What exactly is the benefit of the $1,500 V6 upgrade on a Sport S?

Mfarr75

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
231
Reaction score
688
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUS
Are there actual examples of carbon deposits on these engines, or is it all just theory thus far? My BIL has a 2015 F150 with the Ecoboost and he's way over 100k and has had no problems at all.
Has your buddy put a camera scope down the intake valve area ot visually looked to see how much is caked up on the valves? If he has, and there is no build up I would very surprised. If he ran a catch can, low or no buildup is plausible. If you google around and also on you tube, you will see plenty on the subject in terms of eidence.





Advertisement

 

SecondTJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
1,001
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
The 2L also gets better fuel mileage in the city and has more torque for off road.
Off-road you’ll actually see less torque in the 2.0 vs the 3.6

Remember the published power numbers reflect maximum boost. The turbo isn’t producing 20 psi off idle
 

Mfarr75

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
231
Reaction score
688
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUS
Off-road you’ll actually see less torque in the 2.0 vs the 3.6

Remember the published power numbers reflect maximum boost. The turbo isn’t producing 20 psi off idle
This is absolutely true. I have a good deal of experience from my 2.3L Turbo Ecoboost Mustang. Great engine and I had no complaints while I owned it. I ran a catch can because of the carbon deposit issue.

The Mustang has a digital boost gauge that you can leave on the display all the time, so I did that for fun and got used to seeing when the boost ran positive and negative. That engine would not produce positive psi off idle. In fact it ran negative or barely above 0 psi boost when casually driving around town, or steady cruising on the highway, etc, and it was not until you mashed the gas pedal did the turbo push out up to 20psi boost. At that point, it gave a great kick, but the nature of the turbo is such that although it is technically always spooling (even at idle) it's not force feeding the engine and producing all that torque until it is needed, and you're mashing the pedal.

So I could see rock crawling just off idle, the turbo would not be producing much boost, if at all.
 
Last edited:

JJSix

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
269
Reaction score
470
Location
Tucson AZ
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR, 2016 Dodge Caravan
Occupation
Military
Vehicle Showcase
1
Some people (me included) just like the 3.6 better and are willing to pay extra for it. I had to pay an extra 1K for it in the 2020MY and while that sucked, I'm very familiar with the engine from owning 3 (2x Gen 1s and 1x Gen 2). I felt much more comfortable wrenching on the Pentastar so to me, it was worth it even though I'm paying for more an engine that, at least on paper, doesn't perform better.
 

Revolution_322

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
524
Reaction score
392
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
Jeep JL Rubi White
Has your buddy put a camera scope down the intake valve area ot visually looked to see how much is caked up on the valves? If he has, and there is no build up I would very surprised. If he ran a catch can, low or no buildup is plausible. If you google around and also on you tube, you will see plenty on the subject in terms of eidence.
Believe it or not the new oils 5w20 for the 2.0 are supposed to reduce the amount of oil vapor coming back through the PCV system. Id have to see it to believe it.
Maybe someone with a gen 1 2018 2.0 with 80k miles and a bore scope can prove or disprove how those valves look after high milage.
 

zrickety

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
426
Reaction score
481
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Rubicon Sarge 3.6L 6MT
Occupation
Technician
Believe it or not the new oils 5w20 for the 2.0 are supposed to reduce the amount of oil vapor coming back through the PCV system. Id have to see it to believe it.
Maybe someone with a gen 1 2018 2.0 with 80k miles and a bore scope can prove or disprove how those valves look after high milage.
I would love to see these pics. We will probably start seeing posts about random misfires.
 

VNT

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
765
Reaction score
861
Location
Maine
Vehicle(s)
SRT Challenger, 2015 Hemi Overland, 02 WJ 4.7, 2000 Durango, PT Cruisers, 2018 Punkn Sahara 2020 OB Rubicon
Exact reason I bought the 3.6, too many junk DI Turbo engines out there with carbon problems, and none of the OEMs seem to discuss their "Fix" in their design to counteract it. The new oils do not solve the carbon issue, only low speed preignition these DI engines are famous for, they remove the calcium as a detergent and substitute magnesium to prevent it.

