What's the point of the 2.0t?

[aug0211]

Report of 24 mpg on a Rubicon is huge. Besides the extended range. That should stem the cost of premium. Going to see about test driving one. If I’m impressed then may no longer wait on a diesel. Fact is I’ll spend way more time on pavement than off. It is what it is.

I’m in my break-in period, but a mix of highway and city is giving me right at 17.0.

No hard acceleration from a stop, but lots of bursts of hard acceleration once out of the lower gears (per break in procedure).

Sponsored

 

[GARRIGA]

I’m in my break-in period, but a mix of highway and city is giving me right at 17.0.

No hard acceleration from a stop, but lots of bursts of hard acceleration once out of the lower gears (per break in procedure).

That’s not as promising. Perhaps post break in that improves.

 

[COBill]

Report of 24 mpg on a Rubicon is huge. Besides the extended range. That should stem the cost of premium. Going to see about test driving one. If I’m impressed then may no longer wait on a diesel. Fact is I’ll spend way more time on pavement than off. It is what it is.

Not so fast; in the past few years the price of premium has risen precipitously, with the end result that at most gas stations today, premium is now a full 60 cents/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

So for a trip of 300 theoretical "combined" miles, according to the EPA:

3.6L: 20 MPG, so 300/20 X $2.59 (local price for regular unleaded) = $38.85
2.0T: 24 MPG, so 300/24 X $3.19 (local price for premium unleaded) = $39.88

The 2.0T would need to beat 24.6 MPG just to break even, and let's not forget the 2.0T engine will probably cost more than the 3.6L.

 

[FUHL]

Not so fast; in the past few years the price of premium has risen precipitously, with the end result that at most gas stations today, premium is now a full 60 cents/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

So for a trip of 300 theoretical "combined" miles, according to the EPA:

3.6L: 20 MPG, so 300/20 X $2.59 (local price for regular unleaded) = $38.85
2.0T: 24 MPG, so 300/24 X $3.19 (local price for premium unleaded) = $39.88

The 2.0T would need to beat 24.6 MPG just to break even, and let's not forget the 2.0T engine will probably cost more than the 3.6L.

28 cents difference whereI live.

 

[GARRIGA]

Not so fast; in the past few years the price of premium has risen precipitously, with the end result that at most gas stations today, premium is now a full 60 cents/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

So for a trip of 300 theoretical "combined" miles, according to the EPA:

3.6L: 20 MPG, so 300/20 X $2.59 (local price for regular unleaded) = $38.85
2.0T: 24 MPG, so 300/24 X $3.19 (local price for premium unleaded) = $39.88

The 2.0T would need to beat 24.6 MPG just to break even, and let's not forget the 2.0T engine will probably cost more than the 3.6L.

Why I said it should stem the cost of premium.

 

[$uicide$hift]

I’m in my break-in period, but a mix of highway and city is giving me right at 17.0.

No hard acceleration from a stop, but lots of bursts of hard acceleration once out of the lower gears (per break in procedure).

Have you reset your avg MPH calculation between fill ups? If not this would account for the 17MPG. If you have not, reset this at next fill up and then see what your MPG is.

 

[56nomad56]

Not so fast; in the past few years the price of premium has risen precipitously, with the end result that at most gas stations today, premium is now a full 60 cents/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

So for a trip of 300 theoretical "combined" miles, according to the EPA:

3.6L: 20 MPG, so 300/20 X $2.59 (local price for regular unleaded) = $38.85
2.0T: 24 MPG, so 300/24 X $3.19 (local price for premium unleaded) = $39.88

The 2.0T would need to beat 24.6 MPG just to break even, and let's not forget the 2.0T engine will probably cost more than the 3.6L.

Premium is only $0.20/gallon more than regular in So Cal. I think a big factor on the economy of the 2.0T decision will be regional gas price differences between regular and premium.

Our local station is $3.65 for 87 and $3.85 for 91. That's only an increase of 5.5% in cost, for an increase in mileage of 16.67%. If gas prices rise the % difference between 87 and 91 decreases. The more expensive gas is, the more the 2.0T makes sense.

YMMV.

 

[Sorbs]

Premium is only $0.20/gallon more than regular in So Cal. I think a big factor on the economy of the 2.0T decision will be regional gas price differences between regular and premium.

Our local station is $3.65 for 87 and $3.85 for 91. That's only an increase of 5.5% in cost, for an increase in mileage of 16.67%. If gas prices rise the % difference between 87 and 91 decreases. The more expensive gas is, the more the 2.0T makes sense.

YMMV.

I don’t miss Kalifornia gas prices. What a ripoff! Here in Colorado Springs we’re $1.00 below where you are per gallon for regular and about .75 cheaper for premium. Since I drive a Hellcat daily I don’t mind paying extra for super. If the 2.0L performance is that noticeably stout vs. the 3.6L I might have to rethink my 2019 configuration.

