Reliability of 2.0T versus 3.6 etorque?

[oceanblue2019]

You learn something new everyday. But I wonder... for the turbo pump alone, is it just running a recirculation pump, or is it also running a radiator fan while the vehicle is at rest?

Just coolant recirc and not the radiator fan from my experience; but perhaps in really hot environments the rad fan would also run post-shutdown if needed.

Sponsored

 

[TheRaven]

You came across a bad one. The rpm needle on my 2.0's tach is the only way to confirm its running because of how smooth it is. Of the 100+ Jeeps I test drove, I had 1 rough idling 2.0 and 2 rough 3.6's. Since it's not the norm, this is the 1st time I've felt the need to mention the rough idling 3.6's. I personally prefer sticking to normal engine characteristics and performance when comparing the 2. It's far more valuable info to someone looking for info that's actually beneficial. Such as the 3.6 feeling gutless until it's revved higher, whereas the 2.0 has a low and mid range torque advantage which makes it feel like it doesn't have to work hard to get out of it's own way.

You mean six bad ones?

NVH is extremely valuable to anyone considering both motors. Far more valuable than a slight mid-range power advantage. The 2.0 turbo in my wife's (former, thankfully) Cherokee rattled the whole freakin' house. Poor NVH characteristics are not an indicator of a problem in the 2.0 or any other four cylinder of comparable size. They are par for the course when you are trying to make 200hp or more out of only 2L and four cylinders. This is WHY we have 6-cylinders and 8-cylinders to begin with. Getting 6-cylinder-like horsepower from a 4-cylinder is not the result of some new tech...we've been doing it for fifty years. So why hasn't everyone been driving high-hp 4-bangers all along? Cause they're obnoxious, that's why.

BTW - the 3.6l has the low-end torque advantage, not the 2.0l. That's been proven and is not up for debate. The 2.0l is down on torque until over the 2k mark.

 

[Headbarcode]

I'm hoping it doesnt require an actual background in mechanics for someone to spot those with it or without it. Thoughts, guesses, and opinions are what sap all meaningfulness out of these engine threads.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

Its not "engine sound" or "exhaust note". It's a concept called "NVH" and it affects many aspects of a vehicle. The difference in harshness and solid feel between the 2.0 and 3.6 is striking. The 2.0 feels like a 1998 Hyundai accent. I can live with a crappy exhaust note. I cannot live with the engine vibrating the crap of of everything and everyone in the vehicle (and in the house when pulling in the garage).

Do you own the 2.0? It’s noisy when cold but certainly does not vibrate. However, some of the 3.6s have idle vibration issues. Just search the forums…. I do think the 3.6 sounds better but the 2.0 is so much better at altitude….where I most enjoy my JL.

 

[longfiredragon]

Yep, it's actually comical. Same BS same person. So you don't like 4 cylinder turbos. That's cool, don't own one.

As for mine it is only slightly noisy at start up, never vibrates at any speed or RPM, there is no harshness, feels totally solid all the time and performs spectacular, and has virtually zero lag at any speed or RPM.

Most people if no one told them wouldn't know they were driving a 4 cylinder turbo.

To each there own but the 2.0 turbo is a blast to drive, gets good fuel mileage. I could go on and on but just drive both and go with what you want. I have absolutely nothing against the 6 banger but after test driving 2 of both the 4 cylinder puts the 6 to shame.

Best of luck with what ever you decide. If your like most your going to be really happy with either.

 

[OllieChristopher]

BTW - the 3.6l has the low-end torque advantage, not the 2.0l. That's been proven and is not up for debate. The 2.0l is down on torque until over the 2k mark.

Depends on what low end is to you. This is where the debate always ends up.

 

[DanW]

Yeah, my brother owned a 2015 Renegade: that thing was in the shop every other week.

Ironically, everything on that thing broke, including the transmission, but not the engine.

Funny, my daughter has a 2017 Renegade. But it is the 2.4 auto. No issues, at all. Runs and drives great and stays out of the shop. I think it has about 50k on it now.
I know of a guy in the UK with the 1.4 turbo/manual. He's got about 240k miles on it and still loves it.

Maybe we're the lucky ones. Lol.

How many of you 2.0 guys have the Etorque? Any issues with it? I sure haven't heard of any other than some early programming issues that were rectified with firmware flashes. I ask because we're picking up a 3.6 E-torque tomorrow for my wife. I'm excited to see how it does. I already love the 3.6, so I'm good with that part of it.

OP, I think you can't go wrong either way at this point. There are 2.0's out there getting some miles racked up and they appear to be doing very well. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My 3.6 has been perfect for 54k miles and puts a smile on my face every day. But it doesn't have the E-torque.

