3.0 ecodiesel

[Raven65]

Please excuse me if writing this comes across as disrespectful but it's obvious to me which engine you own. The two engines are vastly different friend, especially once you add lift and tires. The diesel (again speaking of modified Jeeps) accelerates on the highway with serious authority while the 3.6 screams for help. They truly are not a close comparison.

Now if you were to pit a bone stock 3.6 against a bone stock diesel, then yes they feel somewhat similar. The very first time I test drove the Gladiator I was lucky enough to have a gas and diesel with similar options side by side. I drove them both and to me the gasser felt lighter on its feet but the diesel felt planted. I didn't feel too much difference. But once the lift and tires went on, the difference became abundantly clear. The diesel is far superior and you would know that if you had one.

As a side note you can't get anywhere near the mid 500's lb/ft of torque you get with the 3.0 (with a simple tune) out of the 3.6 either.

No offense taken. I promise you, I'm not a hater... I just tried to look at the pros & cons of both engines objectively and I chose the one that was best for me. I'm sure you did the same. All that you said above may be true, but the performance specs don't lie. The 3.6 is slightly faster than the 3.0 (stock vs. stock), so anyone claiming otherwise and that the 3.6 is a "slug" is simply wrong. Putting larger tires on them both won't change the power generated by the engines, so I wouldn't expect a drastic change in the acceleration results - all other things being equal, but maybe it would. The superior torque of the diesel would likely overcome the effective gearing change the larger tires would create, so maybe it would turn the tables on the 3.6. I don't know. It would be interesting to see someone test that & find out. If you want to get into modifications, all bets are off - in either direction. Someone could build a freakin' Smart Car that would smoke both of 'em if they threw enough money at it. I'll give you that it is very easy to throw a relatively inexpensive tune on a diesel to get more power though - if you don't care about your warranty. The only way to add a lot of power to the 3.6 would be to bolt on a supercharger (and supporting mods) - which would obviously be a lot more expensive. Then again, a 3.6 + S/C would probably be roughly equal to the original price difference between the 3.6 and the 3.0. - before the crazy incentives were put on the diesels to get rid of them and the other '23s. A '23 3.6 and 3.0 cost roughly the same now.

All that said, the 3.6 and 3.0 are obviously vastly different engines in every way - with completely different power characteristics. The 3.6 makes its power up high in the revs and the diesel makes all of its way down low (as do all diesels). Heck, the diesel redlines about where the 3.6 starts making it's best power - and it goes on up a couple thousand RPMs beyond that. That is also why the transmissions in each shifts the way they do. The diesel shifts earlier and doesn't downshift as quickly because it has all that low-end torque. The 3.6 shifts as needed to keep the revs high where the power is... is not "screaming for help" it's simply running where the power is. It reminds me of a 2-stroke motocross bike vs. a 4-stroke. Truth be told, the diesel is the better "truck engine" because of all that low-end torque. That said, going slow all the time is exactly what gunks the EcoDiesel up so bad. I guess if you offset your slow crawling off-roading with plenty of long distance highway ripping, you can keep that at bay somewhat. Speaking of that, all of the government-mandated emission equipment is exactly what makes pretty much ALL modern diesels more problematic. If not for that, generally - and the other EcoDiesel issues, specifically, I very likely would have bought one. Just look inside the intake tracts of the otherwise internally very clean EcoDiesel in that YouTube video above! Gross! I know that's a second-gen version of that engine (the first that we got here) and that the current/third-gen was significantly redesigned, but I doubt that changed how much crap gets dumped back in the intake. That's a result of the EGR system. Anyway, I think the only way to own a modern diesel long-term now is to live in a state that doesn't do emissions testing and eliminate all of the emissions equipment. Of course that IS a violation of federal law that can earn you some very large (and getting larger) fines - and you'd have to have no regard for the environment, but that would definitely make them much more reliable. Both are just a bridge too far for me. ...but that's me.

So... I'm glad Jeep offered us options, so we could all choose what was best for each of us. I'm sorry the diesel is no longer going to be offered - and I'm sorry it wasn't better when it was. Now all we have is the 3.6 - and apparently soon, the 4xe with its 4-cyl turbo + electric. Maybe I'll try one of those next, but they are also very complex. I don't have a lot of hope for those long-term either. Maybe I'll just say "screw it" and buy a TJ with the 4.0 next.

Sponsored

 

[Beungood]

After obtaining this information my recommendation is, get a 3,6. Really.

