There is no perfect engine

[Zandcwhite]

North Carolina isn't a flat state!!! We have sea level to Mountains and turbo lag sucks!!! Mount Mitchell isn't 10K feet but we are close at 6.5K...Again it all boils down to personal preference.

Awfully defensive, note I said most? 6k feet results in an 18% loss in power NA vs a 6% loss FI. That is still livable. The higher you go, the worse it gets. Wheeling out in CO we were over 13k feet. A 39% loss vs a 13% loss is massive.

Sponsored

 

[T Town]

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.

TFL got 19+ mpg getting to a trail with their V6 Bronco on 35’s

 

[guarnibl]

Just for the record, I'm very familiar with iron block HEMI engines, drove them in the 1960s when they were current technology and when twelve miles to the gallon wasn't bad for high performance vehicles.

For my 2021 Wrangler, I chose the wheezy little Euro-style two liter, no e-anything, just two liters, four cylinders, and a turbo. I chose it because it was cheaper at the time and I intend to swap engines and transmissions in the near future anyway. But, I've been very surprised. I tend drive like a bat out of hell and it sure keeps up and does it at eighteen miles to the gallon in town and over twenty on the highway, wheezing like a salivating angry badger the whole time.

I'm not convinced that it will last all that long. Turbos endure a lot of heat stress and getting that much torque and horse power out of only two liters is going to pressure something loose eventually. I'll also need more torque for the later stages of my build; so, I still intend to swap it out. But, when I do, it won't be for an iron block HEMI. I'll be going to a aluminum LT1 with a dry sump system in front of an 8L90, lots of low end torque, the higher end horsepower of a Corvette, eight even higher strength gears, and all at barely any more front end weight or gas consumption than I get from the peppy little two liter.

Define barely any more gas consumption.

 

[zrickety]

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.

I'm late to the party, but you can get a 3.6 auto with ESS...then push the button to disable it when you startup, or buy the tazer mini and never think about it again.

 

[GSLSE21B]

The v6 definitely sounds better. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of the people commenting that they prefer the v6 are at sea level in states without mountains. On flat roads at 0 elevation, the power difference is small enough that sound could be the deciding factor. On a mountain pass at 10k+ feet, it is night and day. The forced induction engine will be down ~10%, the NA engine down over 30%.

I had a 3.6 rental in key west , couldn’t stay in 8th gear on the highway 1

 

[Suspect]

I had a 3.6 rental in key west , couldn’t stay in 8th gear on the highway 1

Idk how that’s possible because i drive down to the keys all the time and I can get into 8th gear on 37inch trail grapplers lol

 

[Yogi1956]

I hate the 2.0T...seems gutless compared to the 3.6 and sounds terrible!!! 2.0T is OK under full throttle but that's it IMHO.

I must have had a bad V6 in my 2013 2 door Rubicon as my 2021 4 door Rubicon by any measure, stop watch, seat of the pants etc is faster and pulls strong from the start with better gas mileage.

They both “sound” like a minivan, long live the Hemi.

 

[TxJeepers]

I’ve had the 3.6 ESS for 3 years now without issue. SS has been disabled for most of it via my Tazer. ?
Thinking about trading to a 22 and if I do I will get eTorque. I’ve done some research and feel good about that choice.
I’m with OP though on the other choices.
No thanks on a turbo four banger and premium fuel.
No thanks to the added complexity, dealing with def and other higher costs of diesel. Not to mention premium you pay to get it.
No thanks to 392. Can’t justify the premium they are getting for it but love it otherwise.
No thanks 4xe. See 2.0 above plus only 20-30 electric miles from a complex system. Hybrid isn’t the way.
The 3.6 in either flavor has a proven track record, good enough performance and lowest cost of ownership.

 

[GSLSE21B]

Idk how that’s possible because i drive down to the keys all the time and I can get into 8th gear on 37inch trail grapplers lol

Must have been defective after the first 300 miles .. no doors , no top Sahara, the gear hunting was terrible

 

[Zandcwhite]

I must have had a bad V6 in my 2013 2 door Rubicon as my 2021 4 door Rubicon by any measure, stop watch, seat of the pants etc is faster and pulls strong from the start with better gas mileage.

They both “sound” like a minivan, long live the Hemi.

Both automatics? 3.6-1 1st gear and a 5 speed vs 4.7-1 1st gear and 8 speeds will make a night and day difference with any engine. Everyone fixates on how much worse the 3.8l was, but they had an even worse transmission in those with a 2.86-1 1st gear. The 8 speed auto is a game changer and makes every available engine a beast compared to previous model years.

 

[Yogi1956]

Both automatics? 3.6-1 1st gear and a 5 speed vs 4.7-1 1st gear and 8 speeds will make a night and day difference with any engine. Everyone fixates on how much worse the 3.8l was, but they had an even worse transmission in those with a 2.86-1 1st gear. The 8 speed auto is a game changer and makes every available engine a beast compared to previous model years.

