What's the point of the 2.0t?

Threxx

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kyle
Joined
Dec 14, 2017
Messages
53
Reaction score
85
Location
Memphis, TN
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR HT 3.6AT
It has almost become status quo at this point for manufacturers to take an existing V6 or V8 vehicle and start offering a motor with two fewer cylinders offset by the addition of a turbo, which almost always generates substantially more torque at low RPM than the naturally aspirated motor they replaced, and often provides better fuel economy as well.

So I had high hopes for the 2.0t in the Wrangler, expecting it would offer similar benefits over the Pentastar V6.

However the reviews are in, and so far every review I've watched or read indicates the 2.0t provides less torque at low RPM than the Pentastar, or similar at best. I've seen some people write this off as "oh well it's a small displacement turbo engine, what did you expect?"... but that was par for the course 10-20 years ago. Modern turbo engines generally don't have turbo lag, and don't have to wait to spool up. And to add to that, the Wrangler 2.0t has the added benefit of a 48 volt BSG system, which would only help off idle torque that much more. Most other modern turbo powertrains on the market aren't using a BSG system yet.

So what's left? Why does the 2.0t exist? The articles I've read, including the one on the front page of this site (which I've been reading for a long time, but just now decided to register to comment), point to its expected improved fuel economy.

So you have 18/23 from the 3.6 V6 using 87 octane, right? Average the two and you get 20.5 mpg
Then you have 21/24 from the 2.0t I4 using 91+ octane. Averages out to 22.5 mpg.

Here in Memphis, looking at Gas Buddy, the best price today is $2.04 for regular, and $2.43 for premium (at Costco).

Let's say you put 20 gallons in your Wrangler's tank. That's going to cost you $40.80 for the V6, and $48.60 for the I4.
With 50/50 mixed driving, you'll get 410 miles of range in the V6 and 450 miles of range in the I4.

So in the V6 you're getting 10.05 miles per dollar.
In the I4 you're getting 9.26 miles per dollar.

So there goes the fuel economy benefit. The I4 actually has a higher fuel cost, unless people find you're able to run 87 octane in it without hurting the fuel economy much... but you're definitely going to lose some power if you do that.

Even if you drive entirely in the city, where the MPG difference is more in favor of the turbo 4, it still costs more to run the turbo.
V6 = 8.82 miles per dollar in the city
I4 = 8.64 miles per dollar in the city


I'm really struggling here. What's left. Why did they bother to put the turbo 4 in the Wrangler? Refinement? According to the reviews (and common sense based on most other small turbo motors out now), the I4 is less refined with the exception of the start/stop system, which being BSG, works more seamlessly than the ESS in the V6.

Uh... maybe reliability? Well, I don't think anyone has any data on this new turbo 4, but historically small high strung turbocharged motors aren't renowned for running hundreds of thousands of miles without issue. Add to that the complexity of BSG system (more stuff to break) and the pretty decent reputation of the Pentastar, and while we can't be sure, my money is not on the 2.0T outlasting the 3.6 on average.

The one thing I can think of that will probably be better in the 2.0t is modding. I suspect like many factory turbo motors, you'll probably be able to spend a few hundred bucks on a tune and you'll be making quite a bit more power than from the factory. Though at what risk to reliability and warranty remains to be seen.

Anyway... I'm not trying to be a pessimist here. I'm just honestly asking, what reason is there to opt for the 2.0t? Do you think Chrysler had higher hopes for its fuel economy or power and it just didn't pan out?





Advertisement

 
Last edited:

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
1,107
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
It has almost become status quo at this point for manufacturers to take an existing V6 or V8 vehicle and start offering a motor with two fewer cylinders, which almost always generates substantially more torque at low RPM than the naturally aspirated motor they replaced, and often provides better fuel economy as well.

So I had high hopes for the 2.0t in the Wrangler, expecting it would offer similar benefits over the Pentastar V6.

