Pentastar + BSG

[Tonopah]

"I think I read in one of your posts that the V6 BSG implementation will be delayed until next summer?"
I hope so because I am thinking about ordering a 2020 Rubicon V6 when the order banks open (I expect in July of 2019) and I don't want BSG.

Sponsored

 

[Lincoln]

"I think I read in one of your posts that the V6 BSG implementation will be delayed until next summer?"
I hope so because I am thinking about ordering a 2020 Rubicon V6 when the order banks open (I expect in July of 2019) and I don't want BSG.

I’ll buy the last 3.6 they make without BSG and bury it in a time capsule and dig it up after I wear this one out because I don’t want BSG ever

 

[S2k Chris]

BSG is probably the biggest factor in whether I will buy out my 2018 lease or lease/buy a new 2021. I don't want the BSG. Or the 2.0T.

FCA sent me a survey which was basically "what could we do to get you to buy the 2.0T instead of the 3.6L" and my response was "nothing." I don't want a 2.0T, I don't want something that complex, I don't want to use premium fuel, I don't want to worry about hybrid drive, I don't trust FCA to not build a ticking time bomb, etc etc etc.

 

[Lincoln]

BSG is probably the biggest factor in whether I will buy out my 2018 lease or lease/buy a new 2021. I don't want the BSG. Or the 2.0T.

FCA sent me a survey which was basically "what could we do to get you to buy the 2.0T instead of the 3.6L" and my response was "nothing." I don't want a 2.0T, I don't want something that complex, I don't want to use premium fuel, I don't want to worry about hybrid drive, I don't trust FCA to not build a ticking time bomb, etc etc etc.

BSG is probably the biggest factor in whether I will buy out my 2018 lease or lease/buy a new 2021. I don't want the BSG. Or the 2.0T.

FCA sent me a survey which was basically "what could we do to get you to buy the 2.0T instead of the 3.6L" and my response was "nothing." I don't want a 2.0T, I don't want something that complex, I don't want to use premium fuel, I don't want to worry about hybrid drive, I don't trust FCA to not build a ticking time bomb, etc etc etc.

I second that No survey for me yet I just got the JLU mid December I had a hard time finding a 3.6 that we wanted The dealer had to go 200 miles to get exactly what I would have ordered I’d like to see FCA put a small 8 cylinder in the Jeep

 

[Sean L]

but its not. my silverado with the 5.3L without ess runs 23 mpg avg for work. i under stand apples for oranges but still. i dont think being stopped and started saves much of anything for fuel. stop and go traffic you really do not stop long enough to save anything plus your wearing the starter and motor more than anything. I have to admit i do not know a ton about the new ess but i do know that our mail trucks out here break down constantly due to the post master telling them they must shut off the engine at every home. I can say atleast once a month our mail mans truck is down for another starter. or a engine has gone bad due to the consent on/off at every house. ( i understand ess doesnt engage as much as that but it still shows that its hurting more than its helping) and its just my Opinion. and i am not a engineer. so i suppose its nothing more than an opinion hehe

Getting 23Mpg in a 5.3 Silverado tells me you must spend a lot of time on the highway, where your MDS/AFM is running your truck on 4 cylinders and not much time at stop lights. ESS really doesn't help on the highway but cylinder deactivation does. I used to own a Ram 1500 with the same system and it was really good on highway runs, but then when I moved back home and did a lot more city driving the difference in fuel economy I was getting was huge. I went from 21ish down to 15. Reason being was I was spending a lot more time in town idling at stop lights and running on all 8 cylinders in stop and go traffic.

How old are these mail trucks you're takling about? ESS equipped vehicles have heavy duty starters compared to the much lighter duty non ESS vehicles.

 

[Sean L]

What ever happened to simple Sometimes more is less The less stuff to break the more likely I am to make it home from off-roading What ever happened to having a engine transmission transfer case and axles Jeeps were always simple vehicles FCA seems to be making them quite complex now I’m happy with the mileage increase with the 8 speed transmission over the 5 speed in my JKU I’m getting 2-4 mpg better I don’t like the ess on the JLU but at least I can disable it or put in a programmer I hope they don’t put the BSG in the newer 3.6s or I’ll be driving this one a long time I’ll leave the 48 volt batteries in my golf cart I don’t want them underneath my Jeep with the aluminum foil skid plate I didn’t buy my Jeep for mileage but more for it’s off road capabilities and traveling in the snow and it’s great resale I’ll put a few extra dollars in the tank but you’ll get some back at trade in time Keep it simple

I ran out of breath just reading that. Periods and commas are helpful.

