There is no perfect engine

[Caveman044]

Great engine but the price tag, plus oil and filter change prices and DEF deter me from this setup.

DEF just kills me, exhaust fluid used to be a joke. I'm waiting for the day they start requiring blinker fluid to cool the bulbs so they don't off gas radioactive particles.

Sponsored

 

[west tex]

I'll be ordering a 2022 JLUR this month but I'm not excited about any of the engine options. The 3.6 w/ess has the crappy motorcycle battery that seems to fail far too early, plus it's manual only which I don't want on a DD/wheeler. The 3.6 etorque has a complex secondary battery system that I'm weary of. The 2.0 sounds weird and I don't like turbo throttle feel, plus premium fuel. The 3.0 diesel I actually like but my commute makes me a bad candidate for it plus the high maintenance cost and complexity are a turn off. The 392 is awesome no question, but it's not a practical DD and I'm not spending $75k on a wrangler. The 4xE is interesting but not on a vehicle that is designed to get you away from electrical outlets.

I guess the problem is simply just having choice. I kind of wish it were the old days of having the 3.6 and that's it. I'll likely be getting the XR package so I'll have the 3.6 etorque and I'm sure it will be great. It seems ridiculous to not be able to choose a clear winner, but maybe there isn't.

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

That's the way it goes with making choices. No motor is ideal, but one probably fits better than the others. In the end, it's all up to you.

Me? I got the 2.0T and have no regrets.

 

[aldo98229]

Fiat knows how to make 4-cyl engines sound amazing when it wants to.

This is the angry sound of the tiny Fiat 1.4 Turbo 4-cyl in Abarth guise, used in the 124 Spider and 500 Abarth. Hearing this makes it hard to understand why Fiat didn’t give the 2.0T an awesome sound. It would have gotten more people to order it.




Little know fact: Abarth started business in 1948 as the muffler supplier to high-end Italian cars like Maseratis, Alfas and Ferraris.

 

[Odyssey USA]

And even though it’s a different cylinder head on the 2.0 Alfa Romeo I had, it’s otherwise the same 2.0 in the Jeep. My ‘18 Alfa Giulia was the best sounding 4 cyl I’ve ever owned. It’s gotta be, mostly, exhaust tuning effort that’s different in the Jeep but I guess that’s possibly hindered by design/packaging constraints.

 

[aldo98229]

Perhaps Jeep borrowed the 2.0T as an “economy” alternative to the V6. Making it roar might have erased whatever the 1 or 2 MPG difference the 2.0T has over the V6.

 

[johnnyj]

Been very happy with my 2.0T. Zero power issues, accelerates well even at altitude on mountain passes, and when I baby it in the slow lane I can easily pull 24/25mpg.

Looked at a 392 in a dealership the other day while I was waiting for my fuel line service bulletin. Really rad vehicle -I'd just have no use for it because I like my 420+ mile range. The 3.6 is tried and true, at the height of its refinement. Not a bad option. The diesel, like the 392, is useless to me as I don't have need to tow anything. If I were doing consistent trailer/boat towing in the mountains with my Jeep, it would have been my choice.

Perfect anything doesn't exist. IMO pick one attribute that is critical, one that is important, and a few you can live without. For me, fuel economy and range are critical. Being able to carry the gear I want is important, and the rest is just fluff. The 2.0 does that so I'm willing to let go light to light acceleration/cool factor of the 392 and the insane towing of the diesel.

 

[IdahoJOAT]

Been very happy with my 2.0T. Zero power issues, accelerates well even at altitude on mountain passes, and when I baby it in the slow lane I can easily pull 24/25mpg.

Looked at a 392 in a dealership the other day while I was waiting for my fuel line service bulletin. Really rad vehicle -I'd just have no use for it because I like my 420+ mile range. The 3.6 is tried and true, at the height of its refinement. Not a bad option. The diesel, like the 392, is useless to me as I don't have need to tow anything. If I were doing consistent trailer/boat towing in the mountains with my Jeep, it would have been my choice.

