Which engine for Colorado passes?

[Rodeoflyer]

I understand.. I drive over the divide on i70 every other month.

Sponsored

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

I understand.. I drive over the divide on i70 every other month.

I think you would be surprised at the difference if you tried it with a 2.0l....though the 3.6 with the 8 speed auto has certainly helped.

 

[stylett9]

If money is no option, then in descending order, 392, turbo diesel, turbo 2.0, V6. If you are waiting until spring put the hybrid in somewhere near the top of the list.

 

[ExpeditionBuilds]

I've driven Loveland Pass/Eisenhower Tunnel(11,000ft.) several times. My previous fully built 3.6 JKU/37's/4.88 gears was really taxed. In fact, it was on these occasions that I would tell myself it was time for the LS3 swap.

This past summer we did the pass twice in my new 2020 Recon with the 2.0L turbo. The first time was stock, the second time lifted on 37's with the stock 4:10's. The 2.0L turbo simply flattens mountains and at no time was the Jeep feeling the altitude.

I know comparing the 3.6L JK(U) with the 3.6L JL(U) is not the same as I know the new 8 speed really helps performance. However, as stated earlier, the forced induction engines feel the altitude less.


-Steven

 

[txj2go]

If money is no option, then in descending order, 392, turbo diesel, turbo 2.0, V6. If you are waiting until spring put the hybrid in somewhere near the top of the list.

normally aspirated has a problem at high altitudes, which explains why I have a problem hiking at high altitudes

 

[DaltonGang]

I've done much of the higher mountains around Keystone, Aspen, and up Pikes Peak in my JLU Sport S with.a 3.6 Auto. It was loaded with people and luggage, and it did it without issues. Sure it shifted down, but it wasnt an issue.
Now, I also did all the same mountain passes in a 2006 Dodge 2500 4x4 Cummins 5.9L Turbo Diesel. The diesel did fine, but the power was definitely cut. Bigger truck, and lesser tranny.
For towing, on a regular basis, at higher altitudes, I would go TurboDiesel. I would be afraid to do extended towing, at altitude with a Turbo Gas engine. Way to much heat generated with that little
2.0 L gasser.

..

 

[Geos7812]

I have a 3.6 JLUR. Does great in the mountains. A turbo would be even more great, especially a diesel. There is no comparison in pull between a turbo and normal aspirated.
I test towed a camper with a 6.4L ram and it screamed up Eisenhower. Bought a Cummins and I would barely touch 2000 rpms and had a ton of peddle left. I get different animals. Lastly towed the same camper with a 2.7L Ford Eco and it “screamed” less than the 6.4L ram. Turbo is the way to go for Colorado if towing or loaded. Hoping reviews are the 3.0 are strong come 2022 when we trade in our 2019.
Geoff

 

[CarbonSteel]

No question - a turbo is vastly superior at altitude. My 2.0 is plenty ample- able to easily run up Eisenhower tunnel at 80mph coming out of Dillon. Try that with the v6....won’t happen.

I did it last month with no issues from Keystone to just west of Denver when I jumped on E470. Not sure what all the hub bub is about the 3.6L and the mountains...

 

[Louisromersh]

Hi All,

So I just got done driving from Denver and to the Vail Valley and back with my 2021 JLUR EcoDiesel and the power was great was mostly in 8th and 7th gear the whole time and kept my speed around 70 mph.

I have yet to fill her up to do a fuel pump MPG calculation but the computer is saying I got 27 MPG no complaints here.

Louis

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

At 10,000 ft a normally aspirated engine will have lost about 31% of power output. You will notice this if you have any sense of the vehicle dynamics you are driving.

A factory turbo charged or positive displacement supercharged engine will keep close to factory power levels at altitude in most cases.

