. Most guys are going with 5,000 mile change intervals. It is also speculated that the timing chain fiasco, which is so common that multiple TSBs have been issued for it, has been caused in part by the oil not being changed often enough leading to contamination. Also, those engines go through spark plugs pretty quickly for the same reasons. I'm betting that your 75,000 miles of trouble-free use is luck and if you actually saw what your exhaust valves look like right now, it would scare you to death. Better be putting some cash in savings for repairs...because the bubble is going to bust soon.

Think about this...Ford has already totally scrapped that engine, and since 2016 has been using an all-new version that they claim has "no shared parts with the original". Meanwhile, the Coyote engine which has no forced induction and no direct injection is still in use, unchanged since the 2011 model year, makes more horsepower, gets the same fuel economy, and there are many many people with 200,000+ miles on them now with zero issues.

The Hurricane is going to be an interesting engine option. But I hope FCA takes some pages from what Ford has learned and keeps the dependable engine options going as well for the guys who just want to drive their stuff, and not work on it.

Oh, and my 2011 JKU with 3.8L V6 would EASILY bag up 20+ MPGs on the highway.
FCA already has a high output direct injection turbo 4 in the Alfa Giulia that it can hopefully draw experience upon for the Hurricane and avoid the initial teething problems like Ford's Ecoboost. The Hurricane may be the latest and greatest but I wouldn't overlook the Pentastar stalwart especially now that it's been improved.
 

doh

Active Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
Location
mason city
Vehicle(s)
2005 wrangler
Another thing ive seen on the Ford forums is how many people have blown (up) their 2.3 ecoboost engines. i'm talking untuned stock motors with people driving in 5th gear at 60mph.. as expected even more tuned ecoboost mustangs have blown their engines and there's plenty of anecdotal stories about it on the interwebs.

all I know is ill be looking at the "upgraded" Pentastar and i hope this being an optional engine now we are not left paying for what should have been a mid-cycle upgrade for the JK.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,090
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
FCA already has a high output direct injection turbo 4 in the Alfa Giulia that it can hopefully draw experience upon for the Hurricane and avoid the initial teething problems like Ford's Ecoboost. The Hurricane may be the latest and greatest but I wouldn't overlook the Pentastar stalwart especially now that it's been improved.
Rememebr that the Alfa isn't the same engine other than basic foundation. Beyond being built in N.Am., the Hurricane won't be getting all the Alfa's parts, and we're not even talking just Turbos, but even lifter components, etc are said to be different. They will definitely learn from the Alfa, despite it likely having a far more aggresive tune, but equating the two would be as wrong IMO as equating the Mazeratis' EcoDiesel and Pentastars to their Jeep counterparts. I won't lessen my trepidation of the upcoming tinywhineyturbo until it arrives on the scene and has done a few million kilometers/miles in a few thousand Jeeps.

I am looking forward to and optimistic of the PSU/PUG Pentastar, especially mated to an appropriate ZF8 speed (wish it was the 8HP75 with the 3.6 though) as the bigger 1st gear and better early-on torque delivery should make for a very different animal than the previous auto. Now the MT may not be as noticeable (especially if the MT update goes in the other direction for 1st gear), but should make for a nice little bump in the get-up and go, especially on the trails for a change.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,090
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
all I know is ill be looking at the "upgraded" Pentastar and i hope this being an optional engine now we are not left paying for what should have been a mid-cycle upgrade for the JK.
You might end up paying a premium over the T4, but if they lower or freeze the MSRP and then make it a $1,000 option, then that amounts to the same pricing as no option, while letting them push the average user to their CAFE affecting option, and still give there rest of us our Pentastar option for about the same price.
Now if they raise the MSRP and/or make it an unreasonabe premium ontop of that, then that's just chezzy and underhanded.
 

CorpCow

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
140
Reaction score
51
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
Ram 1500 Quad Cab
Rememebr that the Alfa isn't the same engine other than basic foundation. Beyond being built in N.Am., the Hurricane won't be getting all the Alfa's parts, and we're not even talking just Turbos, but even lifter components, etc are said to be different. They will definitely learn from the Alfa, despite it likely having a far more aggresive tune, but equating the two would be as wrong IMO as equating the Mazeratis' EcoDiesel and Pentastars to their Jeep counterparts. I won't lessen my trepidation of the upcoming tinywhineyturbo until it arrives on the scene and has done a few million kilometers/miles in a few thousand Jeeps.
Also, Alfa's turbo 4 has a closed deck design vs the Hurricane engine which will be open deck.

Closed decks are usually stronger since the cylinder walls are fully reinforced and can therefore take higher cylinder pressures and boost.

blockdesign.jpg
 

Advertisement




Extreme Terrain
 



Advertisement
Top