There is no perfect engine

[FenKrawler]

Ive owned a 2019 6cycl, driven the turbo for 2 weeks, right now we have had the diesel for 3 weeks '21 model and have to say I'm really impressed with it. I have a 392XR on order.
-The 6cyl just feels terrible. It's too weak. We typically end up with 37s on it and it's just crying all the time.
-The turbo was really surprising in its pep, but would not own it long term, just a couple years. Just like an ecoboost engine.
-The diesel sounds great and pulls pretty hard. What not many talk about is the weight of it. It feels more planted, makes the Wrangler drive better. It does well at speeds on the highway. If the 392 did not exist, the diesel is the winner imo. Tons of torque, solid, great sound, enough hp and understood on the emissions system, but worth it.

Sponsored

 

[JeepinJason33]

My 3.6l with 5.13's and 37's works fine at altitude. My home is at 6,000 feet and everywhere I wheel locally is higher than that. We are frequently between 10,000-12,800' on the weekends. Could I use more power, sure? Do I need it for wheeling/commuting, no, it holds 8th fine at 65. It gets a bit harder to hold at 75 going up hill. I chose this because I did not like the ricer sound of the turbo and preferred the low end torque. In addition, I have had several Jeeps with the 3.6 and never had a single engine related issue.

I really think this breaks down to personal opinion vs a "best" engine. My neighbor has two 392's (his and hers) and feels that he needs to re-gear to get the right gearing for off-road. So even that engine combo is not perfect.

As mentioned in an early post, there has been rumors of dumping the 5.7 in there. I had that in my 2018 GC and currently have it in my 2020 Ram. Tons of power without being over the top. I really hope they make that an option. Or, maybe they will make a better hybrid version.

 

[TX_Ovrlnd]

Would you recommend the ecodiesel to someone who has never owned a diesel before?

Diesels are great, just understand the maintenance/costs required for upkeep and if you are ever in cold country do not buy diesel from anywhere except a heavily used truck stop if you can help it. Usually their fuel is properly treated and fresh so it shouldn't coagulate and clog your filter. Also pay attention to DEF dates and store any extra in a cool environment.

 

[longfiredragon]

I suppose I can chime in here. The 2.0 was the way to go for me. I test drove 2 of each the 6 banger and the turbo 4. There was no real comparison I immediately noticed a huge diff. with he 2LT. The 2.0 easily out performed the 6 banger, you didn't need to be a rocket engineer to tell.

And turbo lag what's that? the 2.0 has a split second of lag and it is only noticeable once in a while. Most newer turbo vehicles have very little lag. New tech. what's that? There was a patent filed for a turbocharger in 1896! US auto manufactures started playing with them in 1962! before that they were used successfully on aircraft engines for years.

Electronic waste gate, intercooler, liquid cooled or not, direct injection, stop start. None of it is new tech.
I understand the 3.6 it is a very good proven engine, and I understand it especially with the 6 speed manual. I am sure for some it does exactly what they want and they are perfectly ok with it. I drove 2 of them and they were ok, I could have lived with it and been happy with my Jeep had there been no other choices.

Personally I don't care what either one sounds like, I am keeping mine quiet for now. I do know what they sound like opened up and you can make either one sound good, or better, again more personal taste.

For me it was bang for the buck, straight up performance issue, I read all the reviews and the numbers have been posted. In my humble opinion the 2.0L Turbo mops the floor with the 6 banger, all you have to do is drive one. Not saying it is the best option for everyone though, that's what makes the world go around.

 

[John VonJeep]

There was no real comparison I immediately noticed a huge diff. with he 2LT. The 2.0 easily out performed the 6 banger, you didn't need to be a rocket engineer to tell.

… 2.0L Turbo mops the floor with the 6 banger, all you have to do is drive one.

Let’s not overdo things. The Turbo does the quarter in 15.1 sec. at 88 mph. The eTorque V6 does it in 15.5 at 89 mph.

This suggests that the turbo is jumpier off the line and at lower RPM, but that the V6 begins to claw that back at the top end. Totally consistent with what everybody understands.

These engines are ultimately quite evenly matched. It largely comes down to how you prefer to have your power delivered. For me, I like the smoothness of the V6 for trail work.

