Which engine for Colorado passes?

[oceanblue2019]

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.

Or worse. If you exceed the shaft speed maximum if you are lucky you seize it, if you are unlucky the turbo comes apart and fills your intake/intercooler/engine with metal pieces.

In the past materials and manufacturing techniques did not allow the high speeds and reliability that a modern turbo can handle. Today it's pretty seldom to see catastrophic failures on OEM turbo engines.

Twin turbo's on V engines are now more for packaging size and under-hood temperatures - not efficient to run both sides of the engines exhaust to one big turbo so a smaller turbo on each side of the engine to handle 1/2 the cylinders makes sense.

Or you go fancy and flip the intake and exhaust ports around so the turbos are in the engine valley for super short exhaust runs and compact packaging. Audi's doing this on their newer V6's and they are monsters - both in power but also maintenance nightmares

Sponsored

 

[oceanblue2019]

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.

The auto in the 2.0L and 3.6L are the same. No weight difference.

The 2.0L eTorque has the 48V battery which adds weight, but doesn't have the 2nd small battery so saves a bit on that side. The non-eTorque 2.0L is lighter than the 3.6L.

The 2.0L is a much better setup for a Jeep used at higher altitude but I get the turbo scares some people. But so does fuel injection, smart phones, and the internet.

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

Or worse. If you exceed the shaft speed maximum if you are lucky you seize it, if you are unlucky the turbo comes apart and fills your intake/intercooler/engine with metal pieces.

In the past materials and manufacturing techniques did not allow the high speeds and reliability that a modern turbo can handle. Today it's pretty seldom to see catastrophic failures on OEM turbo engines.

Twin turbo's on V engines are now more for packaging size and under-hood temperatures - not efficient to run both sides of the engines exhaust to one big turbo so a smaller turbo on each side of the engine to handle 1/2 the cylinders makes sense.

Or you go fancy and flip the intake and exhaust ports around so the turbos are in the engine valley for super short exhaust runs and compact packaging. Audi's doing this on their newer V6's and they are monsters - both in power but also maintenance nightmares

Twin tubos are really only for race applications nowadays. the big thing is "twinscroll" tubos. essentially the same thing but built into one housing. so somehow, those have to be built to withstand what you mentioned above. As the primary turbine winds out the second has already kicked in.

The auto in the 2.0L and 3.6L are the same. No weight difference.

The 2.0L eTorque has the 48V battery which adds weight, but doesn't have the 2nd small battery so saves a bit on that side. The non-eTorque 2.0L is lighter than the 3.6L.

The 2.0L is a much better setup for a Jeep used at higher altitude but I get the turbo scares some people. But so does fuel injection, smart phones, and the internet.

I think American turbo fear is something that needs be addressed. lol. Europe has been boosting their engines for a long time now. i think they have it figured out.

Seriously though, this engine is super reliable and has been used for years in the Fiat lineup. I would hope more people would trust it. plus it just has a different feel and engine sound over the v6.

Also to add for the masses, the engine is based off of the Italian 2.0l turbo. its probably identical however US vehicles get their engines produced in the USA (for American peace of mind).

The turbo for US models is made by Garrett, owned by Honeywell. Garrett has been in the turbo game a long time. so reliability should be high.

 

[Dkretden]

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

Really? I live in Colorado and have zero problems with my normally aspirated engine.. What problems do you have?

 

[OnlyOne]

Really? I live in Colorado and have zero problems with my normally aspirated engine.. What problems do you have?

Like you, I live in Colorado. The V6 doesn’t have any problems, it just doesn’t have anywhere near the power at high altitudes. It’s a fantastic motor.

It, like most old and modern naturally aspirated engines lose quite a bit of power up here. Not really noticeable in the flat lands but take a trip up this high and the computer can’t compensate enough. It pulls fuel because low air density. Losing power is the result.

My V6 auto JLUR was great. It was just out-powered by the turbo. Doesn’t make the turbo motor better, just more powerful in that specific environment.

At 10k ft the V6 loses 80-90 Horsepower. That’s a whole lot of lost propulsion.

 

[Obi.Wan.Shawnobi]

Really? I live in Colorado and have zero problems with my normally aspirated engine.. What problems do you have?

Like you, I live in Colorado. The V6 doesn’t have any problems, it just doesn’t have anywhere near the power at high altitudes. It’s a fantastic motor.