However the reviews are in, and so far every review I've watched or read indicates the 2.0t provides less torque at low RPM than the Pentastar, or similar at best. I've seen some people write this off as "oh well it's a small displacement turbo engine, what did you expect?"... but that was par for the course 10-20 years ago. Modern turbo engines generally don't have turbo lag, and don't have to wait to spool up. And to add to that, the Wrangler 2.0t has the added benefit of a 48 volt BSG system, which would only help off idle torque that much more. Most other modern turbo powertrains on the market aren't using a BSG system yet.

So what's left? Why does the 2.0t exist? The articles I've read, including the one on the front page of this site (which I've been reading for a long time, but just now decided to register to comment), point to its expected improved fuel economy.

So you have 18/23 from the 3.6 V6 using 87 octane, right? Average the two and you get 20.5 mpg
Then you have 21/24 from the 2.0t I4 using 91+ octane. Averages out to 22.5 mpg.

Here in Memphis, looking at Gas Buddy, the best price today is $2.04 for regular, and $2.43 for premium (at Costco).

Let's say you put 20 gallons in your Wrangler's tank. That's going to cost you $40.80 for the V6, and $48.60 for the I4.
With 50/50 mixed driving, you'll get 410 miles of range in the V6 and 450 miles of range in the I4.

So in the V6 you're getting 10.05 miles per dollar.
In the I4 you're getting 9.26 miles per dollar.

So there goes the fuel economy benefit. The I4 actually has a higher fuel cost, unless people find you're able to run 87 octane in it without hurting the fuel economy much... but you're definitely going to lose some power if you do that.

Even if you drive entirely in the city, where the MPG difference is more in favor of the turbo 4, it still costs more to run the turbo.
V6 = 8.82 miles per dollar in the city
I4 = 8.64 miles per dollar in the city


I'm really struggling here. What's left. Why did they bother to put the turbo 4 in the Wrangler? Refinement? According to the reviews (and common sense based on most other small turbo motors out now), the I4 is less refined with the exception of the start/stop system, which being BSG, works more seamlessly than the ESS in the V6.

Uh... maybe reliability? Well, I don't think anyone has any data on this new turbo 4, but historically small high strung turbocharged motors aren't renowned for running hundreds of thousands of miles without issue. Add to that the complexity of BSG system (more stuff to break) and the pretty decent reputation of the Pentastar, and while we can't be sure, my money is not on the 2.0T outlasting the 3.6 on average.

The one thing I can think of that will probably be better in the 2.0t is modding. I suspect like many factory turbo motors, you'll probably be able to spend a few hundred bucks on a tune and you'll be making quite a bit more power than from the factory. Though at what risk to reliability and warranty remains to be seen.

Anyway... I'm not trying to be a pessimist here. I'm just honestly asking, what reason is there to opt for the 2.0t? Do you think Chrysler had higher hopes for its fuel economy or power and it just didn't pan out?


One word, EUROPE
 

FCrackerJLRubi

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
746
Reaction score
993
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Vehicle(s)
2020 Gladiator Rubicon, 2018 JLUR
Vehicle Showcase
1
The max torque for the 3.6L is somewhere in the 4000 RPM range where the 2.0L provides max torque in the low 3000 range from what I read. Personally I dont want a turbo for rock crawling or in general so I just overlooked this motor all together. Just something else to potentially break imo, but I am not a motor head so my opinoin is simply that.

For the sahara and dialy mall driver I think it makes sense, for those that intend to use the Jeep as intended I am not so sure. Based on the videos I saw this was kind of the thought process from Jeep as well. It appeals to different folks.

Edit: from the reviews, the I4 seems to have more off the line pep (when power brake spooled prior to release)....but people dont buy a Wrangler for pep so again this kind of applies to the daily mall and grocery getter. Your fuel calculations are interesting too.
 

BSw

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bert
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
185
Reaction score
189
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR - 2015 Ford Mustang - 2018 Volvo S90
Nice summary
I also wondered why bothering having two engines that identical
Most of the time you see a lower hand higher spec engine with a much bigger price difference, but like this is doesn't make sense.
Although I have a 4T in my mustang and it's fun to drive, I don't see a value of the turbo over the NA, especially since jeeps are meant to last forever.
There is a replacement for displacement, but not in a wrangler :)
 

jeppesen.io

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
305
Reaction score
308
Location
Seattle, WA
Vehicle(s)
Miata, WR250R, JLU Rubicon
One word, EUROPE
Exactly.

