Which engine would you choose?

crystalbackJL

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
63
Reaction score
126
Location
South Florida
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Sport JL
When I originally purchased my first Jeep JL I wanted the 2.0 Turbo. I test drove both of them and to be honest, they both felt about the same.
I ended up purchasing my 2018 Sport JL V6 because the 2.0 Sport at the dealer did not have the LSD option.
I loved the engine the 8,000 miles that I drove it, but the detonation was driving me nuts. It had a good exhaust note for a factory V6 and plenty of power. I cannot understand why FCA under any circumstances would say that detonation at minimal levels was acceptable.

Fast Forward...…. For many reasons, I decided to trade in my Jeep JL Sport for a 2019 JL Rubicon. The Rubicon was equipped with the 2.0T.

With just under 1,000 miles, so far so good and I like it. Even with 150,000 miles on one of my Turbo cars, never had a turbo failure or any engine related issue.

Note: I have been driving a Supercharged Mustang GT and VW Golf R and GTI Turbo cars for the past twenty years. All were stick cars as well.

Time will prove itself, I believe both powerplants are good choices.

I wanted to purchase a Rubicon Gladiator when I traded in my Sport for the Rubi, but the prices are too high and poor engine choices.
Let's hope for a Strong V8 for the FCA JL and JT future!
Advertisement

 

ViperJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
737
Location
New York
Vehicle(s)
Punk'N Wrangler JL Rubicon
Stick with the 3.6 Litre for now. Simpler, less expensive and more reliable all around compared to the 2.0 Litre Turbo. Premium Fuel, Turbo, automatic and 3 cooling systems only complicate things, ultimately causing more expense, aggravation and downtime. Also, have heard mixed reviews on 2.0 Litre motor, as well as only being able to pair it with automatic and lower gear ratios. Manuals in a Jeep are the way to go, if you know how to drive. Unfortunately, nowadays, many people can't drive period, even if they have an automatic. Stick with the 3.6 and the 6-Speed Manual. Its a "Real Jeep" that you want, assuming you know how to drive it. Good Luck with your decision!
Face palm. As soon as I see “real Jeep” used in a post along with crystal ball predictions of future issues.
 

Garweft

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matt
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
52
Reaction score
128
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
2019 Wrangler JL
I got the 6 because it’s cheaper off the lot, easier to maintain 5-20 years down the road, and will be more sought after in the used market.

I mean who goes out looking to buy a Jeep with a 4 banger?
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,596
Reaction score
9,682
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
I got the 6 because it’s cheaper off the lot, easier to maintain 5-20 years down the road, and will be more sought after in the used market.

I mean who goes out looking to buy a Jeep with a 4 banger?
Careful, man, my 93 YJ had a 4 banger! :rock: That thing was a little tractor engine!
 

ViperJon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
737
Location
New York
Vehicle(s)
Punk'N Wrangler JL Rubicon
I got the 6 because it’s cheaper off the lot, easier to maintain 5-20 years down the road, and will be more sought after in the used market.?
Worrying about hypothetical mechanical issues 20 years from now. Check.
 

Andrew2311

Active Member
First Name
Andrew
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
36
Reaction score
33
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Rubicon
Vehicle Showcase
1
I went with the 3.6, because there was no chance in hell I was going to tell my buddies that my new ride had a 2 liter.... I would never live that down...
 

Obi.Wan.Shawnobi

Well-Known Member
First Name
Shawn
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
211
Reaction score
152
Location
Ventura, CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLR
Occupation
Elevator Techinician.
Careful, man, my 93 YJ had a 4 banger! :rock: That thing was a little tractor engine!
This little 4 banger is a blast. i really enjoy it. there is plenty of aftermarket support too.


I went with the 3.6, because there was no chance in hell I was going to tell my buddies that my new ride had a 2 liter.... I would never live that down...
lol, a 4 banger 2.0 with 300 ft lbs of torgue. and with my modes probably closer to 340- 350. my buddies were impressed when we went over 3 mountain passes in Colorado. size doesnt matter man. lol.
 

johnnyj

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
195
Reaction score
374
Location
Washington
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLU Rubicon, 2003 TJ Rubicon. Gone but not forgotten: 1998 Sport, 2002 Sport, 2006 LJ Rubicon
2.0. Happy. Uses less oil at an oil change than my wife's Renegade. Gets 26mpg all day on the highway. Gets strange looks when I tell people it's a 4 banger. 10/10 would turbo whistle again.
 

Creeker

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
399
Reaction score
871
Location
Hickory, NC
Vehicle(s)
CJ-7, 2020 JLR
Build Thread
Link
Went with the 3.6 for the following reasons:

1. Manual gear box
2. Proven motor
3. Simpler motor

Even if I was to purchase an auto, reasons 2 & 3 are enough to justify the 3.6.
For me, the pre-ignition / pre-detonation issue is not a problem since 93 octane is put into the JLR (Figure since the JLR takes care of me on the trail, the least I can do is feed it the good stuff).

IMG_3213.jpg


IMG_0813.jpg
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
4,907
Reaction score
9,991
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
Went with the 3.6 for the following reasons:

1. Manual gear box
2. Proven motor
3. Simpler motor

Even if I was to purchase an auto, reasons 2 & 3 are enough to justify the 3.6.
For me, the pre-ignition / pre-detonation issue is not a problem since 93 octane is put into the JLR (Figure since the JLR takes care of me on the trail, the least I can do is feed it the good stuff).

IMG_3213.jpg


IMG_0813.jpg
We're now on the 4th model year of the wranglers use of the 2.0, and there hasn't been a fraction of the motor related issues compared to the 3.6. I'd say that ever expanding reliability difference is disproving #2.