 

[TheRaven]

OP, I think you can't go wrong either way at this point. There are 2.0's out there getting some miles racked up and they appear to be doing very well. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My 3.6 has been perfect for 54k miles and puts a smile on my face every day. But it doesn't have the E-torque.

Yes. This is what never gets attention. Every time this type of thread pops up, the 2.0 fanboys rush in to do their dance. But the above is what really needs discussion.

These two engine choices are comically close. It really is pretty dumb that these are the two engines that 90% of Wrangler buyers are picking from. Really, the 2.0l should be the base engine, the 3.6l should be in the 330-350hp range like much of its competition already is...and the 5.7l should be rounding out the "mainstream" engine choices.

If you've owned high-strung 4-cylinders before and didn't mind the racket, you daily drive your JL, don't do a ton of towing/hauling and only off-road occasionally, then the 2.0l is probably the best choice. It will give you the best fuel mileage and highway power. On the other hand if you are used to refined V8's and V6's, do a lot of towing/hauling, a lot of rock crawling, or plan to keep your Wrangler well beyond warranty coverage, the 3.6l is probably the better choice. It has more low-end power and you only sacrifice 1-2mpg. It is very important to emphasize that the power differences between the two engines are very small, which is why I put so much emphasis on manners, because it's the most significant differentiator between the two...and for some buyers it doesn't matter at all.

 

[Grooster]

Funny, my daughter has a 2017 Renegade. But it is the 2.4 auto. No issues, at all. Runs and drives great and stays out of the shop. I think it has about 50k on it now.
I know of a guy in the UK with the 1.4 turbo/manual. He's got about 240k miles on it and still loves it.

Maybe we're the lucky ones. Lol.

How many of you 2.0 guys have the Etorque? Any issues with it? I sure haven't heard of any other than some early programming issues that were rectified with firmware flashes. I ask because we're picking up a 3.6 E-torque tomorrow for my wife. I'm excited to see how it does. I already love the 3.6, so I'm good with that part of it.

OP, I think you can't go wrong either way at this point. There are 2.0's out there getting some miles racked up and they appear to be doing very well. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My 3.6 has been perfect for 54k miles and puts a smile on my face every day. But it doesn't have the E-torque.

My 2019 with etorque is nearing 40K without issue. Daily driver, two extended trips to Colorado pulling an enclosed trailer with enduros plus 3 guys and their gear, no issues. Ran GREAT at altitude especially at 11,000 feet on the trails. Several trips to the Ozarks fully loaded and again, all good. No trouble passing either - loaded down or not. The 8 speed keeps things happy

Yes, the engine has a different sound to it under load (example - entrance ramps) but who cares? Exhaust tone does mature and seems deeper. It still sounds agricultural but so do flat fender Jeeps. It's a rocket entering highway traffic and easily get you a ticket if you're not paying attention. Definitely does not run out of steam. I like that I can put my foot into it and just go!

I'm glad I bought this thing and LOVE the gas mileage! Sure it's plush compared to my old Jeeps but then at my age I think I deserve modern comforts to go with my off road fun. Speaking of comforts, no issues with AC or Heat. I live in a four seasons climate so it gets tested.

I would no matter where you live recommend the cold weather package AND the HD towing package. It's great to have with any engine combination. You get the aux switches, LSD, hitch, and HD electrical and HD brakes just to name a few great things to have baked in. Oh, and my 2.0 was made in Toledo as noted on the build sheet.

 

[DanW]

Yes. This is what never gets attention. Every time this type of thread pops up, the 2.0 fanboys rush in to do their dance. But the above is what really needs discussion.

These two engine choices are comically close. It really is pretty dumb that these are the two engines that 90% of Wrangler buyers are picking from. Really, the 2.0l should be the base engine, the 3.6l should be in the 330-350hp range like much of its competition already is...and the 5.7l should be rounding out the "mainstream" engine choices.

If you've owned high-strung 4-cylinders before and didn't mind the racket, you daily drive your JL, don't do a ton of towing/hauling and only off-road occasionally, then the 2.0l is probably the best choice. It will give you the best fuel mileage and highway power. On the other hand if you are used to refined V8's and V6's, do a lot of towing/hauling, a lot of rock crawling, or plan to keep your Wrangler well beyond warranty coverage, the 3.6l is probably the better choice. It has more low-end power and you only sacrifice 1-2mpg. It is very important to emphasize that the power differences between the two engines are very small, which is why I put so much emphasis on manners, because it's the most significant differentiator between the two...and for some buyers it doesn't matter at all.

I agree with the manners. To me, the 4 feels and sounds like.....a 4. The V6 is smoother, and I've driven several of them back to back with my 3.6. But I've not met a 2.0 owner or a 3.6 owner that wants to trade. They all love their engines.