All those cost assume North American gas prices.
Also, assume prices wont go up in the next decade.
Also, countries that test MPG different than the U.S.
Also, countries that tax on engine displacement.
Also, countries that tax on co2/mile.

Also, long-term cost savings moving all the vehicles in FCA lineup to use the 2.0 primarily (with and without the turbo).

I fully expect the 3.6 to be gone around the mid-model refresh in 4 to 6 years, maybe sooner.
 
Last edited:

Renegade

Well-Known Member
First Name
Zac
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
269
Reaction score
265
Location
Signal Mountain, TN
Vehicle(s)
‘20 JT
It does boost their fleet MPG average. A lot of people seem down on Jeep for making this engine available. It’s an OPTION. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to buy it. I’m staying optimistic about it, having owned two 2.0T cars. It may turn out ok. If not, people won’t buy it and they may discontinue it. Who knows...
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,090
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
It does boost their fleet MPG average. A lot of people seem down on Jeep for making this engine available. It’s an OPTION. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to buy it.
It’s not about making an engine available, it’s that finally after a decade of making just one engine available, when they finally add an engine it’s right next to the existing offering not greatly expanding the options, just adding essentially a different version of the same thing.
A non-turbo 4, or a larger displacement turbo, larger displacement 6/8, or the diesel all would’ve been better received as something that broadens the offering, this is just a different flavour of a similar power option.
 

Rubi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
440
Reaction score
207
Location
Connecticut
Vehicle(s)
‘18 Jeep JLR, Porsche
To begin with the 2.0 is probably designed much closer to its structural limit compared to the 3.6 or in engineering we call it the safety factor. The lower the safety factor the higher probability it will self destruct. The 3.6 on the other hand makes its hp/torque the old fashion much safer way with displacement, larger cylinders, more unforced air a proportional amount of fuel, or a much higher safety factor.

As we all know the 2.0 is turbocharged; forcing larger quantities of high pressure air with proportional fuel to create the similar hp and torque of the 3.6. A good portion of the fast and furious crowd will chip the 2.0 definitely forcing the engine to a lower safety factor and exceeding its factory warranty.

Yes these fast and furious devotees will say we can hide or remove this chip bringing it back to an OEM config when they visit their local dealer keeping their warranty intact. The basic problem is the engine is still exceeding its designed safety factor. It will probably make it to the end of its mileage limit warranty, but then you’re on your own.

Even if the 2.0 is not chipped, most likely due to its turbocharged lower safety factor status, it will not come close to the 3.6’s overall durability. Again this is all based on the engine’s overall design. If FCA designed the engine properly it may equal the tried and true 3.6 durability and all will be well. Only time will tell.
 

CantThinkOfAHandle

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
83
Location
Seattle
Vehicle(s)
1996 RAV4, 2015 BMW Diesel Sports Wagon
I can't find any hard evidence that modern turbos are less reliable than normally-aspirated engines (anyone have sources to the contrary?), but there are plenty of reports suggesting that the improved mileage claims might not hold up. I need to see real world testing in this vehicle for both engines to make up my mind. If the mileage gain is significant enough, I'll get the turbo for environmental, if not necessarily financial, reasons.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
8,324
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
The max torque for the 3.6L is somewhere in the 4000 RPM range where the 2.0L provides max torque in the low 3000 range from what I read.
That doesn't really tell the whole story. Look at the torque curve and you'll see that the 3.6 puts out over 90% of its torque peak not far off idle. It is interesting how people label this engine as not having much torque because they only look at the peak, and not the curve. The 3.6 has good torque, throughout the entire rpm band. I have a 3.8, which isn't terrible, with 4.10's and a manual. The 3.6 blows it away, even though the 3.8 gets its torque peak much earlier, and is not that far off the peak of the 3.6.

