SSF556
SE Expedition Society
Why are we even discussing this...just buy the 3.6 or the diesel option....
2.0L turbo four for the new Wrangler?
- Thread starter haven
- Start date
Why are we even discussing this...just buy the 3.6 or the diesel option....
thethePete
Explorer
Never said the 2.0T was a better choice for a Jeep, but the discussion of "replacing displacement" isn't about peak numbers. It's about achieving the same numbers with less.
Whatever. I'm done arguing about this. You think what you want, I'll carry on my day.
Whatever. I'm done arguing about this. You think what you want, I'll carry on my day.
comptiger5000
Adventurer
I don't see an issue with the 2.0T being weak out of boost. How many people wheel 4cyl TJs and YJs without issue? In a V8 ZJ, unless mud is involved, the throttle is never more than cracked open off-road. It's got way more than it needs.
For the 2.0, when you're crawling around in low range, you've got tons of torque helping you out. If you're in mud or on the street where you want the power, it shouldn't be a problem to get the revs up a little bit and get it into boost, at which point you've got plenty of power.
I still cringe every time someone talks about how the 4.0 makes "so much low end torque". No, it doesn't. It's got a surprisingly flat torque curve for an NA motor, but that's a side effect of it having downright pathetic output. Any stock V8 in a ZJ or WJ makes more torque at 1000 rpm than a 4.0 could ever dream of, even though the curve isn't as flat. I'd be really surprised if a 2.0T doesn't make more torque than the 4.0 and 3.8 did. The 3.6 makes more power than the previous motors, but only a little more torque and is more rev-happy. A well done turbo motor should be an improvement over the 3.6 (probably similar power level, but flatter torque curve).
Here's a couple graphs to look at. This is an F-150 with the turbo 3.5 vs one with a 5.0 on a chassis dyno. Overall power output is similar (slight edge to the 3.5), but at basically any point in the lower parts of the graph, the 3.5 makes more torque. The power curve is far closer to what you'd expect from a diesel that learned how to rev than it is to what you get from the big NA gasser. These aren't the primitive, laggy, late spooling turbo setups of the 80s. Turbos have come a long way and manufacturers have gotten far better at making them work well.
For the 2.0, when you're crawling around in low range, you've got tons of torque helping you out. If you're in mud or on the street where you want the power, it shouldn't be a problem to get the revs up a little bit and get it into boost, at which point you've got plenty of power.
I still cringe every time someone talks about how the 4.0 makes "so much low end torque". No, it doesn't. It's got a surprisingly flat torque curve for an NA motor, but that's a side effect of it having downright pathetic output. Any stock V8 in a ZJ or WJ makes more torque at 1000 rpm than a 4.0 could ever dream of, even though the curve isn't as flat. I'd be really surprised if a 2.0T doesn't make more torque than the 4.0 and 3.8 did. The 3.6 makes more power than the previous motors, but only a little more torque and is more rev-happy. A well done turbo motor should be an improvement over the 3.6 (probably similar power level, but flatter torque curve).
Here's a couple graphs to look at. This is an F-150 with the turbo 3.5 vs one with a 5.0 on a chassis dyno. Overall power output is similar (slight edge to the 3.5), but at basically any point in the lower parts of the graph, the 3.5 makes more torque. The power curve is far closer to what you'd expect from a diesel that learned how to rev than it is to what you get from the big NA gasser. These aren't the primitive, laggy, late spooling turbo setups of the 80s. Turbos have come a long way and manufacturers have gotten far better at making them work well.
thethePete
Explorer
^ I wasn't gonna bring it up, but the new EB3.5 makes more bottom end torque, lower, than the Dodge Ecodiesel. A lot of people really don't yet fully comprehend how much better direct injection is. It's not just a little bit better, it's completely game-changing.
