Swapping out 3.6 for the turbo 4 ?

[Stan H]

Hello All - The Pentastar V6 engine used in a Jeep environment for both commuting and off road use, offers number of advantages over the smaller 2.0L I4 turbo engine.

The naturally aspirated 3.6 L engine offers a wider power band, which is also smoother throughout its range compared to the 2.0L I4 turbo engine. For off-road use, running at different rpm’s for different terrains, the 3.6 L offers a much brooder choice of rpm and “smooth torque” with an absence of lag.

Since the 2.0L relies on its turbo to make additional power, correct rpm is crucial for turbo performance. For this reason, the 2.0 L engines operates on a more narrow power band compared to the naturally aspirated 3.6 L engine which can operate smoothly at any rpm. To help flatten lag, the 2.0L is equipped with a Garrett twin scroll housing design (cyl 1&4 / 2&3) as well as a small turbine / compressor wheel, which allows faster spooling and the ability to develop peak torque quicker at lower rpm. (295 peak@3000)

The 3.6 engine offers more longevity than the 2.0L turbo engine for a number of reasons. Component stress on the pistons, rods, crank and their bearing is shared by 6 cylinders, where on the 2.0L engine, the same or even higher loads are shared by only 4 cylinders increasing stress. Therefore, each 2.0L cylinder operates at higher loads and has to work harder than a 3.6 L engine to produce the same power output.

On each of my back to back 2.0L & 3.6L test drives, I found the throttle on the 2.0 L engine to be a bit non-linear in operation compared to a 3.6 L engine. While the 2.0L throttle does react fairly quickly, it was not followed up with the same response until the turbo engages. Another negative is all “4 cylinder engines” regardless of brand, have a raspy sound like they're coming apart under hard acceleration, while in contrast the V6 roars almost like a V8.

While I haven’t performed any 0-60 comparison tests with my salesman riding shot-gun, a number of Youtube videos show both engines getting similar 0-60 results. While Jeep specs the 2.0L with additional torque over the V6, unless you’re pulling a stacker trailer at gross, the 2.0 L turbo’s minimal torque advantage is pretty much a “nothing burger” for most Jeep owners.

Regardless of performance differences, both the 2.0L or 3.6L provide more than satisfactory performance with only minor differences in power or dependability. To the 2.0L advantage, she does offer slightly better mileage. Regardless, thanks to a Jeeps poor aerodynamics, combined with their merciless and worthless “Stop & Start” feature, good mileage is not in the cards.

Getting back to the original topic, converting a 3.6 Jeep to a 2.0L, would be a waste of time and money. You can get a new Mopar long block for $5-6k with a 3 yr /100k mile warranty, or a re-
man for around $3+k. Bottom line, there would be no real advantage switching from a 3.6L to 2.0L since both engines have similar power. Myself, I feel the 3.6L is a more suitable engine for Jeep since it has a more consistent output of torque. Finally, no matter how you twist it, the smaller 2.0 L “Turbo” engine has more components that can fail and has to work harder with more stress on each cylinder to make the same power as a 3.6L.

Ride Safe - Mike

I made it 3 sentences , way too many words for oh so little .
Let me offer a summary :
3.6 good ,2.0 bad .

Sponsored

 

[Hootbro]

I made it 3 sentences , way too many words for oh so little .
Let me offer a summary :
3.6 good ,2.0 bad .

Reads like it was partially written by AI.

 

[Stan H]

Reads like it was partially written by AI.

1000%

 

[Stan H]

Secondary theory He is a bot.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I made it 3 sentences , way too many words for oh so little .
Let me offer a summary :
3.6 good ,2.0 bad .

I'd disagree with the throttle mapping - anyone actually looked at the curve of a 3.6?
Perfect candidate for a Pedal Monster.
The 2.0, while I would not put one in a JT, is a lot smoother and you have that low-end torque people with Jeeps crave.
The 2.0 of the past few years has a really good reputation. Granted, the new version - much different, but there aren't the failures people assume will happen.

 

[Hootbro]

Secondary theory He is a bot.

I would not go that far. You can put in Chat GPT or similar, a basic premises and were you want a topic to go and it can spit out something very similar. Either way, it reads like he had help.

 

[chr15m]

I'd disagree with the throttle mapping - anyone actually looked at the curve of a 3.6?
Perfect candidate for a Pedal Monster.
The 2.0, while I would not put one in a JT, is a lot smoother and you have that low-end torque people with Jeeps crave.
The 2.0 of the past few years has a really good reputation. Granted, the new version - much different, but there aren't the failures people assume will happen.

You happen to have any charts showing the 3.6 throttle mapping?