 

[Patsloft]

If you read some of the 2.0L threads FCA is getting rid of the Pentastar (and maybe the Heni) and putting the 2.0L in. If you read the Green New Deal they will be replacing all car motors in 10 years with an empty engine compartment.

Lol

 

[nerubi]

It does not increase performance on the top end, but just on the low end. I've driven a 2.0 Rubicon and a 5.7 Rebel with the BSG system and they drive like any other vehicle, but just a very very smooth Start/Stop and the Rebel felt quicker off of a dead stop than my old Ram 1500 Hemi. On the top end its not active so a full throttle acceleration is just the same as a Non BSG equivalent.

I've driven a couple of the 2.0 and the shutter at start was as noticeable as on the 3.6.

 

[Sean L]

I've driven a couple of the 2.0 and the shutter at start was as noticeable as on the 3.6.

And the ones I drove didn't have a Shutter.

 

[photowiz]

I don’t think power is in question except at higher elevations but I do think reliability is I test drove both engines and went with the 3.6 There’s a lot of extra stuff going on with the 2.0 such as 3 different cooling systems One for the engine one for the turbo and one for the 48 volt batteries which seem to be located in a very poor location with a pretty cheap thin skid plate and a bunch of coolant lines running underneath the Jeep to the batteries I’m kind of old school and like to keep things simple FCA seems to be complicating what was once a simple vehicle I’m happy with the 3.6 but I live closer to sea level The beauty of asking a question like yours on a forum is if you get 10 replies you’ll get 11 different answers to your question My 3.6 in my JKU that I traded never gave me any problems so that was one of the reasons I went with the 3.6 Time will tell how the 2.0 plays out but I wasn’t willing to anti up the extra grand for it so I saved the money for fuel mileage difference but I didn’t buy my Jeep for mileage That’s only my take on your question Good luck making a decision

My thoughts exactly. I went with the V6 and love it.

 

[jayvis]

BSG is probably the biggest factor in whether I will buy out my 2018 lease or lease/buy a new 2021. I don't want the BSG. Or the 2.0T.

FCA sent me a survey which was basically "what could we do to get you to buy the 2.0T instead of the 3.6L" and my response was "nothing." I don't want a 2.0T, I don't want something that complex, I don't want to use premium fuel, I don't want to worry about hybrid drive, I don't trust FCA to not build a ticking time bomb, etc etc etc.

I have to ask why you're interested in any FCA vehicle then. The same company designed and built all of the engines available in the Wranglers. Ticking time bombs can usually be traced back to the builder.

 

[S2k Chris]

I have to ask why you're interested in any FCA vehicle then. The same company designed and built all of the engines available in the Wranglers. Ticking time bombs can usually be traced back to the builder.

Because the Pentastar has a proven reputation for longevity at this point. It’s not a new engine. I’m not saying FCA will always screw up, in saying I need them to prove they haven’t screwed up before I believe they haven’t. The 3.6L is proven. The 2.0T isn’t. Simple as that.

 

[jayvis]

Because the Pentastar has a proven reputation for longevity at this point. It’s not a new engine. I’m not saying FCA will always screw up, in saying I need them to prove they haven’t screwed up before I believe they haven’t. The 3.6L is proven. The 2.0T isn’t. Simple as that.

The 3.6L in the JL is a revised engine. It's not exactly like the one in the JK. The 3.6L in the JK does not have what is considered to be a sterling reputation either. Plenty of issues outlined in forums past.

 

[SecondTJ]

Because the Pentastar has a proven reputation for longevity at this point. It’s not a new engine. I’m not saying FCA will always screw up, in saying I need them to prove they haven’t screwed up before I believe they haven’t. The 3.6L is proven. The 2.0T isn’t. Simple as that.

The current 3.6 debuted in 2016, so its only 3 years old, hardly proven longevity yet, It's confusing that FCA kept the same displacement and didn't rename the engine.

 

[photowiz]

The current 3.6 debuted in 2016, so its only 3 years old, hardly proven longevity yet, It's confusing that FCA kept the same displacement and didn't rename the engine.

http://www.miamilakesautomall.com/c...ntastar-v6-with-etorque-on-best-engines-list/

http://blog.chrysler.com/news/the-n...named-one-of-the-10-best-by-wards-automotive/
Pentastar 3.6 V6 has been winning awards for years. That's why I have one in my JLU.

Sponsored