 

[Eandras]

You can get the ESS V6/auto with the Xtreme Rubicon package and I also think you can now get it across the board, last I saw.

I wouldn't get too fussy about the little battery. I've not had a problem with it. I use a Tazer JL to keep ESS disabled, so that little battery never loses a charge. You can also do a simple bypass of it. I didn't do that, though. I did swap out both batteries at the 3.5 year mark because I see MANY OEM batteries fail at 3 years, ESS, or not. My cousin's 2018 JK with the simple battery and no ESS failed at exactly 3 years with only 30k on it.

I swapped out the big battery with an Odyssey pure lead AGM and the little battery with a small AGM. Not only will the big battery potentially last a decade, but it is also vastly superior for winching. (I did winch quite a bit with the OEM and it did fine.)

For me, the 3.6 ESS has been the perfect engine, especially with the Tazer JL neutering the ESS. Of course, I think it is the perfect engine with the manual, but those autos are danged nice, too.

I had a 2015 JK with the 3,6 and when I sold it thus past September it had the original battery. I guess I was one of the luck ones as far as battery issues. Hopefully it remains that way.

 

[JeepinJason33]

Let’s not overdo things. The Turbo does the quarter in 15.1 sec. at 88 mph. The eTorque V6 does it in 15.5 at 89 mph.

This suggests that the turbo is jumpier off the line and at lower RPM, but that the V6 begins to claw that back at the top end. Totally consistent with what everybody understands.

These engines are ultimately quite evenly matched. It largely comes down to how you prefer to have your power delivered. For me, I like the smoothness of the V6 for trail work.

Agreed, they are both bricks and really not made for 0-60 or even 1/4 mile times. I don't think too many people look at these as rockets, they will get beat off the line by just the majority of SUV's and cars out there. Once built, you are just putting undo stress on the suspension and axles by accelerating fast. When I need to go fast, I jump in my M5 and thrash it. That thing is made for jumping off the line...

 

[Odyssey USA]

Let’s not overdo things. The Turbo does the quarter in 15.1 sec. at 88 mph. The eTorque V6 does it in 15.5 at 89 mph.

This suggests that the turbo is jumpier off the line and at lower RPM, but that the V6 begins to claw that back at the top end. Totally consistent with what everybody understands.

These engines are ultimately quite evenly matched. It largely comes down to how you prefer to have your power delivered. For me, I like the smoothness of the V6 for trail work.

Give me much more torque below 4K on the 2.0 and only 7 dyno’d corrected HP peak advantage to the 3.6. That 2.0 is more efficient down low and has a negligible difference on the top end at sea level. If you still have it at your elevation, 7hp isn’t going to reel in that 2.0 at the top half of the track and that’s not really what most look for in a Jeep, top end charge. More like…a bit late & a dollar short for the 3.6 for Jeeping when comparing the two. Worse range and less power for the 3.6 at high elevation so that 7 hp will disappear in a couple thousand feet elevation gain.

 

[John VonJeep]

Give me much more torque below 4K on the 2.0 and only 7 dyno’d corrected HP peak advantage to the 3.6. That 2.0 is more efficient down low and has a negligible difference on the top end at sea level. If you still have it at your elevation, 7hp isn’t going to reel in that 2.0 at the top half of the track and that’s not really what most look for in a Jeep, top end charge. More like…a bit late & a dollar short for the 3.6 for Jeeping when comparing the two. Worse range and less power for the 3.6 at high elevation so that 7 hp will disappear in a couple thousand feet elevation gain.

I am totally cool with the fact that some people like the 2.0 better.

 

[Herson]

Add in Brad at TrailRecon saying the same and Nate at Dirt Lifestyle who just picked up a JT EcoDiesel.

Except for the 392 (which is awesome but not for me due to MPG/Range) I drove all the engines. I'm at sea level but do plan on exploring at altitude. I drove the 3.6L, then the 2.0L and the 3.0L last. The 3.6L and 2.0L were a toss up to me...however I knew within 30 seconds in the EcoDiesel that it was the right choice for me. The low end torque and MPG/Range are worth any potential drawbacks you may convince yourself exist. Also IMO the diesel sounds the best.

My suggestion...be patient, find them and go drive them....you'll know. Then order and be happy with your decision.