Also many of these DI engines have fuel wash, friggen Honda has the junk 1.5 turbo adding a qt of fuel to the oil, over time, folks checking the dipstick and finding the oil level 1 qt above the max, Honda says, ahh thats normal LOL

And yes it would be nice if some of the 2.0 owners would yank the plugs and take some pics of the combustion chambers to see if the 2.0 has this problem. A catch can would be a very good idea on these.
 
Last edited:

oldcjguy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
205
Reaction score
205
Location
Central FL
Vehicle(s)
16 Challenger Hellcat, 19 Challenger Scatpack, 20 JLUR Recon
Occupation
Software Engineer
Direct injection... The sky is falling!!! Direct injection is here to stay folks. It's been around for a long time and is getting more and more common. Yes, there are potential problems with carbon buildup, but that's known and there are production solutions to clean that up. Guess what, port injected engines get buildup on the valves too. Ever take apart a a modern hemi? It happens. A good catch can does wonders. I ran one on my hellcat for the same reasons, oil vapor from the PCV system getting into the intake. The Ford eco boost groups run them a lot more. not because of carbon buildup but because moisture and oil were collecting in the intercoolers then one cool day, SLURP... A big helping of water and oil get sucked out of the intercooler and into the engine. They had hydro locking issues from this early on.

No, a turbo is not at full boost at idle or low rpms. But that's not how they work, they spin up as load increases on the engine, so yes they will deliver more low end torque under load than the 3.6. A 3.6 is not making it's peak torque off idle either btw.

The 3.6 is a great motor. The 2.0T appears to be a great motor (while newer, it's been around for years too, just not in a jeep) People hated and didn't trust computer controlled engines when they first came out. The they hated fuel injection. Give me back my carburetor! Then they hated hybrids. Now we hate etorque and EVs. Accept the future. It's what gives us 797HP emissions legal cars that get 24mpg on the highway.

I agree with a previous poster. If you are operating at altitude the turbo makes more sense as the engine will struggle less to breath. The etorque system in the Ram trucks works well, I expect it to work well in the jeeps. It can help off idle and probably crawling with that extra torque right off idle. If you plan on getting a tuner like a superchips or one of the others out there, you'll see bigger gains from the 2.0T and will likely make more HP and Torque than the tuned 3.6.

In the end you really can't go wrong with either motor option. If the $1500 isn't a big deal for you then don't worry about it and jet the 3.6 etorque. If that $1500 would be better spent on other options or elsewhere in general then don't worry about it and enjoy the 2.0T.

Unless you're driving at altitude I don't think you can make a wrong decision.
 

oldcjguy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
205
Reaction score
205
Location
Central FL
Vehicle(s)
16 Challenger Hellcat, 19 Challenger Scatpack, 20 JLUR Recon
Occupation
Software Engineer
They also have spray cleaners for DI engines you can spray into your intake to clean that junk and deposits, like Seafoam. Running that through every 15k miles as preventative maintenance would probably benefit both engines in the long run.
 

Revolution_322

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
524
Reaction score
392
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
Jeep JL Rubi White
Exact reason I bought the 3.6, too many junk DI Turbo engines out there with carbon problems, and none of the OEMs seem to discuss their "Fix" in their design to counteract it. The new oils do not solve the carbon issue, only low speed preignition these DI engines are famous for, they remove the calcium as a detergent and substitute magnesium to prevent it.

Also many of these DI engines have fuel wash, friggen Honda has the junk 1.5 turbo adding a qt of fuel to the oil, over time, folks checking the dipstick and finding the oil level 1 qt above the max, Honda says, ahh thats normal LOL

And yes it would be nice if some of the 2.0 owners would yank the plugs and take some pics of the combustion chambers to see if the 2.0 has this problem. A catch would be a very good idea on these.
I bet pics of that will be scrubbed from the net.
 

Advertisement




Next Venture Motorsports
 



Advertisement
Top