Turbo Engine Doesn't Justify Price?

[Karl_in_Chicago]

Not so sure...A different thread someone had commented it’s only for Europe purposes is why they are offering it. I could almost see a turbo in a GC, but in a Wrangler, it just doesn’t sound like the right fit.

But I thought the European spec gas turbo four was a different motor? Or am I confusing that with the diesel?

Sponsored

 

[digitalbliss]

That is not the correct link. If I have time in the next day or so I'll try to look it up but it was on one of the scanned images showing prices with the codes for each item

If you find it I would be very interested in seeing it. I would be surprised though as @JAY is quite good at updating threads with new information and I would think that would be an item that would be on the pricing thread.

 

[Armycop]

The Hurricane does not require premium gas but performance will suffer with regular. The turbo will be popular for the people who drive in town and get more city MPG. Highway MPG still sucks because you're driving a brick. TFL didn't report much of a difference in drivability between the two engines. I think the diesel will make the biggest difference along with a huge price increase.

 

[Spank]

It may not justify it now, but I bet it's going to be the favorite of the three over the next several years. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually phase out the V6 once they've worked out all the bugs, tweaked performance, and squeezed as much as they can out of the 2L. I'm still curious about the diesel, but I want a manual, and I can't imagine a diesel Rubi costing less than $60k. If they aren't going to offer the manual with any other powertrain, that could possibly be the end of the 6-speed as well. Only time will tell.

 

[008]

I despise turbo lag and to get those peak numbers they have to pump the 2 liters. No getting around 4K pounds without trade offs.

I make the concession on turbos in two applications, for now, some performance cars and diesels. The benefits outweigh the compromises in those narrow uses. Have had recent diesel SUVs from Jeep, BMW, and the latest being from Range Rover. I would have bought the JL diesel even with our lemon experience on the GC but I want a 2 door. I loved the motor in my JK and see no reason to go to the 4 banger over the 3.6. Nobody is buying a Jeep based on mpg!

Edit: I will add if I lived at a high altitude maybe I’d feel differently about taking the NA option....maybe

 

[Spank]

Nobody is buying a Jeep based on mpg!

Not in the past, but the JL may just change that. The TFL guys claimed they got 25mpg out of their loaner JL, 400 miles of range on a single tank, with a lot that driving being in Colorado where all vehicles easily lose 15% (if not more) of their rated engine performance due to the altitude. Those kinda numbers out of a brick on wheels, up here, is impressive.

 

[Rubi]

I despise turbo lag and to get those peak numbers they have to pump the 2 liters. No getting around 4K pounds without trade offs.

I make the concession on turbos in two applications, for now, some performance cars and diesels. The benefits outweigh the compromises in those narrow uses. Have had recent diesel SUVs from Jeep, BMW, and the latest being from Range Rover. I would have bought the JL diesel even with our lemon experience on the GC but I want a 2 door. I loved the motor in my JK and see no reason to go to the 4 banger over the 3.6. Nobody is buying a Jeep based on mpg!

Edit: I will add if I lived at a high altitude maybe I’d feel differently about taking the NA option....maybe

My wife traded in her Mercedes Benz GLK350 4matic earlier this year, with a V6, for a new GLC300 4matic with a turbo 2.0l four cylinder. The 2.0l has comparable hp and torque to the GLK’s V6. The 2.0l is a piece of sh.... Even though it has a 9 speed auto tranny it’s just so unrefined, and not very smooth.

There is no substitute for displacement with smooth even power delivery. Which is exactly what makes for an excellent off road vehicle. FCA has definitely targeted the mall crawlers and the fast and furious at an exorbitant cost.

 

[digitalbliss]

My wife traded in her Mercedes Benz GLK350 4matic earlier this year, with a V6, for a new GLC300 4matic with a turbo 2.0l four cylinder. The 2.0l has comparable hp and torque to the GLK’s V6. The 2.0l is a piece of sh.... Even though it has a 9 speed auto tranny it’s just so unrefined, and not very smooth.

There is no REPLACEMENT for displacement with smooth even Bottles and cans and just clap your hands and just clap your hands delivery. Which is exactly what makes for an excellent off road vehicle. FCA has definitely targeted the mall crawlers and the fast and furious at an exorbitant cost.

There, fixed that for you.
Exorbitant cost? Are you talking about cost as in dollars, credibility, or what? So far, what I have heard on this site by reputable people is that the 2.0L (with auto trans) will cost less than the 3.6L with the auto.

 

[Rubi]

Not in the past, but the JL may just change that. The TFL guys claimed they got 25mpg out of their loaner JL, 400 miles of range on a single tank, with a lot that driving being in Colorado where all vehicles easily lose 15% (if not more) of their rated engine performance due to the altitude. Those kinda numbers out of a brick on wheels, up here, is impressive.

With what motor?

 

[Jeepster2018]

Agree...hate to see the price of what the Diesel engine will be.

The Hurricane does not require premium gas but performance will suffer with regular. The turbo will be popular for the people who drive in town and get more city MPG. Highway MPG still sucks because you're driving a brick. TFL didn't report much of a difference in drivability between the two engines. I think the diesel will make the biggest difference along with a huge price increase.

 

[digitalbliss]

Correct, turbo cannot be ordered as of yet. I thought I recall it showing a separate price of $1,400 on top of the $2,000 for the auto.

I think I found what you were looking for. $1400 (as of the time of that post) up charge (from base) for the 2.0L with A/T. That means you save $600 off the bat when compared to the 3.6L with A/T.

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...jl-internal-info-sheet.2172/page-6#post-30185

 

[Spank]

With what motor?

The V6.

 

[Rubi]

There, fixed that for you.
Exorbitant cost? Are you talking about cost as in dollars, credibility, or what? So far, what I have heard on this site by reputable people is that the 2.0L (with auto trans) will cost less than the 3.6L with the auto.

I was comparing the initial exorbitant cost to the 3.6 with a manual. Not sure what the comparison is with similar tranny’s.

Over the entire life of both motors the 2.0 will cost you more with dirty valve seats, smoked BSG components and blown exhaust turbines. Then again I highly doubt the 2.0 will ever go the similar duration as the 3.6.

 

[Rubi]

The V6.

There’s another vote for the V6.

 

[Jeepster2018]

BINGO!

Yes, that is where I saw it. So instead of the $2,000 for Auto, going with the Turbo engine and Auto would be $1,600?

How could the Turbo engine be cheaper?

I think I found what you were looking for. $1400 (as of the time of that post) up charge (from base) for the 2.0L with A/T. That means you save $600 off the bat when compared to the 3.6L with A/T.

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...jl-internal-info-sheet.2172/page-6#post-30185

Sponsored