What's the point of the 2.0t?

Dynomite1371

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
2,059
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR, Granite, Steel bumper, Safety, Cold Weather, Tow package, Premium Alpine, Black Leather and Mopar "self draining" Mats
Occupation
Police Officer
You’re basing that on what? You didn’t even get the MAX torque RPM correct (for old or new) and those are published numbers, sounds like a lot of mythology on your part, so why would the rest be any more of an accurate reflection of the situation?

Torque curve on the Old Pentastar shows 96% of the torque by 2K RPM, so another 4% / 10lbft for 2,800 more RPM means very little.

72D3C173-9381-44A5-876B-6AC091EB624A.jpeg 9DB971D8-385F-4C92-BAAD-F79E18E68EF7.jpeg

With the new Pentastar the benefits are for earlier power delivery (by about 300 RPM) and better fuel efficiency, so things are improved not diminished in the new PUG refresh in the JL.

http://australiancar.reviews/2016_Pentastar_V6.php

http://articles.sae.org/14322/



Turbos don’t always produce more torque down low, especially for small displacement turbos, it depends heavily on how they are tuned and what their focus is... speaking of which, look at the Ford Focus ST’s torque curve, that’s not early on, but well after 2K, and it’s also early decay, neither of which is great for power delivery or highway performance, but that’s because it’s meant for economy not performance, which may be the focus of the JL’s turbo too.

Slow building torque curve in 2.0L turbo in the Focus, max may be sooner, but it takes longer to get 75% at 2K RPM because it’s a gradual peak, not early on then flat curve.
92C47BDE-8197-42DB-A36F-A13BB9038626.jpeg


The advantage of the Pentastar is we have reference curves for the prior design, and the new one is torquier. There is no reference for this 2.0T which won’t even match Alfa numbers, so making a claim about 2.0T without removing the effects of the BSG is pretty spurious. It depends heavily on how FCA positioned the tune, and if they bult-in reliance on the BSG for down low.

Also throttle response will remain a major issue for the 2.0T as seen in the early reviews mention of lag, and only pre-charging will help reduce it, which isn’t helpful on the trail, nor is it how most people drive.

https://blog.caranddriver.com/turbo-vs-non-turbo-putting-throttle-response-to-the-test/
Does the Pentastar, being paired with the 8 speed trani, make better performance? It sure seems better than my JK when I drive e my wife's Grand Cherokee.





Advertisement

 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Does the Pentastar, being paired with the 8 speed trani, make better performance? It sure seems better than my JK when I drive e my wife's Grand Cherokee.
Yeah, it would on its own, very noticeably improved from our previous 2011 to the 2016 we test drove (before going with the Hemi).

However in the JL, both the manual and the automatic have improved their first gear ratios, so they would accelerate from a stand still better and get bigger tires going better than before. That will likely provide far more improved driveability and quickness than either engine would’ve had they still been mated to the previous options they replaced.
 

rtf500

Member
First Name
Ross
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Location
Orlando,FL
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee altitude
It’s not about trepidation it’s about reality, and not guesstimates based on fair tales and dreams, while at the same time talking BS about known quantities.

Again, the Pentastar’s peak means very little when it takes more than twice as many RPM to just add 10lbft , and then just quoting the Turbos max RPM withou knowing how it acts down low is equally ignorant of power delivery. Plus RPM tells half the story of the 2.0T, the well reported turbo lag tells the other half, and that’s not good, especially when on the trails.

The people who are concerned with reliability are those who take their Wranglers into the middle of nowhere or who hold onto them for longer than a flight of fancy until their flash pops.




That’s what some of us are advocating, especially those of us who are looking at the PUG+BSG, where some of what may make the 2.0T go, might get stitched into the other offering too.



