2.0L turbo four for the new Wrangler?

[EttienneM]

I'm from South Africa, and have owned both 2.8 crd and a pentastar. The crd is very low on power in comparison,and the pentastar is much nicer engine to live with.
In real world driving, for me at least, the improved consumption on the crd was not good enough to make up for the fact that you pay much more for a lot less engine.

And then there's the 2.8's terrible reliability track record. 120 000km sees a lot of con rod or big end failures over here. And then what ever you saved on fuel matters very little when you have to pay for a very expensive diesel rebuild. Been there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AZJim]

All I did was mention that Chrysler uses cylinder deactivation as well as GM, as you thought they were the only ones. Chrysler started in 2005 in the cars and have a better track record with it. I have not made any attacks on your posts. I actually agree with most of your opinions. I did 31 years with Chrysler, all at the Arizona Proving Ground. From the 80's to the early 2000's, Chrysler was a big user of turbos. So I'm familiar with what turbos can do.

Jim

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

 

[toylandcruiser]

All I did was mention that Chrysler uses cylinder deactivation as well as GM, as you thought they were the only ones. Chrysler started in 2005 in the cars and have a better track record with it. I have not made any attacks on your posts. I actually agree with most of your opinions. I did 31 years with Chrysler, all at the Arizona Proving Ground. From the 80's to the early 2000's, Chrysler was a big user of turbos. So I'm familiar with what turbos can do.

Jim

Isn't that 20 some years?

 

[Haf-E]

I think the reference to the time period of "the 80s to the early 2000's" was referring to Chrysler's big use of turbos.... not his employment.

 

[AZJim]

Reread and notice the period. The next line was about the turbos and should have been to 2010 to cover all the years of the PT. I actually worked from 1983 to 2014.

Jim

Isn't that 20 some years?

 

[AZJim]

Thank you, you replied faster than I did.

Jim

I think the reference to the time period of "the 80s to the early 2000's" was referring to Chrysler's big use of turbos.... not his employment.

 

[IPA]

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.

The new breed of small engines in full-size trucks is entirely due to CAFE.

 

[thethePete]

Sorry Jim. It was early and I already had a dozen baseless arguments coming at me. My bad. I should've had my morning coffee first. :cheers:

That comment by Jeffery must have been deleted. I can't see it and I'm not sure what he was replying to but he referenced 3 different motors from 3 different manufacturers.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

 

[AZJim]

No worries. I had thought that after reading all the posts.
We had a Turbo 3 about 1990 that was sadly pulled from the market after just a few months. Something about coking in the cold weather.
The turbo was by Garrett, had variable vanes and boy did it pull off the line strong. I'm guessing the twin scroll on the new 2.0 will pull like that.

Jim

Sorry Jim. It was early and I already had a dozen baseless arguments coming at me. My bad. I should've had my morning coffee first. :cheers:

That comment by Jeffery must have been deleted. I can't see it and I'm not sure what he was replying to but he referenced 3 different motors from 3 different manufacturers.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

 

[AZJim]

By Turbo 3 I was referring to the model designation, not the cylinder count. It was actually the 2.2 four cylinder.

Jim

No worries. I had thought that after reading all the posts.
We had a Turbo 3 about 1990 that was sadly pulled from the market after just a few months. Something about coking in the cold weather.
The turbo was by Garrett, had variable vanes and boy did it pull off the line strong. I'm guessing the twin scroll on the new 2.0 will pull like that.

Jim

 

[MrWesson]

2.0 vs 2.3 or 3.0 vs 3.5 the gist of the post is still there when I distinctly remember the Mustang V6 being advertised as a 30mpg with 300ish(ish so you don't twist your painties over my "Fabrications") HP but alas the 4cyl manages to make 310 and 29mpg..

Also sorry for mistaking you for an enthusiast vs a mechanic..(Edit: Technician :********.

 

[thethePete]

Your amusement doesn't negate the fact that my job requires a very high degree of physical skill and strength, as well as a very high degree of techinical knowledge and problem-solving. Moreso than 90% of any desk job, and you don't have to spend your day doing a full-body work out every day. Imagine lifting weights, on a tredmill, while doing whatever desk job it is you're scoffing at me from. Oh, and by the way, if I screw up in my job, someone could die. But hey, I'm just a dumb grease monkey.

The gist of your post also is ignoring direct injection. Not port injection. Direct injection. Which has only been on domestic engines in wide use in the last 5ish years. But just carry on in your narrowminded little world, and I'll keep upgrading my skillset yearly to keep up with ever progressing technology. And even accepting your numbers, how can you refute the fact that it produces 10hp more, out of less displacement, and produces nearly the same mileage numbers; and that that is impressive ...? "The 3.0 basically matched the 2.0 across the board and got better mileage.. " well, if your numbers are anything to credit, it makes 10hp better, and the mileage is a wash since EPA numbers rarely match up perfectly to real world conditions.

There was no 4cyl in the prevoius Mustang. There hasn't been one since the 90s. The 2.3L EB is new, it was released in 2015. According to Fuelly (which is a much better, real world number than the EPA gives), the 3.7L NA V6 in the current generation Mustang gets 19mpg average. The 2.3L EB has 2 spikes in the averages, at 23 and 25mpg. Those are real-world numbers. The 2.3L also straight up outperforms the V8, and requires nothing more than a flash-tune to romp all over it. The only reason I'm bothering to continue with the Mustang conversation is because it's a somewhat relavant comparision, and because MrWesson has chosen to use this as his arguing point.

 

[occasionaldirt]

huh? 28 to 25 is "substantially below" EPA estimates... LOL.

"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."

 

[thethePete]

I never said they get better than, I said they're a more useful and relevant datapoint than comparing the EPA numbers. They represent real-world useage whereas the EPA numbers are a fixed and specific set of tests that aren't really representative of real-world conditions. And in real world conditions, the 2.3L GTDI beats the 3.7L NA. The horsepower figures are a benchmark number that isn't going to change from a lab to the street. Therefore the 2.3 outperforms the 3.7 while delivering better real-world mileage. Pretty clear-cut case, IMO.

 

[Jurfie]

While what you said is fair and valid, I'll just point out that everyone's precious diesels all run turbos...

Good point.