Perfect anything doesn't exist. IMO pick one attribute that is critical, one that is important, and a few you can live without. For me, fuel economy and range are critical. Being able to carry the gear I want is important, and the rest is just fluff. The 2.0 does that so I'm willing to let go light to light acceleration/cool factor of the 392 and the insane towing of the diesel.

What insane towing of the 3.0? It has the same pound rating as any other Wrangler. Do you mean it'll accelerate and tolerate that same weight better?

 

[johnnyj]

What insane towing of the 3.0? It has the same pound rating as any other Wrangler. Do you mean it'll accelerate and tolerate that same weight better?

Exactly. From what I've read from people who own them, the torque that thing puts out makes pulling its rated (and let's be real - lots of people exceed the rating) weight feel like it's not even there when needing to accelerate up a pass, and if I was planning to use my wrangler for towing consistently I'd for sure want to experience that better feel.

 

[Obispo325]

I'll be ordering a 2022 JLUR this month but I'm not excited about any of the engine options. The 3.6 w/ess has the crappy motorcycle battery that seems to fail far too early, plus it's manual only which I don't want on a DD/wheeler. The 3.6 etorque has a complex secondary battery system that I'm weary of. The 2.0 sounds weird and I don't like turbo throttle feel, plus premium fuel. The 3.0 diesel I actually like but my commute makes me a bad candidate for it plus the high maintenance cost and complexity are a turn off. The 392 is awesome no question, but it's not a practical DD and I'm not spending $75k on a wrangler. The 4xE is interesting but not on a vehicle that is designed to get you away from electrical outlets.

I guess the problem is simply just having choice. I kind of wish it were the old days of having the 3.6 and that's it. I'll likely be getting the XR package so I'll have the 3.6 etorque and I'm sure it will be great. It seems ridiculous to not be able to choose a clear winner, but maybe there isn't.

If you’re getting the XR Package, your decision is already made for you. Boom. Done.

 

[JeepinJason33]

Total rumor from a Jeep salesman yesterday was that they were hinting to putting the 5.7 in the JLU...

 

[Killed by Death]

Off topic but the Bronco doesn't have perfect engine choices either. From trolling the Bronco forums some people don't like the transmission mated to the V6. Some are ordering the 4 banger because of this. Others are sticking with the V6 because they don't like 4 bangers. Thinking the MPG numbers on the V6 turbo are bad also.

 

[pablo_max3045]

For me the hybrid would have been ideal. Was never offered in Europe though.
For my daily driving, the battery power is enough for my commute, then I have a large battery system + solar to charge at night.
Then, when I actually take a longer trip, I have the ICE for "unlimited" range.
When gas is 6 bucks a gallon... being able to use battery pack for a tiny fraction of the cost is something which adds up fast.
I like the 2.2L Diesel though. Plenty of power and gets around 26 MPG.

 

[jmccorm]

Fiat knows how to make 4-cyl engines sound amazing when it wants to.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Fiat X 1/9! Its engine made some absolutely wonderful noises (especially near its 6900 rpm redline), and I have no doubt that this factor alone partially contributed to its cameo appearance in the world of Cyberpunk 2072 (released last year).

Here's a video of that Fiat 1.5L 4C engine out for a short drive:

 

[aldo98229]

Off topic but the Bronco doesn't have perfect engine choices either. From trolling the Bronco forums some people don't like the transmission mated to the V6. Some are ordering the 4 banger because of this. Others are sticking with the V6 because they don't like 4 bangers. Thinking the MPG numbers on the V6 turbo are bad also.

Apparently Bronco MPG numbers are dismal, no matter what engine you choose.

The actual MPG numbers Bronco owners are getting are well below Wrangler’s.

I’m sure Bronco’s extra 800 lbs has something to do with it.

 

[Killed by Death]

Apparently Bronco MPG numbers are dismal, no matter what engine you choose.

The actual MPG numbers Bronco owners are getting are well below Wrangler’s.

I’m sure Bronco’s extra 800 lbs has something to do with it.

The 2 door bronco is also 7 inches longer. Don't know about the 4 door.

Sponsored