2.0L turbo four for the new Wrangler?

Hilldweller

Hilldweller

SE Expedition Society
thethePete said:
^ Way more airflow through a Jeep's engine bay than a cramped mini engine bay.
...
Click to expand...
Probably --- but you're still going .5 mph on the trail, the grill is blocked by a winch, a lightbar, a cowbell, etc.
I can just hear it now. Aftermarket intake, pipes, the BOV singing soprano, and the hood getting so hot to the touch that you can fry hashbrowns on it.

Diesel for the masses.
 
D

deuxdiesel

Observer
I have seen a few CRD's around here. I would love to see one offered, but VW's follies may damage diesel's reputation for a long time.
 
O

Omar Brannstrom

Adventurer
Howdy from Sweden

I choosed the Pentastar over the CRD here on my Jeep wrangler Rubicon unlimited 2013 because.

And I had a 2 door 2012 Pentastar before.

I tested the CRD Jeep wrangler Rubicon unlimited 2013 only on a parking lot. I wished I have tried it a little more to get a better opinion, but the cost is still there with CRD.

To noisy for my taste, sounds like a tractor, I use my jeep as a photo blind and dont want to scary away the birds and mamals

It felt that it had no power, slow in some way, felt boring. Pentastar is a speed demon:)

The CRD cost 40 000 swedish kr more, thats about 4656 dollars more than the Pentastar.

The road tax annually for the pentastar wrangler is about 465 dollars and for the CRD wrangler it is about 930 dollars, not really the corect numbers but around twice as high for the CRD.

My impression is that the service cost is higher for the CRD, it has a Turbo and that could cost a lot of money to fix. The CRD has a cambelt of rubber? and the pentastar have a belt of chain, I think chain has better longevity?

As the CRD is heavier the payload is less than the pentastar wrangler, that is my understanding. You can tow 200kg more with CRD.

Forgive me but I feel sometimes that You americans think its greener on the other side and as you dont have a diesel You really want one :sombrero:. I read some where that You have booth CRD and Pentastar for the Grand Cherokee, I dont remember the corect numbers but maybe only 20% of the Grand Cherokee was sold with CRD in US.

Anyway Iam talking about the current european CRD for Wrangler, and the future diesel will offcourse be much better. A lighter engine might give more payload?

We are all different and have different needs and for me the Pentastar felt as a better option. I dont tow, I dont drive in very difficult terrain, I dont do expeditions.

Maybe a future diesel could intrest me
 
Last edited:
T

TxJprs

Observer
If Jeep needs to put a turbo 4 banger in the next Wrangler so they can raise and put some Bologna numbers on the EPA sticker, go for it. BUT, don't screw me on price when I choose to stick with a proper engine like the 3.6 Pentastar. Until we get a diesel option in the US, it's hard to guess how good or bad that will be. I know many of us would consider it. While at the same time if they stuck a small v8 in as an option and don't bend us over on price it would be hard for me not do just go that route. Mind you that small 8 would need to be a nice jump in numbers over the 6.
 
C

comptiger5000

Adventurer
As long as they don't go chasing max power and keep the turbo small enough to spool quickly and at fairly low rpm, it should work well. And if it's like the ecoboost F-150s, it'll burn less fuel off-road where you're spending a good bit of time idling around in pretty low gears and not using a ton of power. The smaller engine will burn less at idle, etc. even if it burns just as much or slightly more when you're standing on the pedal.

I've also ridden in a YJ swapped with a 2.0 turbo from a 90s Saab and the combo works surprisingly well. As long as it's geared right, the weaker low end grunt isn't a problem, and when you get the revs up a little and lean on the pedal for some boost, it scoots along quite well.

Also, keep in mind, a lot of those engines will end up with an auto trans behind them. Once you put a torque converter behind the motor, it no longer really matters much what it makes for torque under 2000 rpm or so, as you'll always be able to get it up to that range, even at a dead stop.
 
J

Jeffrey_A

Observer
Pilat said:
That was before modern tech arrived (and diesel engines)

Although, I do like the burble of big displacement engines.
Click to expand...

No. Still holds true. Saying a 2.0 turbo direct injection is same as non turbo, non direct x.x is not comparing the same thing.

