2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am looking at buying a Jeep Cherokee in the somewhat near future. I have driven a Cherokee in the past, as a rental, which had a 2.4 and a relative has had leased Cherokee's with the 3.2. I was not impressed with the 2.4.
I have had MOPARS forever and currently have a Chrysler 200S with the 3.6 engine. I had a new Dart with the 1.4 Turbo the first year it came out.
I do not intend to make the Jeep a daily driver as I am keeping the 200S. I will probably never tow anything or load the Jeep down with a bunch of cargo.
I have read the specs on both the 3.2 and the 2.0T.
In the real world which engine, the 2.0T or the 3.2 would be better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,096 Posts
Hi there and welcome to JCC :)

That's a tough question, the 2.0T has not been in production very long, so reliability is still a bit of an unkown.

The 3.2L has a relatively good reputation for reliability and overall performance. The 2.0T has a performance edge over the 3.2.
Some respected automotive analysts in Quebec did a nice review of the 2019 Cherokee with the 2.0T, saying this engine brings a better overall driving experience and is a better match to the 9-speed than the 3.2. I have the 3.2 and haven't tried the 2.0T, so I can't compare.
One thing I dislike about the 2.0T : it costs $1000 more here in Canada. Yuck. Only $500 more in the US I believe. Maybe pricing has changed here in Canada since 2019, I don't know.

You'll hear pros and cons for both. Sorry to say, but... the choice is yours ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
I have owned both and much prefer the 2.0T, that being said the 3.2L has alot going for it.
no wrong choice really.

I really like the 2.0T much better so rather than focus on that.. I'll focus on the good points of the 3.2L
-more towing capacity
-Reliability better known
-NOT GDI or Turbo
-Can use cheaper oil, engine itself is easier on oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks,
I know the turbo is supposed to use 91 octane (good luck finding 91 around here in Indiana) and I assume high performance oil like the Dart needed as well as more expensive plugs etc.
The 2.0 has had a few years under its belt, unlike the Dart 1.4, so its long term reliabilty is something I want to know. Any major issues inherent to the 2.0?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
That's right up there with "which one of your children do you like better?"

Thanks,
I know the turbo is supposed to use 91 octane (good luck finding 91 around here in Indiana) and I assume high performance oil like the Dart needed as well as more expensive plugs etc.
The 2.0 has had a few years under its belt, unlike the Dart 1.4, so its long term reliabilty is something I want to know. Any major issues inherent to the 2.0?

You don't need to use 91 octane in the 2.0T. I've used 87, 89, 90, 91. Truth be told, mileage about the same unless heading to the mountains (Arizona has a few), or it's really hot (Arizona, well, you know).

Two points often overlooked - 1) the latest 2019 or 2020 Owner's Manual states 87 octane is OK but 91 or higher will allow the engine to operate to optimal performance, and 2) the 2.0T was tested by the EPA using "Regular Gasoline", i.e. 87 octane. So the EPA's mileage figures are based on 87, not 91. Interestingly, the 3.2L was tested using "Midgrade Gasoline" (89 octane) through 2019, then the 2020 numbers have it as "Regular Gasoline". Mileage didn't change, but Annual Fuel Cost went down (duh). The manual states 87 octane for the 3.2 and has for a while.


The engine oil for the 2.0T needs to be "API SN PLUS certified and meet the requirements of FCA Material Standard MS-13340. An equivalent full synthetic engine oil can be used if it meets API SN PLUS Certification." Many full synthetics meet this requirement. The 3.2 can use dino oil, but many users prefer synthetic.

I'm not aware of any major issues inherent to the 2.0T. There's been no recalls on my 2.0T, though there's been two "campaigns" - U75 to replace wrong engine oil from the factory, and U77 to replace the EGR hose. Both were for early versions of the motor.

I'm very happy with the 2.0T. Way more pep than my 1500 RAM with the 5.7 Hemi!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
I’ll add that my 2.0 has been 100% reliable and fun to drive. Is it a better match to the transmission than the 3.2? No idea, the tranny is, to me, the only weak point in an otherwise great platform - but it is far from terrible and I like it 95% of the time.

