Which Engine to order for my Sahara 2.0L i4 turbo v 3.6L V6

[alphawolff]

It’s not a 4g63 on 36 psi, it’s a 2.0 turbo that’s not making much power and isn’t stressed out as much as you’d think.

For those of you saying the 2.0 has more parts… you must be forgetting that the 3.6 has two more rods, 2 more pistons, more injectors, the list goes on. If I were to buy a new Jeep for myself today, I would choose the 4 cylinder. I only say this as a 3.0 owner, and of course that engine is no longer available.

I’d also like to note to the OP that if you drive less than 15 miles to work everyday, you might even want to look at the 4xE.

You must be forgetting the 2.0 has a damn turbocharger bolted onto it. That turbo requires it's own entire cooling system and support systems. Additional sensors, coolant lines, pumps, oil lines, etc. Add this in addition to the added failure points of being direct injection it's not even remotely close to the build complexity.

I do not believe you've ever worked on one of these engines based on your statement. Go replace an injector on both engines and come back to me about the difficulty and cost comparison. One takes thirty minutes, the other takes hours of cursing and bitching at the heavens. I'll need some popcorn watching you try to replace the one time use high pressure fuel tube that must be replaced anytime it's loosened. It's tight fit, I assure you. The engineer who put the HPFP at the back of the head with zero room for access between the firewall deserves a quick kick to the noggin.

When I say the 2.0 sucks to work on I'm not joking. Everything is a tight fit with little to no room for access. FCA designed an entire class purely for this engine due to its shear complexity. The engine HAS been reliable across the fleet, but it doesn't change the fact that the raw amount of failure points is significantly higher than the 3.6L.

Sponsored

 

[Camaroboi13]

You must be forgetting the 2.0 has a damn turbocharger bolted onto it. That turbo requires it's own entire cooling system and support systems. Additional sensors, coolant lines, pumps, oil lines, etc. Add this in addition to the added failure points of being direct injection it's not even remotely close to the build complexity.

I do not believe you've ever worked on one of these engines based on your statement. Go replace an injector on both engines and come back to me about the difficulty and cost comparison. One takes thirty minutes, the other takes hours of cursing and bitching at the heavens. I'll need some popcorn watching you try to replace the one time use high pressure fuel tube that must be replaced anytime it's loosened. It's tight fit, I assure you. The engineer who put the HPFP at the back of the head with zero room for access between the firewall deserves a quick kick to the noggin.

It’s the internet, you’re entitled to believing or not believing whatever the hell you want. Parts are parts. Some fail, some don’t. Been working on cars since 95 and have the ASE certifications to back it up. Have a wonderful night

 

[yokramer]

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/2020-willys-blown-motor.127045/

 

[Remorseless]

This is the mic drop on the difference in reliability between the 3.6l and 2.0l. We can argue all day back and forth about which one, so far, has been more reliable, and which one has a stronger history...but in the end, the 2.0 has more stuff and more stuff means more stuff to fail. Will it fail? Dunno. Doesn't matter...if you're a smart betting man you're betting on the engine with less stuff to fail.

Now you can certainly say "well i'm confident in my gambling abilities so i'm taking the 2.0" and you may very well win. Doesn't change the fact that more stuff equals more stuff to fail.

If that stuff doesn't fail though, then what does it matter? Let's not pretend like the 3.6 is simple in any world though - plastic manifolds, plastic oil cooler housing, added EGR complexity in the JL iteration, VVL, VVT, DOHC for each cylinder bank with cam phasing. My 3.6 in my JK made it 50-60k miles before cam phasers failed.

Literally the differences between the 2.0 and 3.6 are the turbo itself, with its low pressure cooling system, it lops off one set of cams and phasers (which, cams, phasers, and the associated rockers are a known failure point in the 3.6, so the 2.0 has far fewer of those to go wrong), and that's pretty much it... some extra cooling hoses and the manifold-integrated intercooler? Otherwise, they're pretty similar, modern engines.

Now, being completely honest, while I strongly maintain the fear of failure in the 2.0 is extremely overblown, the 3.6 isn't by and large unreliable, but it certainly has more common failure points than the 2.0.

The oil cooler housing is probably the biggest and most common failure point on the 3.6. That housing and those seals are not a great design. The 2.0 eliminates this failure point by using a traditional, tried and true, metal oil filter.

The oiling system in the 2.0 - to date - seems to be more robust, with few or no reports of the 2.0 eating cams due to failed needle bearings. The only common failure with the 2.0, as I've said before, was that Jeep forgot to tighten bolts on the coolant lines. But, the number of these events seems to be far and away fewer than the number of folks with rocker arm failures and wrecked cams.

Properly assembled, the 2.0 has fewer common failures than a properly assembled 3.6, due to the design. The 2.0 hasn't even shown to have valve coking in any meaningful way due to the oil separator it employs actually being decent, which is rare for a direct injected engine.

And from a maintenance perspective, it's even friendlier in that you can do a simple spark plug change without disassembling the whole intake manifold (seriously, whoever put the driver's side bank under the intake manifold in the 3.6 has my ire till the day I die).

I just never understand the "It has more stuff that COULD fail" argument when it doesn't matter because that extra "stuff" has proven to be reliable. More stuff, that doesn't fail, is a non-issue.