The 1.6EB makes like, 170lb/ft of torque at 1700RPM... I'd hardly call that revving the hell out of it... And since a 2.0L engine is square (86mmborex86mmstroke) it will have solid grunt off the bottom end and be able to rev quite nicely up to and beyond 7000rpm without issue. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's worse.
The 1.6EB makes like, 170lb/ft of torque at 1700RPM... I'd hardly call that revving the hell out of it... And since a 2.0L engine is square (86mmborex86mmstroke) it will have solid grunt off the bottom end and be able to rev quite nicely up to and beyond 7000rpm without issue. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's worse.
I typically get annoyed with engines going smaller and turbocharged.. All I can think about is the 2.0l ecoboost vs the 3.0 V6 in the previous Mustang.. The 3.0 basically matched the 2.0 across the board and got better mileage..
The Wrangler needs something because 15mpg just wont fly these days. The simple less elegant solution is a diesel but Americans are retarded.
I'm still angry I don't have a diesel in my LR3..
The Wrangler needs something because 15mpg just wont fly these days. The simple less elegant solution is a diesel but Americans are retarded.
I'm still angry I don't have a diesel in my LR3..
thethePete
Explorer
What 3.0L was ever in the Mustang, and what 2.0L EB engine was ever in the Mustang? The current gen runs a 3.5L NA V6, and a 2.3T 4-pot. The Cobra Mustangs of old ran a 2.3L turbo but it was not an EcoBoost engine. The new 2.3L EB engine beats the V8 GT in the quarter mile, and gets better mileage. Be annoyed all you want, variable displacement is the future of gas engines, and a turbocharger is the easiest way to vary that displacement. GM is the only one I'm aware of that is using cylinder deactivation to vary their displacement, which is the only way they achieve their economy numbers with a V8. Once again, direct injection is the real game-changer.
There is nothing simple or elegant about a modern diesel, and all the people claiming they want a diesel won't put their money where their mouth is when it comes time to buy. The cost of services are exponential in comparison to a gasser, and the cost of ownership almost completely negates any fuel savings. If they give people a diesel, the next complaint will be "why can't it be a clattery old mechanical injection oil-leaker, this SCR system and tank of horse piss is garbage, and the oil changes cost too much"... Even a 2.0L TDI VW costs over $150 for an oil change, a comparable 2.0L Gasser is around $80 using synthetic oil. Modern DI gas engines get mileage that is compariable to diesels, the diesels only win under very heavy load situations.
There is nothing simple or elegant about a modern diesel, and all the people claiming they want a diesel won't put their money where their mouth is when it comes time to buy. The cost of services are exponential in comparison to a gasser, and the cost of ownership almost completely negates any fuel savings. If they give people a diesel, the next complaint will be "why can't it be a clattery old mechanical injection oil-leaker, this SCR system and tank of horse piss is garbage, and the oil changes cost too much"... Even a 2.0L TDI VW costs over $150 for an oil change, a comparable 2.0L Gasser is around $80 using synthetic oil. Modern DI gas engines get mileage that is compariable to diesels, the diesels only win under very heavy load situations.
Chryslers hemi was using cylinder deactivation before GM. It's a very good way to improve mileage. I think Honda did or is using it on a v-6.
Jim
Jim
thethePete
Explorer
I forgot Dodge does it with the hemi too. That doesn't change anything I said. And for all the failed valve trains I've fixed on gm trucks, I'm gonna disagree about it being a "very good way to improve mileage" it's actually more complicated and prone to failure than a turbo.
Also, Dodge gets their mileage from their 27 speed transmissions they use, they can't beat GM mileage numbers using essentially the same tech. But I love the Internet tactic of ignoring any irrefutable fact that doesn't correspond with your thoughts and finding the one pedantic discrepancy to argue against. Good job. I wrote 2 paragraphs and you found one sentence that you could poke a hole in and that's good enough. Also,Dodge only beat them to market by 1 year, and the tech has been around since the 80s. Turbos are free power with minimal added complexity. There's a reason you can add a turbo to just about anything for a few grand. It's a simple system. I'm not saying cylinder deactivation is *wrong* I'm just not convinced it's *better* than small displacement forced induction.