As for #3, a V motor requires a fair amount more moving parts than an inline motor. More moving parts equals more possible points of failure. Less moving parts, less parasitic loss of power and torque, and a stronger block are a couple of good reasons why you'll never find anything other than inline motors in trucks and heavy equipment.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,596
Reaction score
9,682
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
We're now on the 4th model year of the wranglers use of the 2.0, and there hasn't been a fraction of the motor related issues compared to the 3.6. I'd say that ever expanding reliability difference is disproving #2.

As for #3, a V motor requires a fair amount more moving parts than an inline motor. More moving parts equals more possible points of failure. Less moving parts, less parasitic loss of power and torque, and a stronger block are a couple of good reasons why you'll never find anything other than inline motors in trucks and heavy equipment.
Not true at all. The 2.O has indeed been excellent and is proving itself very reliable, so far, but it is not true that it has "a fraction of the motor related issues" than the 3.6. It is built in a tiny fraction of the numbers than that of the Pentastar. (Pentastar is used in FAR more vehicles than just the Wrangler.) Using an internet forum to collect data is an inaccurate practice, to put it gently. The 3.6 is one of the best engines in the industry for warranty claims and longevity. That record is established and documented, and envied throughout the industry. That's why it has made Wards 10 best engines in the world list at least 3 times, including most recently the mild hybrid (BSG) version.

Also, the Pentastar has one of the strongest bottom end designs of any production passenger vehicle V6 and even many larger V8's. It is overbuilt and has a 4 bolt main as big or maybe slightly bigger than the legendary Chevy 350. So to say it has a weaker block than the 2.0 is just flat out false. It was designed with forced induction and DI in mind from the start. It was also designed from the start with commercial applications in mind, as it was meant for a wide variety of vehicles, including pickup trucks and their commercial Promaster vans, among others. The 2.0 was not designed with the same broad use in mind, especially pickup trucks and applications with higher tow ratings. Comparing it to commercial inline engines is simply apples to oranges. It has NOTHING in common with those other than basic layout. Case in point: The 2.0 was NOT chosen for the Gladiator. Why? It is not structurally designed to handle the towing loads that the 3.6 was designed to handle. That is the single and sole reason for it not being offered in that application. You won't see it in a Promaster or Ram, either. That is not because of power output, but again, strength and tolerance of load forces. The Pentastar is a VERY structurally strong engine designed for towing loads. There are many examples of the 3.6 that have gone past 500,000 miles with the crank and main bearings showing little to no wear. And many of those were from commercial applications which can be brutal with high loads and many hours of idling, which is not good for most engines. (Many Pentastars are in police service, too.)

You will not find any criticism of the 2.0 from me, as I believe it is a very well designed engine that was put through some very brutal testing to qualify it for Jeep use, and it is well matched to the Wrangler. FCA did a killer job of engineering it and it is paying off. It is also powerful and efficient. But making flat out false statements about one of the most reliable and durable engines in the industry that has been proven over a decade and 12 million examples produced, is just wrong. The fact is, Jeep gave Wrangler customers two outstanding choices that make it so you can't go wrong either way. I'm certain that I'd be just as happy with the 2.0 (except for the lack of a manual transmission.)
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,596
Reaction score
9,682
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
18 JLUR, 08 JKUR, 15 Ford Transit 350, 04 WJ 4.7, 17 Renegade, 99 Merc E430 S
Vehicle Showcase
2
Worrying about hypothetical mechanical issues 20 years from now. Check.
Actually, some of us keep our vehicles a long time and that IS an important consideration. It was for me. My JK is sitting at 13 years old and 147k miles on it, with no rust and no major issues. I'll own it for many, many years to come. The JL in the garage next to it will be there a long, long, time, too, God willing.

That's not a knock on the 2.0. It just hasn't built the track record yet. I expect it to do well and it is off to a good start. I want to see how the timing chains hold up and if they develop significant valve deposits (thanks to DI) when they start crossing the 100k mark. Not to mention the turbos. But I do think turbos are doing well with water jackets and the excellent performance of motor oils these days. (Not sure how the 2.0 turbo is cooled. My Ecoboost has water jackets).

At the time I bought mine, the 2.0 wasn't even available yet and its only track record was in Fiats and there WERE issues. It was reworked for the Jeep application and they addressed prior areas of weakness. So far, it appears they nailed it. My hat's off to Jeep's powertrain engineering team.

And btw, the pre-ignition issue with the 3.6 is not really an issue. EVERY engine on the market from EVERY manufacturer has that crop up. Read some other forums. If you have 12,000,000 engines out there and 1 percent experience it, you'll see it all over forums. And remember what happened to the 2.0 when the wrong oil (Non-SN+ rated) was put in at the factory? The level of pre-ignition (Low Speed Pre-Ignition, or LSPI) was so bad that it would lead to engine damage if not corrected. Fortunately, the corrective measure was as simple as putting in SN+ rated oil. That's an issue common to DI/Turbo engines, not just the 2.0.
 
Last edited:

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
2,938
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
The 2.0 was NOT chosen for the Gladiator. Why? It is not structurally designed to handle the towing loads that the 3.6 was designed to handle. That is the single and sole reason for it not being offered in that application. You won't see it in a Promaster or Ram, either.
Got a source for this? Specifically the structural part.

I always assumed there was no 2.0 Gladiator due to the cooling system not being able to keep up. From what I've read, the 2.0 gets the same radiator fan as the max-tow Gladiator, which leads me to believe the 2.0's cooling demands are higher than the other motors (well, probably not the 392). I'm guessing that if they put the 2.0 in a vehicle designed for towing, it would probably have to be de-tuned @ max power to not overheat... not because of an issue with the 2.0, but because the JT/JL frontal area is severely limited by the classic Wrangler shape.
 
Advertisement

Bestop
 
Advertisement
Top