It, like most old and modern naturally aspirated engines lose quite a bit of power up here. Not really noticeable in the flat lands but take a trip up this high and the computer can’t compensate enough. It pulls fuel because low air density. Losing power is the result.

My V6 auto JLUR was great. It was just out-powered by the turbo. Doesn’t make the turbo motor better, just more powerful in that specific environment.

Agreed, i love this 2.0. I am also running 37's and have no issues. hit the big passes 13,500 + and had no issues.

 

[Geos7812]

The number over Eisenhower is a +/- 30% loss of power over stated, with normal aspiration. It is about 10% for a turbo. Therefore go back and recalc total power output over the hill and you will see that any turbo is better. Lastly, do the same exercise at 5000 feet (half of Eisenhower) and you will probably find out that Turbo is better in Denver too. HP and Torque is rated at sea level. We don’t live there!

 

[Dkretden]

The number over Eisenhower is a +/- 30% loss of power over stated, with normal aspiration. It is about 10% for a turbo. Therefore go back and recalc total power output over the hill and you will see that any turbo is better. Lastly, do the same exercise at 5000 feet (half of Eisenhower) and you will probably find out that Turbo is better in Denver too. HP and Torque is rated at sea level. We don’t live there!

turbos loose less horsepower at high altitude? Really? Gee, that’s really helpful /sarcasm.

Here is what I KNOW:

I can drive at 70 mph+ up over and through the Eisenhower tunnel without ever thinking about my “horsepower” in my 3.6L. zero thought. zero issues. Zero Impact. Zero concern.
Now, as I said in this thread previously, I drive a JLUR, I don’t tow, I have stock tires, and I don’t exceed the 800 pounds of load capacity. I can’t speak for others. I speak for me and what I know.

if the OP meets the same criteria (above) that I do, his choice of engine is irrelevant.

 

[Geos7812]

turbos loose less horsepower at high altitude? Really? Gee, that’s really helpful /sarcasm.

Here is what I KNOW:

I can drive at 70 mph+ up over and through the Eisenhower tunnel without ever thinking about my “horsepower” in my 3.6L. zero thought. zero issues. Zero Impact. Zero concern.
Now, as I said in this thread previously, I drive a JLUR, I don’t tow, I have stock tires, and I don’t exceed the 800 pounds of load capacity. I can’t speak for others. I speak for me and what I know.

if the OP meets the same criteria (above) that I do, his choice of engine is irrelevant.

You didn’t see that I have a 3.6 and said it works great. No need to get defensive. Just chatting it up m’man!

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

turbos loose less horsepower at high altitude? Really? Gee, that’s really helpful /sarcasm.

Here is what I KNOW:

I can drive at 70 mph+ up over and through the Eisenhower tunnel without ever thinking about my “horsepower” in my 3.6L. zero thought. zero issues. Zero Impact. Zero concern.
Now, as I said in this thread previously, I drive a JLUR, I don’t tow, I have stock tires, and I don’t exceed the 800 pounds of load capacity. I can’t speak for others. I speak for me and what I know.

if the OP meets the same criteria (above) that I do, his choice of engine is irrelevant.

We all have our preferences. If the v6 works for you that’s great. I personally like the extra power of the turbo at altitude. The OP asked for our thoughts....and he now has several.

 

[Headbarcode]

Even at sea level, the 2.0 pulls harder than the 3.6. I test drove nearly 100 different wranglers, to compare the 2 motors. All 4 door automatics, and didn't mix Rubicons with the others, so the gearing would be the same. I have a very long mechanical background, so the choice of motors that I've never dealt with weighed heavier on me than any other options. I went into it fully unbiased but after the first pairing, the 2.0 stood way out. I did so many more, to give the 3.6 a fighting chance to stand out, but it never did. Plus, I was having fun. I'm also half deaf, so I can't hear the difference. That allowed me to keep hopping into different wranglers, not knowing what was under the hood. Seat of the pants feel was the only way to tell, which became obvious as soon as I pulled out of the lot.

Its been mentioned quite a number of times here, that the 2.0's numbers are underrated. Couple that with the fact that there's less parasitic loss in an inline motor. This has been shown on a couple of occasions, by Mishimoto and Eurocompulsion posting dyno graphs.

Now, I'm not at all knocking the 3.6 motor. I just have always preferred low and mid range torque over hp #'s, and have never been a fan of having to high rev a motor to wake it up.