Because this is not a big deal, you’re talking a minor improvement, not a Hemi level change. We’re talking a few dozen lbft torque improvement and a few 10th of a second at best, nothing that truly is that distant from the Pentastar to begin with despite all the hype and hopes & dreams leading up to the launch. Again, this is right next to the Pentastar, not something that changes the Wrangler from ‘slow’ to ‘not slow’.
What are your thoughts on Car and Driver's review? I'll refrain from saying much more till more information is out. Certainly don't want to come off as argumentative, just offering another perspective. Merry Christmas all!
 

thenewrick

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
244
Reaction score
85
Location
Tallahassee
Vehicle(s)
Tesla Model S P85+ / Subaru Baja Turbo 5-Speed
What I find a little odd is they're giving the Wrangler 4 engine options that are all very similar. You'd think they'd have at least 1 pure performance option and not 4 middle of the road options.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
What are your thoughts on Car and Driver's review? I'll refrain from saying much more till more information is out. Certainly don't want to come off as argumentative, just offering another perspective. Merry Christmas all!
I think the C&D review is OK, but far from thorough. No mention of lag, likely because they pre-charged like so many others, focusing on maxing out 0-60 rather than drivability the way one would either on the trail or day to day. It’s very much a car review, like many of them, not a Jeep review, and as I said when they all came out, NONE of them had any depth to them. TFL explained that’s because they were only given about 2hrs with them so little time for deep dives and non-standard testing.

Also remember that they were testing at altitude, and only a few like TFL mentioned that saying they were near 3,000 ft so that would put the Pentastar at a disadvantage, one that has been conceded as a 2.0T benefit long before it ever arrived.


However, the thing that would be interesting would be for them to explore, even close to their prior investigations of turbo vs NA (see previous page or link below) would be to test them with the BSG disabled, test them off idle, not pre-charged brake-standing like you were racing from intersection to intersection. How much of the responsiveness is the BSG and not the 2.0T?

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...w-turbocharging-vs-natural-aspiration-feature
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
What I find a little odd is they're giving the Wrangler 4 engine options that are all very similar. You'd think they'd have at least 1 pure performance option and not 4 middle of the road options.
Exactly!

That’s the point many of us have been making. A naturally aspirated 4 cylinder hyper-miler for the grocery getter, a bigger turbo4 with significantly more power than the PUG, a smaller blown 6, or a bigger NA 6 or 8 would have a much greater impact on changing the Wrangler offerings versus an engine that essentially sits right beside the PUG and has reviewers commenting on how similar they are and everyone discussing the ‘benefit’ of a few HP / lbft difference in either that’ll barely register even with people who know it’s there.

The diesel truly is a segment differentiator that places itself well outside the existing/previous offerings, neither of these initial launch / near-launch offerings provide much more than the JK... as I mentioned, the new transmissions likely do more to change the feel than either of the engines really do... outside of significant altutude change.
 

rtf500

Member
First Name
Ross
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Location
Orlando,FL
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Grand Cherokee altitude
Do we know the exact turbocharger on the 2.0? From what I recall it was a Garrett gt22 series?
 

thenewrick

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
244
Reaction score
85
Location
Tallahassee
Vehicle(s)
Tesla Model S P85+ / Subaru Baja Turbo 5-Speed
I think it's probably a parts-bin special. They grabbed all the small engines they had and made them all available. Aside from the Hellcat engine Mopar doesn't really have anything very interesting in performance. I'm sure they're working diligently on a 4.0 V8 turbo though.
 

CantThinkOfAHandle

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
165
Reaction score
84
Location
Seattle
Vehicle(s)
1996 RAV4, 2015 BMW Diesel Sports Wagon
Two questions I hope make sense:

1) What is the likely capacity of the BSG battery? If you're doing off road driving with a lot of starts and stops, how quickly will the battery drain and leave you with only the turbo to get going again?

2) For city and highway driving, will the Rubicon axle ratio bring the turbo into a more favorable RPM range than with the Sport, less favorable or is the difference insignificant?
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Do we know the exact turbocharger on the 2.0? From what I recall it was a Garrett gt22 series?
This is the model I pulled from the visible numbers in the close up of the 2.0;

B87494DA-638B-4823-8D5E-CD27C5E0B76C.jpeg
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
4,092
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
1) What is the likely capacity of the BSG battery? If you're doing off road driving with a lot of starts and stops, how quickly will the battery drain and leave you with only the turbo to get going again?
Usually they are about 0.5KW, and from the size of it, that seems to be what this is, possibly slightly more or less.

