Which engine would you choose?

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
9,922
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
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.
That may be a factor, but a friend that was an engineer with FCA said the engine's structural design of the V6 was intended for heavier loads. The 2.0 is great for SUV's, but pickups have to be made with excess capacity for both loads and coolling. Obviously the turbo produces tremendous heat, but the diesel, on the other hand, also has higher cooling requirements than the 3.6, so I think they could overcome that if it were the main issue. For the 3.6, all they had to do was widen the grille mesh openings. Otherwise, its cooling system was already good to go. But the 3.6 was also built with the main bearings, journals, etc. to handle truck duty and the significant loads that may bring.

I would expect that the 2.0 would actually handle a Gladiator owner's typical use. But they have to aim for maximum use for long-term durability, and according to my friend, those standards are actually very high. Higher than many around here would like to believe.
Advertisement

 

Creeker

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
406
Reaction score
899
Location
Hickory, NC
Vehicle(s)
CJ-7, 2020 JLR
Build Thread
Link
As far as the simpler motor.

The statement is not limited to the number of parts.
Yes, 4 pistons vs 6 pistons, the 3.6 has more parts.

The 3.6 has multiport injection, The 2.0 has Direction injection (DI)
Direct injection has some issues with carbon/junk building up on the intake valves.
The 3.6 has a lower pressure fuel rail the a vehicle with DI.
Often a DI motor is more sensitive to everything being OK or it will though an engine code.

The 3.6 does not have a turbo, the 2.0 has a turbo.
Never have to worry about replacing a turbo on a stock 3.6.
Some 4 cyl turbo cars/SUVs (eco-boost) are having reliability issues.

The 2.0 will have to work harder per cylinder to create the same power that a 3.6 does.
Therefore, more stress per cylinder on the 2.0 cylinders. What this higher level of stress per cylinder means in the long term, who know.

Some folks like Scotty (YouTube mechanic) often talk about the small displacement turbo motors having issues.

For me, regarding gasoline engines, I like naturally asperated better.

Not saying there is anything wrong with the 2.0 motor.
Time and mileage will reveal the reliability of both motors.

Therefore, holistically, IMHO, the 3.6 is a simpler motor than a 2.0.

Just my $0.015 worth.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
9,922
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
As far as the simpler motor.

The statement is not limited to the number of parts.
Yes, 4 pistons vs 6 pistons, the 3.6 has more parts.

The 3.6 has multiport injection, The 2.0 has Direction injection (DI)
Direct injection has some issues with carbon/junk building up on the intake valves.
The 3.6 has a lower pressure fuel rail the a vehicle with DI.
Often a DI motor is more sensitive to everything being OK or it will though an engine code.

The 3.6 does not have a turbo, the 2.0 has a turbo.
Never have to worry about replacing a turbo on a stock 3.6.
Some 4 cyl turbo cars/SUVs (eco-boost) are having reliability issues.

The 2.0 will have to work harder per cylinder to create the same power that a 3.6 does.
Therefore, more stress per cylinder on the 2.0 cylinders. What this higher level of stress per cylinder means in the long term, who know.

Some folks like Scotty (YouTube mechanic) often talk about the small displacement turbo motors having issues.

For me, regarding gasoline engines, I like naturally asperated better.

Not saying there is anything wrong with the 2.0 motor.
Time and mileage will reveal the reliability of both motors.

Therefore, holistically, IMHO, the 3.6 is a simpler motor than a 2.0.

Just my $0.015 worth.
We've seen 2.0's throwing codes for just an aftermarket cold air intake. That goes right to what you are saying about the sensitivity of DI.

That wouldn't bother me, though, because I personally wouldn't put a CAI on mine. I don't think it is necessary and I think FCA's design team pulled about about as much power out of the stock intake as you are going to get.

Btw, I think some even got codes with the Mopar CAI, IIRC.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,765
Reaction score
3,086
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
Some folks like Scotty (YouTube mechanic)
No offense, but in my opinion mentioning this guy reduces your credibility.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
9,922
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
No offense, but in my opinion mentioning this guy reduces your credibility.
Lol, I like Scotty, but he's clearly VERY biased, so I take what he says more as entertainment. But he does offer some good advice sometimes. He pretty much hates anything that isn't Toyota.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,765
Reaction score
3,086
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
In regards to the simple vs complex arguments being made... There are both simple and complex aspects of both the 2.0 & 3.6, so I'm not going to take a side on which one is which.

