Tough buying decision

[Murphy Slaw]

I thought a sport bar was full of middle aged guys wearing Sketchers…

Sponsored

 

[linux_guy]

I thought a sport bar was full of middle aged guys wearing Sketchers…

Were you wearing a yellow shirt? Sitting at the end?

 

[Zandcwhite]

Welcome to the Forum!
The Lord was watching over your daughter!
IMO opinion, the 3.6 is by far the most reliable, best option. The Diesel was a real challenge, because of the emissions. Plus the Dealers service technicians, really don't like working on them. As for the 4XE, they have been a real problem for some, spending more time in the repair shop then in the owner's garage. They have also had their share of fires. The factory has told some of the owners, not to put them in their garage, because they may burn the house down. The 2.0 sounds like a sewing machine, it has been a decent engine, but it would not be my first choice. The 3.6 has been sold to approx. 14 million users. Some (a very low percentage) have had some issues, but as for current, they are very reliable. We have four (4) 3.6's in the family, with no major issues. I highly recommend this engine! Good Luck! Whatever you purchase, I suggest that you take out the MOPAR extended warranty insurance policy.

The big complaint of the 3.6L>2.0t guys is the sound... like the 3.6L sounds like a hemi v8? It sounds like a slightly larger sewing machine in my opinon and sound doesn't even make the list when comparing the two for me. Both our 2.0t and our 2 3.6L have been rock solid reliable. The 2.0t retured significantly better fuel economy in similar builds. It pulls better at sea level, but not significantly so. At altitude is night and day. At 10k feet it's got a 25% power advantage thanks to the turbo and having driven both It feels like that's an under estimate. The 3.6L is a complex, vvt, vvl engine and therefore no more reliable than the 2.0t. The potential added expense of a turbo replacement, likely at 150k+ miles is easily negated by the 15-20% better fuel economy. 150k miles of that fuel savings at current prices would buy 3 new turbos easily. If I were ordering new (and for some reason the 392 wasn't an option), I'd go 2.0t for sure. For the OP that's shopping used, I'd still prefer the 2.0t but wouldn't shy away from the 3.6L if the deal was right.

 

[Heimkehr]

Someone who knows more than I do about the differences, pros/cons between the 3.6L and the 3.6L e-Torque, please chime in! @Heimkehr @alphawolff

Thanks for the tag. I actually have the 2.0T (non-e-Torque) in my Jeep.

 

[croppz]

The big complaint of the 3.6L>2.0t guys is the sound... like the 3.6L sounds like a hemi v8? It sounds like a slightly larger sewing machine in my opinon and sound doesn't even make the list when comparing the two for me. Both our 2.0t and our 2 3.6L have been rock solid reliable. The 2.0t retured significantly better fuel economy in similar builds. It pulls better at sea level, but not significantly so. At altitude is night and day. At 10k feet it's got a 25% power advantage thanks to the turbo and having driven both It feels like that's an under estimate. The 3.6L is a complex, vvt, vvl engine and therefore no more reliable than the 2.0t. The potential added expense of a turbo replacement, likely at 150k+ miles is easily negated by the 15-20% better fuel economy. 150k miles of that fuel savings at current prices would buy 3 new turbos easily. If I were ordering new (and for some reason the 392 wasn't an option), I'd go 2.0t for sure. For the OP that's shopping used, I'd still prefer the 2.0t but wouldn't shy away from the 3.6L if the deal was right.

Don’t forget that 3.6s eat cams because fuck it why not.

They obviously all don’t do this. But I find it funny when people (not you) complain about potentially needing to replace a turbo as if it’s any more or less costly/difficult (arguably easier) than swapping cams in a 3.6.

Sponsored