2019 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rental

Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
9,054
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by GMBoy
V6 for me. You need low end grunt and torque in a Jeep for off road. No time waiting for a turbo to spool up to get power.
No spooling up; the 2.0T has an "electric motor filling in for the moment it takes the twin-scroll turbocharger to wake up, the hybrid system's torque delivery makes the Wrangler seem as if it has a 5.9-liter AMC V-8 under the hood. Peak twist, 295 pound-feet, arrives at 3000 rpm. That's 35 more pound-feet 1800 rpm earlier than the V-6 manages." The 2.0T outperforms the 3.6L in every comparison I have seen in the forums and online "We've previously tested the Wrangler's largely carryover 285-hp 3.6-liter V-6 and would go so far as to say that that Jeep is quick for a 4469-pound body-on-frame machine that appears to have been designed to help Richard Leakey hunt for Australopithecus remains. That one needed 6.8 seconds to get from zero to 60 mph. With the turbo four—closely related to the engine in the Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio—the Wrangler is even quicker. Despite being slightly down on power compared with the six, it hits 60 in 6.5 seconds. It seems relevant to mention that the four is built in Termoli, Italy, and that Italians hate losing races." https://www.caranddriver.com/review...nlimited-suv-turbo-four-cylinder-hybrid/
I did not know that! Thank you for the clarification. Sounds like a good combination of power, off-roadability and fuel economy. Much better than my '78 CJ7 with the 304 V8 even!
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
9,054
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by Srt20
Originally Posted by GMBoy
V6 for me. You need low end grunt and torque in a Jeep for off road. No time waiting for a turbo to spool up to get power.
You got that wrong. The 2.0T has more and quicker power down low than the V6. Its very noticeable. I own both. On the other hand, the 3.6 has very noticeable more power in higher rpm.
Thank you for that clarification! I was wrong and now you have my interest. I have the 3.6 in a '14 Grand Cherokee Overland and have been impressed with it so this 4cyl may find its way into the bigger Jeeps soon. I have a 78 Jeep CJ7 with the 304. I been eyeing up a new Wrangler as a stablemate lol - I'd probably still go 3.6 just to commonize oil filters etc LOL!
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,701
Location
WY
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by JTK
I haven't followed Wranglers in years, but are pentastar powered ones really achieving ~23mpg tank to tank or are these just dash readout figures? That's amazing if they truly get that type of fuel economy with day to day use.
Pentastar meaning the 3.6L V6? They do not achieve that type of MPG. The 4 cylinder is an Alfa Romeo built engine and absolutely achieves that MPG. There were parts of the trip where I made over 26MPG and it seems to be common based on the comments on some of the Jeep forums.
Got back from an 8 state, 3800 mile road trip last night driving a 2014 Dodge minivan with the Pentastar 3.6L. 4 passengers and their luggage, camping gear, full size Thule rooftop carrier. Lot's of 70-80mph freeways along with slooow Oregon coast and other mixed driving. That hay bale on a rollerskate got 24.3 MPG hand calculated for that total distance. I have gotten 27mpg on the same trip without the camping gear, two extra passengers and their luggage. I think a Jeep should easily get that 23-24 mpg with this engine.
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,386
Originally Posted by sloinker
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by JTK
I haven't followed Wranglers in years, but are pentastar powered ones really achieving ~23mpg tank to tank or are these just dash readout figures? That's amazing if they truly get that type of fuel economy with day to day use.
Pentastar meaning the 3.6L V6? They do not achieve that type of MPG. The 4 cylinder is an Alfa Romeo built engine and absolutely achieves that MPG. There were parts of the trip where I made over 26MPG and it seems to be common based on the comments on some of the Jeep forums.
Got back from an 8 state, 3800 mile road trip last night driving a 2014 Dodge minivan with the Pentastar 3.6L. 4 passengers and their luggage, camping gear, full size Thule rooftop carrier. Lot's of 70-80mph freeways along with slooow Oregon coast and other mixed driving. That hay bale on a rollerskate got 24.3 MPG hand calculated for that total distance. I have gotten 27mpg on the same trip without the camping gear, two extra passengers and their luggage. I think a Jeep should easily get that 23-24 mpg with this engine.
Not with 4x4 and the gearing in a Jeep versus that of a mini-van. I have several Jeep friends around me with the V6 and none of them obtain those levels of MPG and it seems to be supported online as well.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
37,377
Location
NY
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by sloinker
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by JTK
I haven't followed Wranglers in years, but are pentastar powered ones really achieving ~23mpg tank to tank or are these just dash readout figures? That's amazing if they truly get that type of fuel economy with day to day use.
Pentastar meaning the 3.6L V6? They do not achieve that type of MPG. The 4 cylinder is an Alfa Romeo built engine and absolutely achieves that MPG. There were parts of the trip where I made over 26MPG and it seems to be common based on the comments on some of the Jeep forums.
Got back from an 8 state, 3800 mile road trip last night driving a 2014 Dodge minivan with the Pentastar 3.6L. 4 passengers and their luggage, camping gear, full size Thule rooftop carrier. Lot's of 70-80mph freeways along with slooow Oregon coast and other mixed driving. That hay bale on a rollerskate got 24.3 MPG hand calculated for that total distance. I have gotten 27mpg on the same trip without the camping gear, two extra passengers and their luggage. I think a Jeep should easily get that 23-24 mpg with this engine.
Not with 4x4 and the gearing in a Jeep versus that of a mini-van. I have several Jeep friends around me with the V6 and none of them obtain those levels of MPG and it seems to be supported online as well.
I agree. Keep in mind even the redesigned JL has the aerodynamics of a cinder block.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
9,054
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by sloinker
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by JTK
I haven't followed Wranglers in years, but are pentastar powered ones really achieving ~23mpg tank to tank or are these just dash readout figures? That's amazing if they truly get that type of fuel economy with day to day use.
Pentastar meaning the 3.6L V6? They do not achieve that type of MPG. The 4 cylinder is an Alfa Romeo built engine and absolutely achieves that MPG. There were parts of the trip where I made over 26MPG and it seems to be common based on the comments on some of the Jeep forums.
Got back from an 8 state, 3800 mile road trip last night driving a 2014 Dodge minivan with the Pentastar 3.6L. 4 passengers and their luggage, camping gear, full size Thule rooftop carrier. Lot's of 70-80mph freeways along with slooow Oregon coast and other mixed driving. That hay bale on a rollerskate got 24.3 MPG hand calculated for that total distance. I have gotten 27mpg on the same trip without the camping gear, two extra passengers and their luggage. I think a Jeep should easily get that 23-24 mpg with this engine.
Not with 4x4 and the gearing in a Jeep versus that of a mini-van. I have several Jeep friends around me with the V6 and none of them obtain those levels of MPG and it seems to be supported online as well.
My 2014 3.6L Jeep GC Overland 4x4 (full time system) gets 21.6 with a 60/40 mix hwy/city. I would think the GC weighs more and the full time system and the air suspension would be worse than a Wrangler. But then again - the wrangler isn't aero dynamic at all, has gotten fat over the years plus the gearing that you mention is probably the reason for the low economy I agree. My old CJ7 gets about 12 mpg lol
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1
Location
SC
My 2019 Jeep Wrangler with a 3.6L is getting 26.8. I set cruse to 65 and go. At 70 I was getting 24mpg
 