Now, if anyone can provide off-road performance of the 2.0L, I think Roman of TFL fame is driving the Rubicon this week in a Rubicon 2.0L, that would be more interesting than MPG.

 

[COBill]

I don’t miss Kalifornia gas prices. What a ripoff! Here in Colorado Springs we’re $1.00 below where you are per gallon for regular and about .75 cheaper for premium. Since I drive a Hellcat daily I don’t mind paying extra for super. If the 2.0L performance is that noticeably stout vs. the 3.6L I might have to rethink my 2019 configuration.

Now, if anyone can provide off-road performance of the 2.0L, I think Roman of TFL fame is driving the Rubicon this week in a Rubicon 2.0L, that would be more interesting than MPG.

Note that Colorado Springs also fits the pattern I mentioned earlier (I am in the Denver/Boulder area):

For Shell it's currently $2.71 for regular unleaded and $3.41 for premium. 7-11 is $2.73 for regular and premium $3.37 (according to GasBuddy.)

Their lowest priced premium is $3.31 at a station where regular is $2.78, so that's still $.53/gallon more.

300/20 x $2.71 = $40.65
300/24 x $3.31 = $41.38

The economics of the 2.0T still don't work so it has to be purely a performance play.

I personally won't even consider a 2.0T because of the lack of the manual transmission.

 

[56nomad56]

I don’t miss Kalifornia gas prices. What a ripoff! Here in Colorado Springs we’re $1.00 below where you are per gallon for regular and about .75 cheaper for premium. Since I drive a Hellcat daily I don’t mind paying extra for super. If the 2.0L performance is that noticeably stout vs. the 3.6L I might have to rethink my 2019 configuration.

Now, if anyone can provide off-road performance of the 2.0L, I think Roman of TFL fame is driving the Rubicon this week in a Rubicon 2.0L, that would be more interesting than MPG.

Yeah the price of gas sucks. And homes (good thing we bought in 1998). You'd think it would put a damper on the purchase and use of large thirsty vehicles, but even with the gas prices the roads are filled with new Navigators, Escalades, Range Rovers, and lifted full size trucks that have never seen a dirt fire road. I've wondered how much gas prices would have to rise to have an actual impact on people's habits.

Speaking of that, we took a road trip from OC to Yellowstone in an old class-C RV, right when gas peaked at $5/gal several years back. I believe our total gas bill for the trip was ~$1,500.

 

[CatskillsAlex]

Not so fast; in the past few years the price of premium has risen precipitously, with the end result that at most gas stations today, premium is now a full 60 cents/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

So for a trip of 300 theoretical "combined" miles, according to the EPA:

3.6L: 20 MPG, so 300/20 X $2.59 (local price for regular unleaded) = $38.85
2.0T: 24 MPG, so 300/24 X $3.19 (local price for premium unleaded) = $39.88

The 2.0T would need to beat 24.6 MPG just to break even, and let's not forget the 2.0T engine will probably cost more than the 3.6L.

Definitely a very valid way to look at it.

As other folks pointed out, the math will work a little differently depending on the spread between premium & regular where you’re at.

But more than that, I think it also hugely depends on some intangible factors that are harder to price. For example the ability to go longer between refills is valuable to me, not at all to some others. Likewise some may prefer the feel of a 2.0, while others may enjoy the 3.6 much more. Bottom line, I’m glad we are offered a choice!

We already know the 3.6 is great at what it does, and I trust the 2.0 will be too.

 

[Sorbs]

Note that Colorado Springs also fits the pattern I mentioned earlier (I am in the Denver/Boulder area):
The economics of the 2.0T still don't work so it has to be purely a performance play.

I personally won't even consider a 2.0T because of the lack of the manual transmission.

I’ve test driven the auto and have configured a manual Pentastar for that same reason. I’d much rather have the 2.0L with a stick. It’s the turbo at altitude that offers an advantage but is that advantage worth giving up the fun of a stick? Hmmm, need more data!

 

[aug0211]

Have you reset your avg MPH calculation between fill ups? If not this would account for the 17MPG. If you have not, reset this at next fill up and then see what your MPG is.

No reset yet. I also haven’t had to fill up yet. Only 250 or so on the odometer.

 

[$uicide$hift]

No reset yet. I also haven’t had to fill up yet. Only 250 or so on the odometer.

OK from the factory they are going to have periods of time idling which is why you are seeing the average MPG at 17 right now. Be sure to reset the AVG MPG at each fill up to get a more accurate representation for each tank of gas. You are getting a good amount more than 17 I promise you.

 

[aug0211]

OK from the factory they are going to have periods of time idling which is why you are seeing the average MPG at 17 right now. Be sure to reset the AVG MPG at each fill up to get a more accurate representation for each tank of gas. You are getting a good amount more than 17 I promise you.

I’m with you that the 17 was not accurate. I also idled a bit myself while messing with my Tazer, radio options, etc.

37s are on now, though, so there’s no hope of getting a realistic number from me lol. It may be accurate but it won’t be meaningful for most.

Sponsored