Maybe they figured it out? I suspect it is more motivated via CAFE standards than pure function. Pure function would put the normally aspirated 5.7 in the Wranglers. The 1500 quad 4x4s get 23 mpg on highway. My guess is they have a mandate to do better than that? The eco boost 3.5 gets less mileage than the N/A 5.7, hence a 2.0 turbo.
 
thethePete

thethePete

Explorer
^ Not really... Comparible or better power, with smaller displacement, and better fuel economy says forced induction wins. If there was no replacement for displacement the big power guys of the world wouldn't be boosting V8s....

That said, our friends from Europe have a good point. Their economy diesels are not exactly what people over here picture, and truth be told; I would pick a gasser over a diesel strictly on cost of ownership. Especially with the added complexity of SCR systems and never-ending EGR woes, they're just not really that worth it.
 
J

Jeffrey_A

Observer
thethePete said:
^ Not really... Comparible or better power, with smaller displacement, and better fuel economy says forced induction wins. If there was no replacement for displacement the big power guys of the world wouldn't be boosting V8s....

That said, our friends from Europe have a good point. Their economy diesels are not exactly what people over here picture, and truth be told; I would pick a gasser over a diesel strictly on cost of ownership. Especially with the added complexity of SCR systems and never-ending EGR woes, they're just not really that worth it.
Click to expand...

No really, boost gets more power out of displacement. They boost V8s for more power. End of the day a boosted 5.0 is better than a boosted 2.5. Compare same motors, boost, etc with only variable being displacement. Displacement always wins.
 
thethePete

thethePete

Explorer
You're twisting the argument to make your side win.

If we are comparing specific output, power numbers, and fuel economy, you can get better mileage, the same power and much higher specific output from a boosted small displacement engine than a large non-boosted engine. The argument to justify forced induction isn't "2.0 NA vs 2.0T" it's "2.0T vs 5.0NA" Of course more displacement makes more power with more boost. It's an air pump. The more air you can push through it the more power it makes. It's not rocket surgery. The fact is, you can get the same power from less dispacement with forced induction, while also achieving superior fuel economy numbers under mixed driving conditions. If a 2.0T engine is making 300hp and a 5.0NA engine is making 300hp, pumping losses and efficiency losses aside, they are both using the same volume of air and the same amount of fuel (more or less) when producing that amount of power. The "win" comes when you aren't in need of that full 300hp and are driving along lightly and you watch your fuel economy soar. It's the same principle behind the cylinder deactivation that GM uses on their V8s and how they're able to achieve similar numbers to the EcoBoost engines. You're essentially varying the displacement based on demand.
 
J

Jeffrey_A

Observer
@ ThePete,

Not twisting. Simple math. Statement holds true.

Comparing apples to oranges is always a tough business. I understand what you are saying really I do. I have had many performance forced induction motors both street and off road. Off road you change your style to fit the motor's throttle response. Very high reving game in a turbo. Turbo would be my last choice for a Jeep. Blown would be better than turbo off road. That is just me.

In this application, Jeep, on trails, be honest now, would you rather have a 5.0 making 300 hp or a 2.0t making 300hp? Assuming same / similar tq. curve? I would take the 5.0 all day. Why? Heat mostly. Also throttle response, reliability, maintenance, whole host of reasons.
 
Hilldweller

Hilldweller

SE Expedition Society
Jeffrey_A said:
@ ThePete,

Not twisting. Simple math. Statement holds true.

Comparing apples to oranges is always a tough business. I understand what you are saying really I do. I have had many performance forced induction motors both street and off road. Off road you change your style to fit the motor's throttle response. Very high reving game in a turbo. Turbo would be my last choice for a Jeep. Blown would be better than turbo off road. That is just me.

In this application, Jeep, on trails, be honest now, would you rather have a 5.0 making 300 hp or a 2.0t making 300hp? Assuming same / similar tq. curve? I would take the 5.0 all day. Why? Heat mostly. Also throttle response, reliability, maintenance, whole host of reasons.
Click to expand...
I agree.
I've owned big displacement pigs and small boosted engines, both turbo and blown. I'd rather have a V-8 or a twin-screw blower than a turbo offroad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,072
Messages
2,901,830
Members
229,523
Latest member
winnrider

Members online

Total: 631 (members: 30, guests: 601)
Top