2.0L turbo four for the new Wrangler?

[haven]

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...-0-liter-turbo-4-banger-to-make-nearly-300-hp

Automotive News is reporting that the next-generation Wrangler will use a twin-scroll turbocharged 2.0L four cylinder engine, producing more hp than the current V6. Not mentioned in the article is torque rating, or where the peak torque is in the rpm range. Modern turbo gas engines can be configured to produce lots of torque down low in the rev range. Hopefully that will be true in this case.

I'm guessing the 2.0L engine would be the base engine, with V6 gas and diesel options. For V8, see AEV.

 

[haven]

The Ford Escape SUV offers a 2.0L turbocharged "Ecoboost" engine as an option. EPA ratings are 21 city, 28 highway for the AWD model. Owners of this and other vehicles with Ecoboost engines have reported fuel economy substantially below the EPA estimates.

Extrapolating from the camouflaged Wrangler test vehicle photos, I think the new Wrangler will be heavier and less aerodynamic than the Escape is. So I'd expect EPA ratings more like 20 mpg city, 25 highway for the 2017 Wrangler powered by the turbo four. That's a substantial improvement from the 2016 Wrangler, which is rated at 17 city, 21 highway.

I'm really curious about the Wrangler's fuel economy with the 3.0L V6 diesel. The Ram 1500 Ecodiesel 4x4 is about 1500 lb heavier than the Wrangler Unlimited Diesel engine will be. Being a narrower vehicle, the Wrangler probably is more aerodynamic, too.

 

[bdp1978]

2.0 liter turbo would be cool. I was just behind a Diesel Rubicon.

 

[Hilldweller]

Hopefully the turbo engine won't get as hot as my early 2007 MINI Cooper S did under the bonnet. It got hot enough to boil the water/solvent in the windshield washer and spray the screen on its own.

A couple of hot laps at Little Talladega is about the equivalent of a section of the Rubicon Trail, no?
The diesel interests me much more...

 

[thethePete]

^ Way more airflow through a Jeep's engine bay than a cramped mini engine bay.

The problem with turbocharged engines is the more power you wanna use the more fuel they use. And boost is addictive. If you accellerate lightly and don't carry much load, they get good mileage, as soon as you start running into boost, your fuel mileage drops. You're essentially turning your 2.0L engine into a 3 or 4L engine by virtue of increasing its displacement by force. X amount of air needs X amount of fuel no matter how you slice it. Turbo engines are expected to make up their mileage in light-throttle applications, however the reality of stop-and-go driving keeps that from happening. Same will hold true on the trail. You'll see all your mileage increases completely negated as you crawl along at high boost for extended periods of time. It's already seen with the 5.0 F150 vs the 3.5EB F150. On the highway, the EB can get better mileage, as soon as you hit dirt and start doing the slow-speed, high-torque applications it falls apart.

The 2.0T will be a good choice for the "Jeep lifestyle" people that don't actually go off road.

 

[lumpskie]

Man... I just can't imagine tuning a 2.0L turbo to work off road. My Evo's stock twin scroll turbo doesn't get into boost until 2800 rpm in 1st gear. That would be dangerously fast for any kind of wheeling. Like you guys said, I'd be interested in a turbo diesel... or any engine that makes torque below 1000 rpm.

 

[thethePete]

^ The EB get usable power by about 2000rpm. Modern turbos and direct injection make a huge difference. It still will be a less than ideal motor, but it's not going to be completely useless...

In other news, it's expected to make a bit under 300hp and be the "economy" motor for the Wrangler.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/next-...ource=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[emkay]

View attachment 344271


2.0 liter turbo would be cool. I was just behind a Diesel Rubicon.

Intersting to see a European (rear bumper is definitly european) CRD JK with a US license plate!! thought this engine/car is impossible to register in the US???

 

[Dan Grec]

If you accelerate lightly and don't carry much load, they get good mileage.

Sounds nice...

as soon as you start running into boost, your fuel mileage drops. You're essentially turning your 2.0L engine into a 3 or 4L engine by virtue of increasing its displacement by force.

Like the 3.6L engine we have now.

What you said is that with light driving we have great mileage, and with a heavy foot we have fuel consumption like we have now.

Sounds great to me!

-Dan

 

[Septu]

Sounds nice...


Like the 3.6L engine we have now.

What you said is that with light driving we have great mileage, and with a heavy foot we have fuel consumption like we have now.

Sounds great to me!

-Dan

Probably doesn't help if your jeep weighs 6000 lbs... Just saying... :wavey: :coffeedrink:

 

[AZJim]

The M in the middle should indicate a plate that's issued to car companies for the test vehicles.

Jim

Intersting to see a European (rear bumper is definitly european) CRD JK with a US license plate!! thought this engine/car is impossible to register in the US???

 

[thethePete]

^ Yep. That's a Michigan manufacturer plate. And they test their euro stuff over here sometimes.

 

[emkay]

^ Yep. That's a Michigan manufacturer plate. And they test their euro stuff over here sometimes.

allright! thanks for the clarification

 

[bdp1978]

^ Yep. That's a Michigan manufacturer plate. And they test their euro stuff over here sometimes.

It was left hand drive and I was about 5 miles from FCA headquarters when I took the pic. We'll see......

 

[thethePete]

Oh we may well yet see the CRD, though if they're touting the 2.0T GDI as their "fuel efficient motor" then I can't see a diesel option realistially happening; at least not in the first cycle.

I was just making a general statement about vehicle testing. I used to live in Sault Ste. Marie, ON, we saw tons of the M-plate stuff come through on its way for cold weather testing.