As for the 3.6, yeah, I'd love to see over 300hp, but not with direct injection. That's the main reason the 3.6 isn't there with hp and I'm fine with it. This is a half million mile engine and I'm keeping mine until I croak, so I'll give up a little hp for the longevity, durability, and reliability that this engine has. When I go exploring and off-roading into remote places, that is what speaks to me.

But like I said before, I think the 2.0 is proving itself to be reliable, too. Time will tell on the longevity, but it is really off to a good start. If the JLUR I just purchased for my wife had the 2.0 I would not have hesitated at all and still would have bought it and would be just as excited about it.

One thing that only the 3.6 can do, and that is to pair with the manual transmission. What a fun engine it is with that setup It pulls hard all the way through the powerband, never running out of breath, and makes the Jeep so much fun. It has a particular kick in the pants at 4500rpm, too. I've driven the darned thing, lift and all, on the Tail of the Dragon twice and had as much fun as anyone there, with the exception of a guy in a C8 Vette that blew by me. The manual is smooth and in spite of what some say, I absolutely love the feel of the clutch. My JK's manual feels like a dump truck compared to the JL. (But I still love that old JK!)

 

[DanW]

My 2019 with etorque is nearing 40K without issue. Daily driver, two extended trips to Colorado pulling an enclosed trailer with enduros plus 3 guys and their gear, no issues. Ran GREAT at altitude especially at 11,000 feet on the trails. Several trips to the Ozarks fully loaded and again, all good. No trouble passing either - loaded down or not. The 8 speed keeps things happy

Yes, the engine has a different sound to it under load (example - entrance ramps) but who cares? Exhaust tone does mature and seems deeper. It still sounds agricultural but so do flat fender Jeeps. It's a rocket entering highway traffic and easily get you a ticket if you're not paying attention. Definitely does not run out of steam. I like that I can put my foot into it and just go!

I'm glad I bought this thing and LOVE the gas mileage! Sure it's plush compared to my old Jeeps but then at my age I think I deserve modern comforts to go with my off road fun. Speaking of comforts, no issues with AC or Heat. I live in a four seasons climate so it gets tested.

I would no matter where you live recommend the cold weather package AND the HD towing package. It's great to have with any engine combination. You get the aux switches, LSD, hitch, and HD electrical just to name a few great things to have baked in. Oh, and my 2.0 was made in Toledo as noted on the build sheet.

That's great to hear! It really is an impressive little engine. I'm looking forward to putting the 3.6 E-torque to the long term test. Well, my wife will do most of that, but I'm sure I'll snatch it away for a couple of expeditions. Her driving profile should be exactly where the e-torque comes into play, so I'm expecting about 2-3 mpg better on average than my Jeep sees. Maybe even 4. I'll report back when it starts to take shape. I've heard nothing but good reports on the E-torque, which is good, given its complexity. It sounds like the folks in powertrain engineering nailed it.

 

[OllieChristopher]

Every time this type of thread pops up, the 3.6 fanboys rush in to do their dance.

I could not agree more!! Well said Kevin!!

 

[mwilk012]

Funny, my daughter has a 2017 Renegade. But it is the 2.4 auto. No issues, at all. Runs and drives great and stays out of the shop. I think it has about 50k on it now.
I know of a guy in the UK with the 1.4 turbo/manual. He's got about 240k miles on it and still loves it.

Maybe we're the lucky ones. Lol.

How many of you 2.0 guys have the Etorque? Any issues with it? I sure haven't heard of any other than some early programming issues that were rectified with firmware flashes. I ask because we're picking up a 3.6 E-torque tomorrow for my wife. I'm excited to see how it does. I already love the 3.6, so I'm good with that part of it.

OP, I think you can't go wrong either way at this point. There are 2.0's out there getting some miles racked up and they appear to be doing very well. I don't think you can go wrong either way. My 3.6 has been perfect for 54k miles and puts a smile on my face every day. But it doesn't have the E-torque.

I think if there is anything the forums could ever agree on, it is that the 2.4l multi air engine is garbage.

 

[DanW]

I think if there is anything the forums could ever agree on, it is that the 2.4l multi air engine is garbage.

Not so fast. Ours has been reliable and fuel efficient, so far....knock on wood! 50k on it, so it has a ways to go to prove itself.

 

[mwilk012]

Not so fast. Ours has been reliable and fuel efficient, so far....knock on wood! 50k on it, so it has a ways to go to prove itself.

Well, the class action lawsuit against the engine hasn’t helped its quality. By 100k they burn through all of the oil within an OCI and they know it. The engine will shut off from low oil pressure.

Sponsored