In my opinion, and I have the 2.0 so is probably bias, the 2.0 Is the is the best overall engine. Both the 3.6 and 2.0 are the lighter versions of the Wrangler and that is a plus when off-roading for me. All of the other engine models are over 5k pounds. The 2.0 engine is basically the second fastest model engine in the wrangler after the 392. Unless you put 40, then you don’t need 470 ft-lb form the diesel. With 35s the 2.0 is like stock and will be way faster on road than all of the others except the 392. Off road does everything the others do plus the average fuel economy. If you put the pros and cons objectively of all of the engines, I will be sure this one will come on top. (power/torque curve, fuel economy, reliability, sound, overall vehicle weight, cost of oil and filter changes etc.) At the end, it is a personal preference based on your needs and area you live. That’s why they offer so many engines. We just need a objective metric (like TFL has for off road worthiness) of all the engines.

 

[gato]

Have you driven any of the engine options? If not, Drive a 3.6 and then a 4 banger and I am pretty sure you will be surprised. Of course, it is not the 392, but personally I wouldn’t change it for any of the other engines. XR package is cool but if I had to order one, I wouldn’t go with the XR package just because it is not offered with the 2.0 turbo. Funny that when I was going to buy the wrangler, I was looking for the 3.6 but I am glad that I went with the turbo even if it sounds like a vacuum.

^ ^ ^ this.

I ordered the 2.0T because I wanted the least complicated system with the A8, and at the time the 2.0T was the only non-eTorque version on the Rubicon.

After buying it, to my surprise, I found all these things about the 2.0T that make it much better than the 3.6 (that I had on my 2016 JKUR).

1 - No crossover exhaust to be smashed by rocks, to interfere with front drive shaft droop, to interfere with aftermarket skids. (never talked about here)

2 - Incredible amounts of torque where you drive the most - 1,500-4,000 RPM.

3 - Fuel economy, though not a priority was a good surprise.

 

[MonLee]

Agreed, they are both bricks and really not made for 0-60 or even 1/4 mile times. I don't think too many people look at these as rockets, they will get beat off the line by just the majority of SUV's and cars out there. Once built, you are just putting undo stress on the suspension and axles by accelerating fast. When I need to go fast, I jump in my M5 and thrash it. That thing is made for jumping off the line...

Built up heavy duty suspension cant handle the might of a Wrangler launching off the line at breakneck Wrangler type speeds?

 

[John VonJeep]

Built up heavy duty suspension cant handle the might of a Wrangler launching off the line at breakneck Wrangler type speeds?

The concern is the driveline. 37s are extremely heavy.

 

[MandrewSD]

In my opinion, and I have the 2.0 so is probably bias, the 2.0 Is the is the best overall engine. Both the 3.6 and 2.0 are the lighter versions of the Wrangler and that is a plus when off-roading for me. All of the other engine models are over 5k pounds. The 2.0 engine is basically the second fastest model engine in the wrangler after the 392. Unless you put 40, then you don’t need 470 ft-lb form the diesel. With 35s the 2.0 is like stock and will be way faster on road than all of the others except the 392. Off road does everything the others do plus the average fuel economy. If you put the pros and cons objectively of all of the engines, I will be sure this one will come on top. (power/torque curve, fuel economy, reliability, sound, overall vehicle weight, cost of oil and filter changes etc.) At the end, it is a personal preference based on your needs and area you live. That’s why they offer so many engines. We just need a objective metric (like TFL has for off road worthiness) of all the engines.

I agree for the most part but want to point out that the weighting factor you put on those categories really swings things. For a shorter off-road adventure then yes the 2.0L will be more nimble on the trail. However my use case is 37's and pretty heavy loadout due to long multi-night/week trips. You can still get 22-24mpg with the diesel and can I assure you the 2.0L would be in the mid to low teens. I don't care about how "fast" it is or the oil change price difference every 10K (if you can afford a $60K+ toy an extra $50-150 every 6-12 months shouldn't break the bank). As you pointed out "That’s why they offer so many engines."

 

[jmccorm]

Kinda funny how 4T owners keep having to justify their decision & feel attacked. That speaks volumes about which engine is a better choice.

Explained easily enough!
Turbo haters = vocal minority.

Sponsored