The one without a hard and fast rule is aftermarket forced induction. If properly designed it can and should be like the factory case and maintain power. The reality is many of these are not tested over a wide altitude range and therefore this should not be assumed. For example if a compressor is running close to maxed out at sea-level and you now take it to 10,000 and it has to work much harder you will be in a bad situation. Very few aftermarket vendors test this fully so buyer beware. A couple good ones are Banks, Edlebrock - but likely a few others.

The other option is if you have so much power that being down 31% at those altitudes is still "way more than you need" it probably doesn't matter. The 392 Hemi JL will likely fit into this as 450Hp * 70% = 315Hp so still more than any other JL engine choice, even at those altitudes. But again, you will notice this.

Have fun.

This is a really good point to make. If a turbo is spun above it's operational RPM range it essentially becomes less effective. I think this is why a lot of OEM kits lag on the bottom end, so the functional range carries through the top of the RPM range. I think that is why a lot of guys use twin turbos for maximum RPM range output.

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

I did Imogene, Black Bear and (I think) engineer (?) passes back in Aug.

I have the 2.0t with a tunner, intercooler pipe and an aftermarket filter. I ran all those passes, 13,000ft plus, on 37" tires with factory Rubicon (4.10) gearing. Absolutely no problems.

 

[Rodeoflyer]

Ok so...in the Wrangler, the Hurricane makes an impressive 270 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at only 3,000 rpm. That torque number actually beats the output of the 3.6-liter V-6 by 35 pound-feet! Better still, the Hurricane makes its power lower in the rev range, likely making it a better choice for serious off-roading. Horsepower-wise, the Hurricane only gives up 15 ponies to the V-6.

In the Wrangler, the Hurricane makes an impressive 270 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at only 3,000 rpm. That torque number actually beats the output of the 3.6-liter V-6 by 35 pound-feet! Better still, the Hurricane makes its power lower in the rev range, likely making it a better choice for serious off-roading. Horsepower-wise, the Hurricane only gives up 15 ponies to the V-6.

what's the operating rpm range of the 2.0 turbo?.. I don't even know.

We know its heavier At 4386 pounds, the turbo 2.0-liter Rubicon weighed 414 pounds more than a two-door Sport model with the base V-6 and manual transmission that we previously tested

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

The

Ok so...in the Wrangler, the Hurricane makes an impressive 270 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at only 3,000 rpm. That torque number actually beats the output of the 3.6-liter V-6 by 35 pound-feet! Better still, the Hurricane makes its power lower in the rev range, likely making it a better choice for serious off-roading. Horsepower-wise, the Hurricane only gives up 15 ponies to the V-6.

In the Wrangler, the Hurricane makes an impressive 270 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at only 3,000 rpm. That torque number actually beats the output of the 3.6-liter V-6 by 35 pound-feet! Better still, the Hurricane makes its power lower in the rev range, likely making it a better choice for serious off-roading. Horsepower-wise, the Hurricane only gives up 15 ponies to the V-6.

what's the operating rpm range of the 2.0 turbo?.. I don't even know.

We know its heavier At 4386 pounds, the turbo 2.0-liter Rubicon weighed 414 pounds more than a two-door Sport model with the base V-6 and manual transmission that we previously tested

Two vehicles are not necessarily apples for apples. The gearing ratio between a Rubicon and sport is different too, so the response of the 2.0 will be better in a Rubicon perhaps despite the weight difference of the two trim levels. (I think the weight difference between the 2.0 and 3.6 can't be over 400lbs, that has to be trim level add ons too???)

 

[Rodeoflyer]

I think the 2.0 turbo is without a doubt 500lbs heavier per trim level. The auto trans itself is 200lbs heavier and the extra battery/electronics is def another 200 lbs.

The diesel lol.. no telling.. prob 1000lbs heavier. Half of that over the front axle.

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

I think the 2.0 turbo is without a doubt 500lbs heavier per trim level. The auto trans itself is 200lbs heavier and the extra battery/electronics is def another 200 lbs.

The diesel lol.. no telling.. prob 1000lbs heavier. Half of that over the front axle.

Good call, forgot about the batteries.

Sponsored