What I will do is point out how choosing the simple option doesn't always work best. The JL's manual transmission clutch issues are a pretty good example. The manual is the "simpler" option, yet it had a design flaw. Another example I personally have is with a Chevy S10: it was purchased with crank windows because "power windows are too complicated". Guess what the first thing that broke was... the window crank.

It's all a gamble at this point. Both engines are generally fine and without issues, choose which one you like.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
5,265
Reaction score
11,495
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
No offense, but in my opinion mentioning this guy reduces your credibility.
Yeah, this is why I've really gotta stay out of these threads. I was raised in truck and heavy equipment repair. I'll stick to what I've actually seen, way before taking advice from a child named nitwit on youtube. But many here choose to, so have at it.

To refer to a turbo as an example of mechanical complexity? I've got better things to do that don't involve beating my head into a wall.
 

Creeker

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
406
Reaction score
899
Location
Hickory, NC
Vehicle(s)
CJ-7, 2020 JLR
Build Thread
Link
For those who don't like the youtube references regarding small displacement turbo motors, here are some references that could be considered more creditable.

Lawsuit alleges 1.5-liter, 1.6-liter and 2-liter EcoBoost engines leak coolant into the cylinders.
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/...20 — Ford EcoBoost,to leak into the cylinders

Honda CR-Vs and Honda Civics equipped with Earth Dreams engines allegedly mix oil with fuel.
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2020/honda-oil-dilution-settlement-preliminarily-approved.shtml

Anyway, its your money, your Jeep. Buy what you want and have fun with your Jeep.
Besides, how many of us bought a Jeep for MPG, crash worthiness, reliability, etc. (even though a JL does pretty good in those three categories).
A lot of us bought a Jeep because its a Jeep.
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,765
Reaction score
3,086
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
For those who don't like the youtube references regarding small displacement turbo motors, here are some references that could be considered more creditable.

Lawsuit alleges 1.5-liter, 1.6-liter and 2-liter EcoBoost engines leak coolant into the cylinders.
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2020/ford-ecoboost-problems-class-action-lawsuit.shtml#:~:text=Lawsuit alleges 1.5-liter, 1.6,leak coolant into the cylinders.&text=December 3, 2020 — Ford EcoBoost,to leak into the cylinders

Honda CR-Vs and Honda Civics equipped with Earth Dreams engines allegedly mix oil with fuel.
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2020/honda-oil-dilution-settlement-preliminarily-approved.shtml
So some turboed Fords and Hondas have issues. Great. That has absolutely nothing to do with a Jeep/Fiat.

Guess what guys, remember that S-10 I was posting about earlier? It has a naturally aspirated 4.3 V6 (you know, exactly like the 3.6 but with more displacement) . The 4.3 from certain years is known for it's coolant & fuel injection leaks. Using the logic above, I can conclude that the 3.6 will probably most definitely also have coolant & fuel injection leaks. /s

You can't lump together "small displacement turbo motors" just like how I can't do the same with all N/A V6s.
 

emptyminded42

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
304
Reaction score
358
Location
Cleveland, OH
Vehicle(s)
Hellayella JLU Sport S 6MT, Forester XT
Occupation
Engineer
To me, if you want to row your own gears, get the V6 (because you don't have a choice). If I was OK with automatics, I'd go with the I4 turbo because they really are impressive, even in heavier vehicles - the 2.0T in my wife's Forester is fantastic (weighs 3,600 lbs vs. 4,200 lbs for the JLU Sport S). The Forester has 70k miles on it and nothing in the powertrain has given us any sort of trouble. I'm not afraid of turbos.

I don't have anything nice to say about Scotty Kilmer so I simply won't say anything else about him.

Complexity/reliability is correlated to moving part counts but that's not everything. You can't simply say the brand new I4 has a turbo and DI so it's unreliable vs. a nearly completed redesigned port-injected V6.

Buy whichever one you like driving more and leave it at that. The overall fuel costs are essentially a wash if you use the recommended premium for the turbo and regular for V6. Most people will sell their Jeeps within or shortly after the warranty is up, so it really doesn't matter.
 