CarbonSteel

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
9,386
Originally Posted by rishsd
My 2019 Jeep Wrangler with a 3.6L is getting 26.8. I set cruse to 65 and go. At 70 I was getting 24mpg
You appear to be in the minority--none of my friends get close to that and it does not appear to be that on the online forums either. Driving style may be a large influence on MPG as well as the gearing and tires, so perhaps you have the right combination--count yourself lucky.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
9,054
Location
Texas
Nice review! I am not sure but I think the Rubicon may only be available with the 3.6L. I understand the 4cyl Turbo is a nice engine and all that but I prefer the 3.6L in a Jeep that gets used as a Jeep. The 4cyl is probably a good choice for the on road only Jeeps. Like I said earlier - I get 20-21 in a Grand Cherokee 3.6 so mpg is fine to me for a possibly more robust/dependable non-turbo engine. I have a 78 CJ7 with the 304V8 that gets 12-13 lol.
 

4WD

$50 site donor 2023
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
20,092
Location
Texas
Nice review! I am not sure but I think the Rubicon may only be available with the 3.6L. I understand the 4cyl Turbo is a nice engine and all that but I prefer the 3.6L in a Jeep that gets used as a Jeep. The 4cyl is probably a good choice for the on road only Jeeps. Like I said earlier - I get 20-21 in a Grand Cherokee 3.6 so mpg is fine to me for a possibly more robust/dependable non-turbo engine. I have a 78 CJ7 with the 304V8 that gets 12-13 lol.
Bought my Rubicon in June and the Pentastar was hard to find in my desired package
Engineer at work had just bought his 2nd - same issue. (He has 2 door & 4 door)
Think Jeep played trading places in 2020 and push the I4 … it does make more torque … but “too soon to tell” wrt long term reliability 🧐
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,415
Location
Southeast
The I4 is more true to its Willys roots!

everything I’ve read about fiats eTorque integration with the Jeep i4 and Dodge Ram engines has been stellar from the driver’s perspective. The fuel economy is impressive, the pedal feel and responsiveness is dialed in, and the gear shifts (which are modulated by the eTorque programming) are precise. I don’t have much experience beyond some wheel time in a ‘20 Ram, but I’ve found nothing to not like there. There are a some common threads about eTorque and related engine problem, with complaints indicating that dealers are challenged to fix them when they come in with problems. The engine, turbo, trans, and eTorque are so tightly integrated that if one has issues, the whole thing suffers. The last time I saw under the hood of a wrangler, they certainly still took more care to seal connections and dress wiring harnesses than other makes, adding to water, dust and vibration resistance. You’d gotta have that to even think of wheeling one of these.

I love the diesel-like torque curve of a turbo motor, but it’s also obvious that this makes the old-school ruggedness of a field-repairable trail rig a thing of the past.

m
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
9,054
Location
Texas
On second thought - forget both the 4 and the 6....I want the HEMI 392!!! It is available now in Wrangler! FTW!!
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
870
Location
Wisconsin
Nice review! I am not sure but I think the Rubicon may only be available with the 3.6L. I understand the 4cyl Turbo is a nice engine and all that but I prefer the 3.6L in a Jeep that gets used as a Jeep. The 4cyl is probably a good choice for the on road only Jeeps. Like I said earlier - I get 20-21 in a Grand Cherokee 3.6 so mpg is fine to me for a possibly more robust/dependable non-turbo engine. I have a 78 CJ7 with the 304V8 that gets 12-13 lol.
My Rubicon has is 2.0T. I have used it in Moab and all over the mountains and it did excellent. More low end tq equals better off road performance.
 
Top