BSG utility off-road is still unknown and un-tested in isolation. It still seems primarily ESS focused, but there weren’t off-road or on-road tests with BSG enabled vs disabled.
 

ThrillerR1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tee
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Messages
84
Reaction score
58
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicle(s)
2006 4Runner V8, 2008 Z06, 2009 R1, 2015 Tenere
Realistically, this all about CAFE. The Wrangler is the only real vehicle Jeep sells, aside from the GC which is going further and further up the price spectrum. The Wrangler is where Jeep makes a considerable chunk of their money, and therein lies the problem. To meet CAFE standard, Jeep either needs to sell a bunch of fuel efficient vehicles to offset the Wrangler, or make the Wrangler more fuel efficient. The strategy, it seems, with the JK was the former. That's where the Compass, Cherokee, Renegade, etc came from. Jeep was hoping strong sales of cheap and efficient cars could offset the Wrangler. It could be working, but Wrangler sales are around 25% of the Jeep sales volume so far in 2017.

(http://fcauthority.com/fiat-chrysle...automobiles-sales-numbers/jeep-sales-numbers/) and
(http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/jeep-wrangler-sales-figures/)

The GC is roughly 28% of the total sales volume.

(http://fcauthority.com/fiat-chrysle...automobiles-sales-numbers/jeep-sales-numbers/)

This leaves Jeep is a precarious position. Either they pump up sales of the cars no one wants, especially us purists, or they have to make the GC and Wrangler meet CAFE. Enter the 2.0T. If the rumored numbers are to be believed, the 21/24 rating will help the Wrangler immensely in CAFE terms. Add the Diesel, deleted the V6, and top if off with a low volume selling hybrid and you've got a CAFE recipe that could work. Heck, CAFE is probably the only reason we're going to see the ecodiesel in a Wrangler.
 

Rubi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
440
Reaction score
207
Location
Connecticut
Vehicle(s)
‘18 Jeep JLR, Porsche
Realistically, this all about CAFE. The Wrangler is the only real vehicle Jeep sells, aside from the GC which is going further and further up the price spectrum. The Wrangler is where Jeep makes a considerable chunk of their money, and therein lies the problem. To meet CAFE standard, Jeep either needs to sell a bunch of fuel efficient vehicles to offset the Wrangler, or make the Wrangler more fuel efficient. The strategy, it seems, with the JK was the former. That's where the Compass, Cherokee, Renegade, etc came from. Jeep was hoping strong sales of cheap and efficient cars could offset the Wrangler. It could be working, but Wrangler sales are around 25% of the Jeep sales volume so far in 2017.

(http://fcauthority.com/fiat-chrysle...automobiles-sales-numbers/jeep-sales-numbers/) and
(http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/jeep-wrangler-sales-figures/)

The GC is roughly 28% of the total sales volume.

(http://fcauthority.com/fiat-chrysle...automobiles-sales-numbers/jeep-sales-numbers/)

This leaves Jeep is a precarious position. Either they pump up sales of the cars no one wants, especially us purists, or they have to make the GC and Wrangler meet CAFE. Enter the 2.0T. If the rumored numbers are to be believed, the 21/24 rating will help the Wrangler immensely in CAFE terms. Add the Diesel, deleted the V6, and top if off with a low volume selling hybrid and you've got a CAFE recipe that could work. Heck, CAFE is probably the only reason we're going to see the ecodiesel in a Wrangler.
From what we’ve seen, from all the magazine reviews, there is basically no mpg difference between the 3.6 - 2.0. The 3.6 could easily get better mpg with direct injection. I hope they never do it because that’s a well known problem with dirty valve seats.

The EcoDiesel will definitely help FCA’s CAFE requirements.
 

Advertisement




Tazer JL - Z Automotive
 



Advertisement
Top