 

[mcaltitude]

Neither. Buy something more enjoyable to drive on the road. I really enjoy the turbo in my wife’s BMW X5. A bit more than what I paid for my JLUR, but there is no question which vehicle we drive on the pavement. Go buy a BMW, not a Wrangler, for pavement princess duty.

 

[Wabujitsu]

Why, man, why?!

Kevin, because some folks here always make opinionated statements presented as fact, with no evidence presented.

 

[gek]

It’s the internet, you’re entitled to believing or not believing whatever the hell you want. Parts are parts. Some fail, some don’t. Been working on cars since 95 and have the ASE certifications to back it up. Have a wonderful night

The same ASE certifications that the guy has putting in 6 qts instead of 5, and the same ASE certifications that can't diagnose anything unless the computer gives them a code.

They don't mean shit to me other than that person can read and hold a job. There is a big difference between a technician and a mechanic.

 

[Remorseless]

The same ASE certifications that the guy has putting in 6 qts instead of 5, and the same ASE certifications that can't diagnose anything unless the computer gives them a code.

They don't mean shit to me other than that person can read and hold a job. There is a big difference between a technician and a mechanic.

 

[RookieWrangler718]

Where does it say in the owners manual or any other official documentation that the 2.0T requires Premium fuel? I am having a hard time finding it.

it doesn't but i noticed the other day that i put 94 Octane from SUNOCO and it gave me about 10 more gas miles than using 91 Octane.

 

[RookieWrangler718]

Whats your point here? You went from a Honda who is known for fuel efficient engines, and a car that is aerodynamic, to a brick on wheels and a Chrysler product?

that is funny and true.. a Brink on wheels.

 

[Ratbert]

it doesn't but i noticed the other day that i put 94 Octane from SUNOCO and it gave me about 10 more gas miles than using 91 Octane.

10 more gas miles? What are those?

If you're talking about the range displayed when you fill up, that's based on your previous fuel consumption rates and not the characteristics of the fuel you just put in.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

Neither. Buy something more enjoyable to drive on the road. I really enjoy the turbo in my wife’s BMW X5. A bit more than what I paid for my JLUR, but there is no question which vehicle we drive on the pavement. Go buy a BMW, not a Wrangler, for pavement princess duty.

Well said…that X5 is a really nice drive….and (unless fully loaded) not that much more $$ than a fully specked Sahara.

 

[TheRaven]

If that stuff doesn't fail though, then what does it matter? Let's not pretend like the 3.6 is simple in any world though - plastic manifolds, plastic oil cooler housing, added EGR complexity in the JL iteration, VVL, VVT, DOHC for each cylinder bank with cam phasing. My 3.6 in my JK made it 50-60k miles before cam phasers failed.

I agree. Problem is that we're talking about the future, and no one knows the future so essentially we are placing "bets". You are absolutely right that having more stuff does not guarantee failure. It just raises the probability. Perhaps that raise is very small. Doesn't matter...it's still more.

It's a very simple fact stemming from the laws of physics. Things you don't have can't break.

 

[Vicrider]

I have a 3.6 in a JT and 2.0 in 2 door JL. The 3.6 is considerably smoother and quieter. The 2.0 turbo has a better spread of power. When I first drove ours I was not expecting the power it has. For an every day onroad driver I think I would take the 3.6

 

[Remorseless]

I agree. Problem is that we're talking about the future, and no one knows the future so essentially we are placing "bets". You are absolutely right that having more stuff does not guarantee failure. It just raises the probability. Perhaps that raise is very small. Doesn't matter...it's still more.

It's a very simple fact stemming from the laws of physics. Things you don't have can't break.

And the 3.6 has an entire bank of cams, phasers, rockers, and valves that the 2.0 doesn't have. And a plastic oil cooler that the 2.0 doesn't have. And two more pistons and rods and crank bearings. And two more spark plugs to foul or leak pressure. And an extra valve cover gasket. And an extra head gasket. And extra oil and coolant galleys. And extra timing chain complexity to operate the second set of cams.

So I guess, by that logic, those with the 2.0 are lucky that those things can't break lol

Overall, the picture I'm painting is - the only "complexity" with the 2.0 is the fact it's got a turbo and the associated plumbing, which in reality isn't more complex than the 3.6 if you actually put thought into it. Some folks don't like turbos, and that's fine - it does change the characteristics of the engine - but to pass off a dislike of this engine's characteristics as though it's a fact that it's a time bomb or overly complex is completely and utterly disingenuous and based solely on preconceived notions of what the engine is, versus the reality of what it's shown to be in terms of reliability.

The 2.0's been in the wild for 6 years. Within that timeframe, on the JK, we already knew about the 3.6's propensity for cams getting eaten by rockers and for the oil cooler to take a dump. Were the 2.0 a lemon, we'd know it by now. Instead, we get folks clinging to "MuH cOmPlExItY" because they just don't like the idea they have of the engine's reliability, regardless of what the reality is of this particular engine.

End of the day, 2.0 is a fine engine, and so is the 3.6. The 2.0 isn't a time bomb, and the 3.6 isn't bulletproof by comparison. Anyone shopping should drive both and see which one's characteristics they like best.

Sponsored