UK vs US Rubicon

[rubileon]

Smoother OK, I've owned multiple 6-cylinders, both inline and V configuration, and yes they in general run smoother. But stressed... how much of your driving time do you spend full throttle if it were to sound stressed at full throttle... really full throttle? Back in the days I raced, I stressed my engines, but I cannot call the 2.0 stressed People often forget (or do not know) you can put excessive stress on an engine at low rpm as well..

Fuel quality might be a regional thing to worry about, or when you plan world travels (Africa for instance), but here, we never go lower than RON95, and 98 is widely available.

In the 2L, each 500cc cylinder produces around 70hp and in the 3.6 V6 each 600cc cylinder produces less than 50hp. The smaller engine is definitely more stressed.

The octane rating doesn't take in to account whether the tank truck just unloaded a new batch and stirred up the junk that was at the bottom of the station's tank... or how much water is mixed in with the fuel by accident.

When power needs to be made reliably and when the same technology is used, naturally aspirated is the way to go.

Sponsored

 

[KIVO]

If you reason like this, than it is better not to buy anything with a combustion engine, let alone buy gas, and stick with NA engines making no more than 25hp a liter Next to Corona, an other good reason to stay safely home imo.

I in the mean time, will enjoy next to my hybrid and NA stuff, my little 2.0T for many years to come, in a similar way I enjoyed forced induction engines (turbo's and compressors) for many years already, without a single issue. If you can only be pleased with an NA, then please do so, but do not try to scare people for no good reason at all.

 

[Lapis]

In the 2L, each 500cc cylinder produces around 70hp and in the 3.6 V6 each 600cc cylinder produces less than 50hp. The smaller engine is definitely more stressed.

The octane rating doesn't take in to account whether the tank truck just unloaded a new batch and stirred up the junk that was at the bottom of the station's tank... or how much water is mixed in with the fuel by accident.

When power needs to be made reliably and when the same technology is used, naturally aspirated is the way to go.

The issue with your assertion is the "when the same technology is used". Seldom are N/A and FI engines built with the same technology, especially OEM.

The Pentastar vs the GME are different casting styles, different metallurgy, the GME uses an offset cylinder bore, different oiling system, different injection system. "Stress" is apples to oranges

 

[KIVO]

And to elaborate on Lapis's reply, reliability can be affected by an engine's output, but is not limited to just that. No joke, but from all engines I owned, I had to rebuild only one due to a fatal failure. That engine was a NA 330hp 5.7L V8 - you can calculate the hp per liter output yourself

Long story short, I'd rather have a high output (hp/l) engine, well designed and build, than a low output engine which is badly designed and build, my failed Cleveland block, being an example of the latter (cracked engine block).

Still am in love with V8's though

 

[rubileon]

Long story short, I'd rather have a high output (hp/l) engine, well designed and build, than a low output engine which is badly designed and build, my failed Cleveland block, being an example of the latter (cracked engine block).

The Pentastar is not your Cleveland It has proven itself over the years to be an excellent engine. Not many stock engines out there with integrated headers that can be FI'ed to reliably produce 50-75% more power without any changes other than the FI itself. Not even the 6.4 Hemi can do that without upgrading internals. So that notion of badly built should not be a part of a discussion about the Pentastar... and don't forget my original point... FCA, the company that knows more about the 2.0T than you or me, knows the 2L will crap itself in the Gladiator due to stress.

You're overestimating FCA's ability produce something new that is reliable (FCA is probably aware of this too). Given the option of the 2.0T and the 3.6 V6, people who've owned a JK with a Pentastar will go for the Pentastar again. People who seem to go for the 2. 0T are those who are completely new to Jeeps or those who never had the option of the Pentastar. The 2.0T is at least more enjoyable than that 2.8 diesel garbage they shoved in some markets... maybe that's how FCA got away with peddling the 2T

Sponsored