Both autos, drove them all before buying. Diesel was the strongest but couldn’t justify the extra $$

 

[2nd 392]

I'm late to the party, but you can get a 3.6 auto with ESS...then push the button to disable it when you startup, or buy the tazer mini and never think about it again.

Yes there still is an ESS off button FOR Now. But since the MDS off button has been eliminated because they take an EPA mileage hit If we have the choice to turn it off and many new cars have already eliminated the ESS off choice for the same reason it won’t be long before it’s tazer only

 

[old mike]

Define barely any more gas consumption.

Robbie at MoTech in Vegas is getting 16 to 19 miles or more per gallon in various JKUs that weigh more than 2dr JLs. It may be that he has a light foot; but, it may be due to different engine and transmission features. You might want to check out his YouTube channel (WranglerJKLS). He has been specializing in engine swaps for Wranglers for years and has a large collection of off-roading videos in which he test drives the swaps while discussing the pros and cons of various engine and transmission combinations. They're pretty nerdy; but, he delivers a lot of technical information along the way.

Do I have proof of the mileage he's getting? No and his videos do serve as advertising for his high end swaps; but, as you'll see from his videos, he doesn't seem to be the type to overhype his stuff that much. So, I tend to believe he's getting more than the 11 or 12 miles per gallon one of the comments in this thread quoted for the 392.

Are his engine and transmission swaps expensive? Oh yes, but so is a new 392 Wrangler and, if you already have a Wrangler with expensive mods, but a lackluster engine, already in place, a good swap might make more sense than jettisoning the build and starting over with a 392.

 

[guarnibl]

Robbie at MoTech in Vegas is getting 16 to 19 miles or more per gallon in various JKUs that weigh more than 2dr JLs. It may be that he has a light foot; but, it may be due to different engine and transmission features. You might want to check out his YouTube channel (WranglerJKLS). He has been specializing in engine swaps for Wranglers for years and has a large collection of off-roading videos in which he test drives the swaps while discussing the pros and cons of various engine and transmission combinations. They're pretty nerdy; but, he delivers a lot of technical information along the way.

Do I have proof of the mileage he's getting? No and his videos do serve as advertising for his high end swaps; but, as you'll see from his videos, he doesn't seem to be the type to overhype his stuff that much. So, I tend to believe he's getting more than the 11 or 12 miles per gallon one of the comments in this thread quoted for the 392.

Are his engine and transmission swaps expensive? Oh yes, but so is a new 392 Wrangler and, if you already have a Wrangler with expensive mods, but a lackluster engine, already in place, a good swap might make more sense than jettisoning the build and starting over with a 392.

Yep, have heard of him and see his videos. His swaps aren't that pricey in comparison to others. I agree though if you are already knee deep into a build it probably doesn't make sense to start over. Otherwise, for some of us a new 392 is hard to pass up as a platform to start from.

FWIW, I had a 5.7 Hemi in my TJ and with 4" of lift on 33's with Rubicon axles, aftermarket bumpers, and 5 speed auto, it would return 15-16 on the highway. It weighed slightly over 4k.

392 will return more similar to the above I'm sure with the 8 speed, even factoring in the increase in displacement. Assuming you keep your foot out of it. I probably won't be able to do that and I'm sure I'll be around 9-11 mpg. You'd really have to baby it. My TJ was returning that if I babied it down the highway going 65-70. As soon as I went 80 it would drop to 11-12.

But I rather have an LS in a JK than a Hemi. I am biased though as my 09 JK has a Mast built LS7 I am sure if you stick to a reasonable crate engine build it will probably return pretty good mileage with the right transmission and proper gearing. But with big tires, and you put your foot in it at all, you're going into single digits no matter what LS you have. But it's nice to know that if you don't do that, you can still drive it out of town and not worry about range. My two door gets around 125 miles to a tank if I keep my foot out of it. If I step into it and enjoy it, it's probably a little over half that. So about 5-7 mpg.

Buddy of mine built one ( 4 door JK, heavy) with an LSA and IIRC it was around 10-11. Makes a lot more power than a 392, and was on 40's with a 6L80E.

 

[Gunfighter]

OP says " The 3.6 etorque has a complex secondary battery system that I'm weary of." - there haven't been too many issues creep up with this set-up. The etorque is pretty reliable thus far. I drove the 2.0 and 3.6 versions on the JLU as rentals. The 2.0 was peppy, but the engine sound was not attractive and louder than the 3.6. I didn't really like the acceleration rush of the turbo for what I wanted in an off-road vehicle. That's just me - my opinion on those two different engines. YMMV. One other thing is the 3.6 with the High Altitude 3:73 gears 8th gear engages fine on highways with 33's.

Sponsored