Then you get to replace the left or right bank cams and valve train.

 

[Beungood]

Lots of EcoDiesel folks are fanatics about them (you, for example, fit the profile).

I did do a lot of research before I bought - and certainly not just on this forum.

EcoDiesels do not have the best reliability record. That's just a fact. A few people on this forum saying they haven't had any trouble (yet) doesn't change that fact.

I am absolutely not bashing. Just arguing the facts of the matter.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings

Some tuning to shut EGR off and a block off plate and they are alot more reliable .

 

[Raven65]

Then you get to replace the left or right bank cams and valve train.

They’ve made several revisions to the Pentastar to remedy that. It doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it used to. There have been nearly 20 MILLION Pentastar V6’s produced since 2010 with no end in sight. They almost have it right now. LOL

 

[Vtur]

No offense taken. I promise you, I'm not a hater... I just tried to look at the pros & cons of both engines objectively and I chose the one that was best for me. I'm sure you did the same. All that you said above may be true, but the performance specs don't lie. The 3.6 is slightly faster than the 3.0 (stock vs. stock), so anyone claiming otherwise and that the 3.6 is a "slug" is simply wrong. Putting larger tires on them both won't change the power generated by the engines, so I wouldn't expect a drastic change in the acceleration results - all other things being equal, but maybe it would. The superior torque of the diesel would likely overcome the effective gearing change the larger tires would create, so maybe it would turn the tables on the 3.6. I don't know. It would be interesting to see someone test that & find out. If you want to get into modifications, all bets are off - in either direction. Someone could build a freakin' Smart Car that would smoke both of 'em if they threw enough money at it. I'll give you that it is very easy to throw a relatively inexpensive tune on a diesel to get more power though - if you don't care about your warranty. The only way to add a lot of power to the 3.6 would be to bolt on a supercharger (and supporting mods) - which would obviously be a lot more expensive. Then again, a 3.6 + S/C would probably be roughly equal to the original price difference between the 3.6 and the 3.0. - before the crazy incentives were put on the diesels to get rid of them and the other '23s. A '23 3.6 and 3.0 cost roughly the same now.

All that said, the 3.6 and 3.0 are obviously vastly different engines in every way - with completely different power characteristics. The 3.6 makes its power up high in the revs and the diesel makes all of its way down low (as do all diesels). Heck, the diesel redlines about where the 3.6 starts making it's best power - and it goes on up a couple thousand RPMs beyond that. That is also why the transmissions in each shifts the way they do. The diesel shifts earlier and doesn't downshift as quickly because it has all that low-end torque. The 3.6 shifts as needed to keep the revs high where the power is... is not "screaming for help" it's simply running where the power is. It reminds me of a 2-stroke motocross bike vs. a 4-stroke. Truth be told, the diesel is the better "truck engine" because of all that low-end torque. That said, going slow all the time is exactly what gunks the EcoDiesel up so bad. I guess if you offset your slow crawling off-roading with plenty of long distance highway ripping, you can keep that at bay somewhat. Speaking of that, all of the government-mandated emission equipment is exactly what makes pretty much ALL modern diesels more problematic. If not for that, generally - and the other EcoDiesel issues, specifically, I very likely would have bought one. Just look inside the intake tracts of the otherwise internally very clean EcoDiesel in that YouTube video above! Gross! I know that's a second-gen version of that engine (the first that we got here) and that the current/third-gen was significantly redesigned, but I doubt that changed how much crap gets dumped back in the intake. That's a result of the EGR system. Anyway, I think the only way to own a modern diesel long-term now is to live in a state that doesn't do emissions testing and eliminate all of the emissions equipment. Of course that IS a violation of federal law that can earn you some very large (and getting larger) fines - and you'd have to have no regard for the environment, but that would definitely make them much more reliable. Both are just a bridge too far for me. ...but that's me.

So... I'm glad Jeep offered us options, so we could all choose what was best for each of us. I'm sorry the diesel is no longer going to be offered - and I'm sorry it wasn't better when it was. Now all we have is the 3.6 - and apparently soon, the 4xe with its 4-cyl turbo + electric. Maybe I'll try one of those next, but they are also very complex. I don't have a lot of hope for those long-term either. Maybe I'll just say "screw it" and buy a TJ with the 4.0 next.