I’ve heard of no reliability issues with the 2.0, while the 3.2 has had the rare rocker arm wear issue. Either is a good choice - before the 2.0 was announced I had planned on getting my KL with the 3.2.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Before you buy take the 2T out of town and try it out for a few hours at high cruising speeds plus mountains where it has to work. If you can stand the whine of that little overworked engine or not. Do the same drive with the 3.2 to compare.
So if you like touring 3.2 gets my vote.


2019 Trailhawk Elite
Build date April 2019
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
429 Posts
I love the 2.0T. When I was shopping, I was adamantly opposed to buying a Trailhawk with the 2.0T. I had the same mindset that it was a new engine, it's a 4cyl, and all the rest of the same arguments. Having spent some time driving a friend's 3.2 equipped Trailhawk, both on, and offroad, and renting one for a few days, I had made my decision, V6. Now having never driven a 2.0T, I shopped around for the whole year, and just didn't pull the trigger because I couldn't find one speced to my liking without special order. Fast forward to November 2019, mine kinda fell in my lap. Had everything right, except it was a 2.0T. 10 minute test drive, and I could already tell the whole "drivability" thing and better shifting, and absolute torque difference. It was the last 2019 on the lot, and I got it for the price of a base model equipped 2020. That was a huge insensitive!!! Bought it. Glad I did. The whole drivability thing really shines offroad. Everything is much better, smoother than the exact V6 equipped Trailhawk. Most of the JL guys feel the same way. Plenty of power, especially in the torque department. Ya, it tows 500# less, but who cares? Not me, I love it, it's the perfect Cherokee in my honest opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Before you buy take the 2T out of town and try it out for a few hours at high cruising speeds plus mountains where it has to work. If you can stand the whine of that little overworked engine or not. Do the same drive with the 3.2 to compare.
So if you like touring 3.2 gets my vote.
As mentioned in my post above, I live in Arizona. We regularly take the 2.0T TH/E up to our cabin at 7000' (~2134m), and cruise the roads up to 10,000' (~3048m). Also, the speed limits in AZ are 75 MPH (~120 kph) on some freeways. That translates to 85 MPH (~137 kph) if you drive in the slow lane. I never once noticed the "whine" or the "overworked engine". Heck, I can't even get it into 9th gear!

I had other small-cylinder engines that clearly were overworked and had an unbearable whine when climbing and/or driving at freeway speeds - and they weren't turbos. Also, my impression of the 2.0T is it that it's hands-down the best I've had at holding cruise-control speeds at freeway speeds - maybe +/- 1 MPH (+/- ~1.6 kph).

Is there a whine? Yes. You can hear the turbo when you have your windows open and you are cruising down a narrow country lane with high solid fences to reflect the noise back. Other than that, it's been an exceptionally quiet vehicle.

I'll be the first to admit that while I've driven a 3.2, I haven't taken one to the mountains. Freeway at speed? Yes. I can't say I noticed a significant sound difference. However, I have to say the KL TH/E is up there with the quietest vehicles I've owned.

So, I'm guessing you never actually drove one in these conditions or you had a defective vehicle. Certainly "whine of that little overworked engine" is not my experience. I hope other's will chime in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
its odd but the 2.0t is more like a small diesel or v8, high torque , low rpm redline,

the 3.2 acts more like the "4 cylinder small car engine" and revs to 6500 to get max power.
I dont feel either felt esp. "overworked", yes a turbo engine you hear the turbo.
but I'm not trying to whip out my E-peen here. I owned both engines for years.. so I think my opinion has decent merit as opposed to people who heard about it, or test drove it for 5min etc.
With the 3.2 i had plenty of instances where it would drop 3 or 4 gears down on a small hill with cruise control. I live in ohio no mountains here, but even moderate hills could see it jump from 8th to 5th.
meanwhile the inlaw's 2.4 equinox with 6speed would hold 6th(top gear) on most of same hills -cleveland to buffalo I-90
this is with 4 large people and 4 suitcases.. loaded down.
the 2.0t has no such issues and returns 2-3mpg better than the 3.2 in same conditions with 87 octane.