Strommen95

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
2,258
Location
New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mojito Sport S JLU
Buy whichever one you like driving more and leave it at that. The overall fuel costs are essentially a wash if you use the recommended premium for the turbo and regular for V6. Most people will sell their Jeeps within or shortly after the warranty is up, so it really doesn't matter.
Most Jeep owners keep theirs for many years and then some. While the JL has changed Wrangler dynamics a bit it's still safe to say most Wrangler owners keep their vehicles for a long time.

Like DanW I think both engines are great choices and ideal for the JL Platform as base engines. I'd have no worries owning and daily driving a 2.0. With that said one is seriously biased or deluded if they're suggesting a turbo with Direct Injection isn't an inherent risk over a Port Injection motor that's beyond proven at this point. That doesn't mean the 2.0 is crap or will junk out. Just that it's more likely to have a higher cost of ownership and poses more of a risk of unreliability over the long term. That absolutely should be a consideration when choosing a new vehicle amongst others.
 

Biohazardshrimp

Active Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
34
Location
South Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU
As long as there are several engine choices for the Wrangler there will be this debate. My decision was simple. When I bought my 18 new there was already a long track record for the 3.6 and though it had a shaky start early in 2012 with a casting issue and some issues with the rollers on the rocker arms it has become a very reliable engine. The 2.0t was completely unproven and that worried me somewhat. Turns out it's a solid engine now but I am very happy with my 3.6.
 

DanW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
9,922
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR, 18JLUR, 08JKUR, 15 Renegade, 04 WJ
Vehicle Showcase
2
Just for the record, the 3.6 PUG was not actually a complete redesign, as the marketing folks would want us to believe. It was primarily focused on the valve train. The goal was simply to reduce friction and possibly to improve other minor things. The 14% torque gain (not at peak, but through the powerband) was gravy and was mainly a result of the 2 stage variable valve timing.

So It is still very much a Pentastar and Jeep themselves viewed it as the safest bet. That's why it was the launch engine for the JL. Plus, the 2.0 was not quite ready for full production yet. The 3.6 also gave Jeep a safety net in case the 2.0 showed unforeseen problems. There was plenty of Pentastar production capacity should that scenario have occurred. Fortunately, it did not and the 2.0 has come to be what they intended and hoped. Win win. Jeep win$, and we win.

Btw, and this has no bearing on the 2.0, but just so everyone understands I'm speaking from an industry perspective, as my father spent much of his time in cost reduction at GM. Ford is now dealing with $2 billion a year in higher warranty claim costs than rival GM. Guess where most of that is coming from? Expensive engine repairs. DI/Turbos ARE more complex and more expensive to fix, and can cost more even if they have fewer repairs. I have an Ecoboost in my Transit van that I love and it's been great. The Pentastar just won't die because its warranty claims costs are among the lowest in the industry. Hard to kill an engine that treats your bottom line that way. Instead of phasing it out, they made a modest investment in it and kept it viable. I think the Pentastar will still be around for awhile. Not because of its performance, which is fine, but more because it is such a safe bet, especially for FCA's bottom line. (Maybe I should call them Stellantis now? That'll be hard to get used to.)
 

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
2,743
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
I did buy my 2018 JL, 2 door Sport, 2.0T for fuel economy, ( mid to high 20s ) crash worthiness ( side airbags standard, improved structural "exoskeleton ") and performance. The 2.0 is fast and fun, two words not previously used in the same sentence for a stock Wrangler.
When people compare " reliability " of an off road vehicle to asphalt commuter vehicles, Really ?? Honda, Subaru, whatever, so Apples and Oranges. Check out Recalls and Class Action lawsuits on all brands.
Complex ? Absolutely. That just means up your Learning Curve, like from Horses to Carburetor era..
 

Wabujitsu

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
2,544
Location
Sarasota, FL
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLUR, 2020 Sahara
Occupation
Retired US Army
Vehicle Showcase
1
When I bought my 2.0T, I budgeted in having the carbon buildup cleaned every 65K or so. I know it’s more expensive, and I know I am taking a chance, but it is just so much more fun and capable, for my applications.

With that said, I bought my wife a 2020 Sahara with the 3.6. I love it too, but a few fractions less than my 2018 2.0T.
 
Advertisement

Mac Haik CDJR Georgetown
 
Advertisement
Top