If this are based on real world experience, than WTH were these people thinking when they traded in their 3.6 for the diesel ??‍

 

[Hootbro]

Seems like a lot of people are stating "facts" without actual numbers. So here is real world numbers based on my experience going from a 09 JKU to a JTRD. Below is based on current fuel prices at my closest station.

You can figure it out if it's worth it for you or not. Again, this is based on MY maintenance intervals which are shorter than what is stated in the book. In general, I get about 50% more MPGs and diesel cost about 30% more in my area.

I got the diesel purely for the driving experience and MPG as I drive over 20K miles a year. If this was a debate of Hemi vs Pentastar I would have went Hemi and been just as happy getting 11 MPG if there was no EcoDiesel option. Drivability was all I care about and the diesel feels effortless and that's what matters to me. Everything else is a bonus.

Just going by your "Total Cost Per Mile" numbers, there is a $0.028 savings per mile for diesel.

Factor in the $4150 option cost for a diesel engine, that is a 148,214 mile break even point for cost.

If you were a manual guy and were forced to take the $2500 cost for the automatic, that makes a 237,500 mile break even point for cost.

Financial math argument never supports the diesel. You buy the diesel for the low end torque it offers and that is the value to the customer who buys it.

 

[DylanM]

Just going by your "Total Cost Per Mile" numbers, there is a $0.028 savings per mile for diesel.

Factor in the $4150 option cost for a diesel engine, that is a 148,214 mile break even point for cost.

If you were a manual guy and were forced to take the $2500 cost for the automatic, that makes a 237,500 mile break even point for cost.

Financial math argument never supports the diesel. You buy the diesel for the low end torque it offers and that is the value to the customer who buys it.

I look at this from the perspective that when you put some actual numbers down it disproves the common line you hear that the diesel is more expensive to maintain and operate. No, you're never going to be financially ahead with the diesel, but neither are you taking it in the shorts year after year as some like to portray.

 

[Hootbro]

I look at this from the perspective that when you put some actual numbers down it disproves the common line you hear that the diesel is more expensive to maintain and operate. No, you're never going to be financially ahead with the diesel, but neither are you taking it in the shorts year after year as some like to portray.

It is like any data. One can play with it to get the angle they are looking for.

The real numbers are stored in corporate bean counters that will know the total average ownership cost. That will not only include maintenance but also averaging repair costs of major part and assembly failures.

 

[vicsvx]

I didn't read everyone's responses... Got to the end of page 3 and decided to post my 2 cents.

I drove the 3.6 and 3.0 before buying July 21. I had the choice of either 3.6 rubi or 3.0 sport s... Taking into account upfront cost differences, fuel prices, DEF, maintenance, problems, and what I plan to do with my JT... The diesel was the better choice.

Range... With me going out in sticks and overlanding, range was top priority. With me wanting to go 35s (which I have) or 37 (in the future maybe), the cost to regear to have enough oooph to drive safely (I don't need fast that's what my STI is for) nulled the diesel premium. I would have liked a diesel rubi but couldn't afford it at the time.

As reliability goes, I'm confident in the diesel. Currently, DEF at the pump cost me about 15ish and diesel is about 50. I drive about 12k a year and filled DEF about 5 times with 32k on the ticker.

The discounts at the dealership is a big thing for diesels because they couldn't sell them with open recalls. Now that some have been repaired they want them gone because they are loosing money on them and are trying to get the new models in. Both JL and JT.

If I wasn't overlanding or planning to do any crazy offroad... Gas might have been the way I went... But than again I love that diesel clack and the torque! Towing my overland trailer, quad and other gear... Hardly know it's all behind me... Other than fuels plummets but that's expected lol

 

[Vtur]

Here's my quick uneducated math.

1. $10 per additional torque (442-260=182) $1820
2. Beefier ZF Tranny
3. Steel knuckles
4. Steel steering gear box
5. Reinforced upper shock towers
6. Smile per mile value = Depending on who you asked ?
7. Range per tank
8. Regear may not required

Fuel saved per gallons covers higher maintenance cost.

 

[Almost]

Just going by your "Total Cost Per Mile" numbers, there is a $0.028 savings per mile for diesel.

Factor in the $4150 option cost for a diesel engine, that is a 148,214 mile break even point for cost.

If you were a manual guy and were forced to take the $2500 cost for the automatic, that makes a 237,500 mile break even point for cost.

Financial math argument never supports the diesel. You buy the diesel for the low end torque it offers and that is the value to the customer who buys it.