As Paul Harvey says, "Now you know....the REST of the story."

If someone just can't deal with it, wait for the diesel. Nobody should EVER complain about the torque that sucker will put out. Of course, this is America, so I'm sure somebody will.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
8,324
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
I can't find any hard evidence that modern turbos are less reliable than normally-aspirated engines (anyone have sources to the contrary?), but there are plenty of reports suggesting that the improved mileage claims might not hold up. I need to see real world testing in this vehicle for both engines to make up my mind. If the mileage gain is significant enough, I'll get the turbo for environmental, if not necessarily financial, reasons.
I think modern turbos are much better for two reasons. First, they design them with proper oiling/cooling. Second, today's motor oils are exponentially better than ever. That said, I don't take any chances. My Ford Transit's Ecoboost gets a steady diet of Mobil 1 5w30 EP, which can stand extreme temperatures that can be generated by a turbo. I'd run an oil with which I have extreme confidence in that 2.0. I don't think you need to do this anymore, but I'd still do it anyway...I would also avoid pushing it hard in the last few miles before my destination, or idle 30 seconds before shutting off, making sure to let the turbo cool down a little before shutting down. I also wouldn't push it too hard when cold. Of course, I do these things, anyway, with my NA engines.
 

Rubi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
440
Reaction score
207
Location
Connecticut
Vehicle(s)
‘18 Jeep JLR, Porsche
I think modern turbos are much better for two reasons. First, they design them with proper oiling/cooling. Second, today's motor oils are exponentially better than ever. That said, I don't take any chances. My Ford Transit's Ecoboost gets a steady diet of Mobil 1 5w30 EP, which can stand extreme temperatures that can be generated by a turbo. I'd run an oil with which I have extreme confidence in that 2.0. I don't think you need to do this anymore, but I'd still do it anyway...I would also avoid pushing it hard in the last few miles before my destination, or idle 30 seconds before shutting off, making sure to let the turbo cool down a little before shutting down. I also wouldn't push it too hard when cold. Of course, I do these things, anyway, with my NA engines.
That’s the perfect example of the extra considerations that the mainstream turbo owner will not worry about. Will every DIY’er change their oil with Mobil 1, or will they use a no name Walmart sourced brand in the name of saving money? Will they even change it at 5k miles or let it go to 10k and beyond?

I surfed to research the overall durability of today’s modern turbocharged engines. There isn’t much data out there, considering the fairly recent change to many turbocharged engines to meet CAFE requirements; resulting in basically every car manufacturer now offering a turbocharged model.

As has been expressed on this thread and others; the Wrangler, with its brick wall architecture, will have to keep the 2.0 on boost a lot to overcome this poor aerodynamic deficiency. This constant on boost will stress out the engine considerably more than if it could comfortably cruise along without the turbocharger being required.

As I stated in another rant somewhere on this forum; I’ll let you turbo loving people be the sacrificial pigs and try out this new BSG 2.0 turbo. Hopefully, for your sake, you have many miles and years to prove out this technology. Good luck.
 

Rubi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
440
Reaction score
207
Location
Connecticut
Vehicle(s)
‘18 Jeep JLR, Porsche
That doesn't really tell the whole story. Look at the torque curve and you'll see that the 3.6 puts out over 90% of its torque peak not far off idle. It is interesting how people label this engine as not having much torque because they only look at the peak, and not the curve. The 3.6 has good torque, throughout the entire rpm band. I have a 3.8, which isn't terrible, with 4.10's and a manual. The 3.6 blows it away, even though the 3.8 gets its torque peak much earlier, and is not that far off the peak of the 3.6.

As Paul Harvey says, "Now you know....the REST of the story."

If someone just can't deal with it, wait for the diesel. Nobody should EVER complain about the torque that sucker will put out. Of course, this is America, so I'm sure somebody will.
Do you have an official torque curve graph for the latest Pentastar revision or updates? I’ve been unable to find it.
 

Advertisement




Tazer JL - Z Automotive
 



Advertisement
Top