Turbo or V6?

[TrailTorque]

If your not into modifying engine's, I would say v6 if you have no care in the world but since you are asking, it seems to me you do care about spec's. I would say get the 2.0T. The battery kicks in from 0 to 1500 rpm, after that, the small turbo kicks in to carry the rest of the power. I drove both back to back and also owned two 3.6 jku's. The 2.0T definitely has more balls. With tunes coming out soon with simple bolt on's, it will be interesting to see 300+ whp paired with the 8 speed.

If you ever modded turbo engine's, then you know thw answer.

I am and have always been into modding turbo vehicles. Had a beautiful 08' BMW 335i twin turbo 6 Speed. But I picked up the 3.6L V6. When you own a turbo vehicle they are fun, but at the end of the day if that snail goes... you're up $h!ts creek... While you can upgrade the FMI to a larger one, the waste-gate, downpipes.. What else is there? A tune? Push a few more PSI? I am assuming the snail in that 2.0L is tiny but I haven't researched it.

My advice, if you go with the Turbo, when your warranty runs out, keep 2k in the dash.

Sponsored

 

[Torero]

T

If went ahead and committed to the cost of adding a supercharger, but really love turbos, why didn't you just get a turbo system?

the only bolt on option for turbo sounded like a royal pain to install, and the closest distributor was hundreds of miles away.
The ProCharger was a much easier install.

 

[Andy2434]

I opted for the V6 in an attempt to keep things simple.

 

[rogo]

T

the only bolt on option for turbo sounded like a royal pain to install, and the closest distributor was hundreds of miles away.
The ProCharger was a much easier install.

I REALLY have always wanted a procharged Jeep. I come from Turbo Subaru's and a Focus ST. So I love my Turbos as well mostly for them using what would normally be wasted energy.

Besides a heavier foot at times, how was the MPG difference?

 

[Torero]

My Volkswagen GTI has a 2.0 L Turbo. Now that’s a blast to drive. Then I think about the same engine pulling a 4 dr Rubicon, and it doesn’t ring right.
B

I REALLY have always wanted a procharged Jeep. I come from Turbo Subaru's and a Focus ST. So I love my Turbos as well mostly for them using what would normally be wasted energy.

Besides a heavier foot at times, how was the MPG difference?

As you can guess my mpg has never been stellar. Before the ProCharger my average was 17 mpg. Mostly highway but between 75-80 mph which is a killer for this car. With the ProCharger I am averaging 15 mpg. Well worth it for me.

 

[KDB]

Never considered the turbo, no MT option, no brainer

 

[Firecracker18]

I've never tried a turbo but to me the Jeep was not a vehicle to test it on. Went V6 to keep it (more) simple and I'm 100% thrilled with it. It's fast. very fast. The video above is not a fair comparison (V6 was modded, turbo was factory). I think the V6 would have had better #'s without mods (with the exception of if intake). The Dino tests I take with a grain of salt - real world tires on pavement, dirt, whatever are better tests in my opinion.

Noticed my dealer has all 2L engines now - FCA must be pushing them. But seriously, after all the issues the new Jeep has suffered - steering, welds, and the list goes on and on - no way would I also try out a brand new semi-hybrid turbo transplant. Plus my V6 is getting awesome gas mileage and I'm not light on the throttle.

And for those that are "meh" on the power probably had the previous V6 or a more powerful other vehicle. Try going from a TJ straight 6 with like 160hp to a JL - HUGE difference.

 

[hutchman]

The 3.6 lines are black. The 2.0 lines are green.

Holy Crap.....true. No excuse for that mistake.

 

[SilverJL]

I drove both the 2.0T and V6 and ended up selecting the 2.0T...Since this will be my daily driver I was more interested in low end response and performance between 2.5k rpm to 5.0k rpm ...The V6 felt very sluggish to me and was not nearly as responsive as the 2.0T...You can definitely feel the increased torque with the turbo version...Also the 2.0T provides far better fuel economy...YMMV

 

[RubenZ]

On a vehicle where I will take it to trails, etc. I prefer the Keep it Simple Idea. No need to add extra hot 48volt batteries, turbos, etc to the mix.

 

[rogo66]

My Volkswagen GTI has a 2.0 L Turbo. Now that’s a blast to drive. Then I think about the same engine pulling a 4 dr Rubicon, and it doesn’t ring right.
B.

I had an '09 VW GTI 2.0 with an APR Stage II setup. That car was fast... I considered doing an APR Stage III (423hp and 387tq) setup but ended up selling it. I had 70k miles of fun in that car with no issues. I ordered my 2 door Rubicon with the 2.0 with intentions of modding at some point.

 

[Torero]

I had an '09 VW GTI 2.0 with an APR Stage II setup. That car was fast... I considered doing an APR Stage III (423hp and 387tq) setup but ended up selling it. I had 70k miles of fun in that car with no issues. I ordered my 2 door Rubicon with the 2.0 with intentions of modding at some point.

Exactly what I have. 09 GTI APR II. Manual.
180,000 miles running great.

 

[Indio]

Smokey Yunick: "There's no substitute for cubic inches".

 

[word302]

I drove both the 2.0T and V6 and ended up selecting the 2.0T...Since this will be my daily driver I was more interested in low end response and performance between 2.5k rpm to 5.0k rpm ...The V6 felt very sluggish to me and was not nearly as responsive as the 2.0T...You can definitely feel the increased torque with the turbo version...Also the 2.0T provides far better fuel economy...YMMV

LOL. Far better fuel economy at 40-50 MPH. Above that I'm betting it's a wash. City might be slightly better, but Highway I'm betting is very similar. With the aerodynamics of a lunch box that turbo is going to kick in much sooner than it would on a smaller car.

 

[SilverJL]

LOL. Far better fuel economy at 40-50 MPH. Above that I'm betting it's a wash. City might be slightly better, but Highway I'm betting is very similar. With the aerodynamics of a lunch box that turbo is going to kick in much sooner than it would on a smaller car.

Far better fuel economy is a relative term and yes personally I found the 2.0L fuel eco is markedly better...

At hwy cruising speed the Turbo isn't really spooling...

My hwy mileage (cruising at 75mph / flat here in Socal desert) I'm averaging 25~26 mpgs / city ~23 mpg...

No offense to anyone and it's just my opinion but i found during my runs with the V6 that it was rather gutless and required more pedal play to get any useful acceleration out of it...But to each their own I suppose...

Sponsored