But it does - I drive over 20K miles a year. My last jeep had 233K miles on it. I never owned a manual in my life. But I also didn't buy a $63K Jeep to "save" money so it's kind of a silly argument. If I needed to save money, I would have bought a Honda.

 

[Alc]

I have - and the only real difference I saw was that the 3.6 equipped shifting may drop 2 gears, like going from 7 to 5, for example, due to the limited torque. You feel that. Otherwise, I didn't notice any real difference. The 4xe is very similar to the 3.0 in my experiences in that it doesn't shift as often, and it isn't going to downshift skipping a gear.
The smoothness was the same. The difference was lack of torque in the 3.6 forcing more drastic shifting patterns to maintain speed under load.
There isn't a need for shifting with the higher torque, so there's less of it. I experienced it on the hills here.
The diesel's torque being superior to the gasser means - less hunting, less shifting, but I didn't feel it was smoother or less harsh.
Dropping 2 gears, which is what they are programmed to do - yeah, you'll feel that. Maybe that's what some consider harsh shifting?
Sales guy here will let me drive anything I ask and sometimes I tell him - I'm just doing some research, digging.
(really want to take out one of the upcoming Chargers -

Not being a smartass and just asking…can you point me in a direction of any data that supports the Torqueflite 850Re being better in any application than the ZF 8HP75. First, the 850Re is an older ZF designed unit (more tried and true) but is built by Chrysler and shifts using a redline system? And isn’t the 8HP75 designed and built by ZF in Germany and uses compression ratio which is why it shifts smoother and is more efficient?

I stand by my original post that the ZF 8HP75 is still the transmission of choice. I’d bet, if Stellantis offered it as an option in the 3.6L at a reasonable price A/T buyers would have preferred it.

 

[Raven65]

Here's my quick uneducated math.

1. $10 per additional torque (442-260=182) $1820
2. Beefier ZF Tranny
3. Steel knuckles
4. Steel steering gear box
5. Reinforced upper shock towers
6. Smile per mile value = Depending on who you asked ?
7. Range per tank
8. Regear may not required

Fuel saved per gallons covers higher maintenance cost.

I agree with all of that except the fuel savings covering higher maintenance. Diesel fuel is significantly more expensive than regular unleaded gasoline, so that's basically a wash. The higher maintenance costs are still higher.

The added weight of the diesel engine and those other beefed up components (necessitated BY that heavier engine) reduce the truck's payload and towing capacities - which is counter-intuitive given that the diesel is better for tow/hauling - but it's a limitation of the chassis. It can only safely handle so much weight. There's still plenty of capacity for what most people need out of a mid-size truck though. Anyone who needs more should buy a full-size truck.

 

[Vtur]

I agree with all of that except the fuel savings covering higher maintenance. Diesel fuel is significantly more expensive than regular unleaded gasoline, so that's basically a wash. The higher maintenance costs are still higher.

The added weight of the diesel engine and those other beefed up components (necessitated BY that heavier engine) reduce the truck's payload and towing capacities - which is counter-intuitive given that the diesel is better for tow/hauling - but it's a limitation of the chassis. It can only safely handle so much weight. There's still plenty of capacity for what most people need out of a mid-size truck though. Anyone who needs more should buy a full-size truck.

Diesel fuel has comes down to around $5 a gal, same as 87 atm in my area. With my setup, I'm getting 21 mpg, that's atleast 6 miles more per gallon than the gas. 6 x 19 gallons tank = 114 divided by 21 mpg = 5.4 gallons x $5 = $27 saving every full tank.

This doesn't applies for everyone:
2 Jugs QS oil $15 x 2 = $33 taxed (were onsale)
Oem oil filter $22 (got it for great deal lol)
Fuel filter $40 every other oil change = $20

For me, just $75 total for an oil and filter change.

 

[Raven65]

Diesel fuel has comes down to around $5 a gal, same as 87 atm in my area. With my setup, I'm getting 21 mpg, that's atleast 6 miles more per gallon than the gas. 6 x 19 gallons tank = 114 divided by 21 mpg = 5.4 gallons x $5 = $27 saving every full tank.

Wow... I haven't seen diesel match the price of reg. unleaded in many years in my area. I just pulled up my Gas Buddy app for my area... and right now, the cheapest 87 reg. unl. is $2.99. The cheapest diesel is $3.83 at one station. Most are $4 =/- a few cents.

Sponsored