 

[ExpeditionBuilds]

Even at sea level, the 2.0 pulls harder than the 3.6. I test drove nearly 100 different wranglers, to compare the 2 motors. All 4 door automatics, and didn't mix Rubicons with the others, so the gearing would be the same. I have a very long mechanical background, so the choice of motors that I've never dealt with weighed heavier on me than any other options. I went into it fully unbiased but after the first pairing, the 2.0 stood way out. I did so many more, to give the 3.6 a fighting chance to stand out, but it never did. Plus, I was having fun. I'm also half deaf, so I can't hear the difference. That allowed me to keep hopping into different wranglers, not knowing what was under the hood. Seat of the pants feel was the only way to tell, which became obvious as soon as I pulled out of the lot.

Its been mentioned quite a number of times here, that the 2.0's numbers are underrated. Couple that with the fact that there's less parasitic loss in an inline motor. This has been shown on a couple of occasions, by Mishimoto and Eurocompulsion posting dyno graphs.

Now, I'm not at all knocking the 3.6 motor. I just have always preferred low and mid range torque over hp #'s, and have never been a fan of having to high rev a motor to wake it up.

Agree, both engine choices are solid, but, torque is torque and Jeep engineers turned the torque curve right where it benefits you most. The 2.0L changes the whole personality of a 4 door Wrangler...that was the big surprise for me.

The OP asked which would be better at altitude and that would be the turbo.


-Steven

 

[Rodeoflyer]

turbos loose less horsepower at high altitude? Really? Gee, that’s really helpful /sarcasm.

Here is what I KNOW:

I can drive at 70 mph+ up over and through the Eisenhower tunnel without ever thinking about my “horsepower” in my 3.6L. zero thought. zero issues. Zero Impact. Zero concern.
Now, as I said in this thread previously, I drive a JLUR, I don’t tow, I have stock tires, and I don’t exceed the 800 pounds of load capacity. I can’t speak for others. I speak for me and what I know.

if the OP meets the same criteria (above) that I do, his choice of engine is irrelevant.

It's IMPOSSIBLE that I'm losing 80hp at 10k feet but no arguing with these guys so yeah whatever. I really think they're calculating for a carbureted engine.

And i'm running heavy 35x12.5 tires (toyo mt).

 

[JeepinJason33]

I have not owned both, but I did test drive a 2.0L and the new 3.6 with eTorque Rubicons that were exactly the same as far as options on a stretch of almost 8,000' elevation. Locals to Denver will know of the route I took from Denver 470 to 70 and up over Lookout Mountain pass. There is a fairly quick elevation gain in this stretch and the speed limit is 75 MPH. I just did not notice enough of a difference between the two. I reset the odometer/MPG after leaving the stealership and oddly enough the MPG was nearly identical. Not sure if it was because the 2.0l had to work a bit harder or not. It was a short trip so I would not put too much weight into that part. The 2.0l sounds like it is faster, from start to 60, but seat of pants, again I could not tell the difference. Not sure if the eTorque helped on the 3.6 with that as I did not test a non eTorque 3.6. I did feel like the 3.6 had smoother shift points. In fact, they were hardly noticeable with normal driving. The stealership was at 5,800' elevation and around town I could not notice the difference at all between the two other than the turbo noise. Quiet honestly, the turbo noise sounded like it was being overworked and a bit like a ricer. That was the determining factor for me, the 3.6 sounded better and I know an exhaust upgrade would make it even throatier... I just don't know that too many people spend a ton of time at these high elevations. If you are off roading at these elevations you will be at low speeds and I bet the difference is further diminished at that point.

Anyway, I went with the 3.6 and in the month I have owned it, I have driven to the top of Estes, Pikes Peak, and over to Moab with it. Had no problem keeping up with traffic, but do wish it had shift paddles on the steering wheel for downshifting on the decents...

I wish I could have driven a 3.6 without the eTorque to see if there was really any difference with it.

As others have mentioned, I think you will be happy with either engine. Time will also tell on how the 2.0 holds up compared to the 3.6.

 

[oceanblue2019]

It's IMPOSSIBLE that I'm losing 80hp at 10k feet but no arguing with these guys so yeah whatever. I really think they're calculating for a carbureted engine.

And i'm running heavy 35x12.5 tires (toyo mt).

It is IMPOSSIBLE that you are not loosing ~30% of your power at 10k feet in a 3.6L.

Sponsored