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Also, Dodge gets their mileage from their 27 speed transmissions they use, they can't beat GM mileage numbers using essentially the same tech. But I love the Internet tactic of ignoring any irrefutable fact that doesn't correspond with your thoughts and finding the one pedantic discrepancy to argue against. Good job. I wrote 2 paragraphs and you found one sentence that you could poke a hole in and that's good enough. Also,Dodge only beat them to market by 1 year, and the tech has been around since the 80s. Turbos are free power with minimal added complexity. There's a reason you can add a turbo to just about anything for a few grand. It's a simple system. I'm not saying cylinder deactivation is *wrong* I'm just not convinced it's *better* than small displacement forced induction.
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Mitch502
Explorer
Everything has it's place. I would prefer turbo over cylinder deactivation...but I'd prefer larger displacement over a turbo for off-road use. Something about being in terribly dirty conditions with a turbo makes me uneasy. It comes down to personal preference. There is no denying that small displacement with forced induction is the future...until electric gets real traction.
thethePete
Explorer
^ While what you said is fair and valid, I'll just point out that everyone's precious diesels all* run turbos...
Over all, you're right a lot of it comes to personal preference. Also why the offer several different engine options. There will never be one solution that makes everyone happy.
*cue the pedants: I know there are NA diesels in the world, but any one worth having, and the vast majority of currently-on-the-road diesels have turbochargers.
Over all, you're right a lot of it comes to personal preference. Also why the offer several different engine options. There will never be one solution that makes everyone happy.
*cue the pedants: I know there are NA diesels in the world, but any one worth having, and the vast majority of currently-on-the-road diesels have turbochargers.
Didn't mean to strike a nerve of a mustang enthusiast...
Everything I typed was from the back on the mind of someone who has never owned a mustang and just read about this in a car magazine.
Diesels wouldn't and shouldn't require me to put my money where my mouth is as they are either cheaper, the same or very slightly more money than petrol engines in the UK where they make the LR3/Discovery.
I can't think of a modern DI gas engine(DI has been around forever now) that you could put into a LR3 that would beat the 3.0l V6 diesel in mileage and match it's power/torque(needed to lug that 6,000lb monster around).. If its out there then why is land rover even bothering to still build them?
thethePete
Explorer
Nothing you said has anything to do with the wrangler and you just admitted to using complete fabrications to support your whining. I'm also not a "mustang enthusiast" I'm a Ford technician. And you didn't "strike a nerve" you just spewed nonsense and falsehoods and I called you out on it.
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
Frank
Explorer
I like the argument about the 2L turbo and how horrible it would be for off-road and that is a good argument for this group of owners. Unfortunately, those who actually off-road their Jeeps is a very small percentage of Jeep ownership. I read somewhere that its only about 15% of 4x4 owners owners actually off-road their deigned for off-road vehicle.
For the pavement pounding Jeep owners, a turbo4 that achieves a better fuel economy rating will be very appealing. I'll continue to stand by my statement that if someone like Subaru offered a tub-like vehicle with a retractable or removable top, the Wrangler would go to the wayside and become a niche vehicle.
If you are worried about TQ, buy the v6 (if offered) or enjoy the torque of the diesel. The turbo4 is really nothing to get upset about as you clearly aren't the target market for that particular engine.
For the pavement pounding Jeep owners, a turbo4 that achieves a better fuel economy rating will be very appealing. I'll continue to stand by my statement that if someone like Subaru offered a tub-like vehicle with a retractable or removable top, the Wrangler would go to the wayside and become a niche vehicle.
If you are worried about TQ, buy the v6 (if offered) or enjoy the torque of the diesel. The turbo4 is really nothing to get upset about as you clearly aren't the target market for that particular engine.
Mitch502
Explorer
x2