Not in disagreement, I've been running the Banks Pedal Monster since it had maybe 2k miles on it. Th 3.6 seemed reluctant to motivation at anything less than 40-50% throttle input.

I've felt like the 3.6 has pretty poor throttle gain or mapping, especially with the 4.10s typically being a peppy combo with that displacement.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

You happen to have any charts showing the 3.6 throttle mapping?

Not in disagreement, I've been running the Banks Pedal Monster since it had maybe 2k miles on it. Th 3.6 seemed reluctant to motivation at anything less than 40-50% throttle input.

I've felt like the 3.6 has pretty poor throttle gain or mapping, especially with the 4.10s typically being a peppy combo with that displacement.

I had a snip from a video - will try to find it, or, the link to the video.

I thought it was bad with the 3.73 of the Overland and assumed the Mojave 4.10 would be better - meh, no, not really

 

[Stan H]

You happen to have any charts showing the 3.6 throttle mapping?

Not in disagreement, I've been running the Banks Pedal Monster since it had maybe 2k miles on it. Th 3.6 seemed reluctant to motivation at anything less than 40-50% throttle input.

I've felt like the 3.6 has pretty poor throttle gain or mapping, especially with the 4.10s typically being a peppy combo with that displacement.

And how many miles with the monster ?

 

[chr15m]

And how many miles with the monster ?

Enough, ha.

Probably around 30k miles with it. Every now and then I turn it off to remind myself why I have it.

100% recommend. FWIW

 

[Zachanadandy]

I made it 3 sentences , way too many words for oh so little .
Let me offer a summary :
3.6 good ,2.0 bad .

When he said the v6 roars like a v8 I figured it was all bs. Comparing back to back test drives in stock JLs at nearly sea level (georgia) ignores all the ways where the 2.0t was far superior. They are close on paper at sea level, but run them at 10k feet and the 2.0t has an ~25% advantage. Where's the best wheeling? The mountains. Who cares about a broader power band when you've got an 8 speed auto? Both are in the power almost immediately when you get on the throttle. Slightly better fuel economy stock turns into a huge gap modded. Driven the same on 37s we get 11-13mpg from the v6 vs 17mpg from the 2.0t. That's 40% better fuel economy. Of course being boosted is easy to turn up the power. These dyno runs are wheel hp from nothing but bolt one and a JB4 piggyback controller. That's more wheel torque than the 4xe or 392.

Not that I'm advocating for the swap idea, just put in a hemi or LS/LT.

 

[Stan H]

When he said the v6 roars like a v8 I figured it was all bs. Comparing back to back test drives in stock JLs at nearly sea level (georgia) ignores all the ways where the 2.0t was far superior. They are close on paper at sea level, but run them at 10k feet and the 2.0t has an ~25% advantage. Where's the best wheeling? The mountains. Who cares about a broader power band when you've got an 8 speed auto? Both are in the power almost immediately when you get on the throttle. Slightly better fuel economy stock turns into a huge gap modded. Driven the same on 37s we get 11-13mpg from the v6 vs 17mpg from the 2.0t. That's 40% better fuel economy. Of course being boosted is easy to turn up the power. These dyno runs are wheel hp from nothing but bolt one and a JB4 piggyback controller. That's more wheel torque than the 4xe or 392.

Not that I'm advocating for the swap idea, just put in a hemi or LS/LT.

The wiring harness alone would be enough to discourage me. In my opinion if a 2.0T swap was to take place it would be fraught with bugs & how does anyone know if the rear of the block casting & bell housing pattern is even the same . No ones even mentioned that.

 

[Hootbro]

In my opinion if a 2.0T swap was to take place it would be fraught with bugs & how does anyone know if the rear of the block casting & bell housing pattern is even the same .

That is a good point. I had to look into it and while they both share a 850RE transmission, the bellhousing is way different with mainly the starters are on opposite sides.

So any swap would mean an engine and transmission. IMHO, one would need a wrecked salvage JL for a donor to get all the bits and bobs as I am sure it would require a few more things.

 

[Stan H]

That is a good point. I had to look into it and while they both share a 850RE transmission, the bellhousing is way different with mainly the starters are on opposite sides.

So any swap would mean an engine and transmission. IMHO, one would need a wrecked salvage JL for a donor to get all the bits and bobs as I am sure it would require a few more things.

Great job looking that up. I figured there would be something different didn't imagine it being that drastic. But yep the entire drivetrain wow that would be a monumental undertaking for anyone without alot of tools, lift, hoist etc..
The torque coverters are even different

 

[LowOnCash]

Reads like it was partially written by AI.

Thanks no AI here just 60+ years of bikes cars and trucks & Big Trucks!

Mike

www.rotory.com

Sponsored