I also find that the 2.0 is much better suited to the 9speed than my 3.2 ever was. Of course the 2.0 also has better axle gearing(higher numerically) being the 4cyl.. which makes no sense because it has more torque than the 3.2 but I'm just glad for it.

Now if they want to redesign the cherokee and put the zf-8speed in and make it primary rwd chassis I'd be the first in line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Well I drove a 2019 2T across the Rockies from Edmonton to Vancouver Fully loaded about 2600 km.
Never again but maybe I’d like it in a small 2 seater sports car.
As I own a 3.2 and I’m always using the Tach, noticeable difference in rpm.
I’ve had 4 jeeps in 8 years so I do like experimenting.


2019 Trailhawk Elite
Build date April 2019
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
If I had to do it over again I would get the 2.0. I got the chance recently to drive a coworkers 2019 with the 2.0 and its definitely more peppy once the turbo kicks in than my 2014 3.2. Also from what I have read the 2.0 is easier to work on since a smaller engine in a bay made for a V6. Also I and others have had the dreaded and common roller rocker bearing failures which damage the camshafts on the V6. Oil coolers leaking are another issue on the V6's. Both these issues have not been resolved by FCA from what I've read. The dealers just throw more parts at them especially bad if out of warranty. The 2.0 just uses a good old spin on metal oil filter. Not the paper cartridge crap the 3.2 uses. Yeah the 2.0 has a turbo but those are most always made by 3rd parties and pretty stout so long as you use the right oil and change it regularly. I would not own another 3.2 myself. Too many issues and breakdowns all under 100k miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I chose 3.2 and I work at a Chrysler dealer.
-2.0t costs $500 more
-lots of mixed issues with gdi turbo engines (gas in oil, caked up valves)
-lots of extra expensive **** to fix in the long run as well. (Turbo, fuel system)
-3.2 takes 5w20
-rocker arm was only issue, part numbers have changed a bit on the rocker arm, I believe the part has been updated to no longer be an issue on 2020s not sure of build date
-instant torque
-towing a landscape trailer
-Lack of 2.0t inventory
-great engine overall with good gas mileage. With ESS I'm averaging 27mpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
I have the 3.2. Two actually, Engine replaced at 75k, but Rvd9431 above makes a great point about the rocker arms update. Previously owned Saab Aero's 4 cl Turbos for the 15+ years prior to the Jeep and really loved the Hi torque at those low rpm ranges (big Time). It's like the engine effortlessly moves you. Good Luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
2.0 for me, the 9 speed was reworked in 2019 to work better with the 2.0, better fuel economy, I average about 32-33 mpg, and of course the extra 56 lb-ft of Torque you get. I also haul a fully load 3900 lb boat behind mine with no issues at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Thanks,
I know the turbo is supposed to use 91 octane (good luck finding 91 around here in Indiana) and I assume high performance oil like the Dart needed as well as more expensive plugs etc.
The 2.0 has had a few years under its belt, unlike the Dart 1.4, so its long term reliabilty is something I want to know. Any major issues inherent to the 2.0?
The 2.0 also needs spark plugs every 60k miles compared to every 100k in the 3.2. It also requires Full synthetic as opposed to conventional in the 3.2. That is in addition to taking premium fule.

I have the 3.2 and I love it in the Cherokee
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
2.0 for me, the 9 speed was reworked in 2019 to work better with the 2.0, better fuel economy, I average about 32-33 mpg, and of course the extra 56 lb-ft of Torque you get. I also haul a fully load 3900 lb boat behind mine with no issues at all.
The most "reworking" done might have been gearing change and/or software changes, but it's the exact same trans internally
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Yea if you keep the turbo spooled I'm sure it's a fun drive . Bet they are fun in sport mode too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Both engines are solid. I ended up going with the 2.0t. due to better drivability. So far, I’ve not burned any oil, which was one concern I had based on the reports from the 2.4L. As it turns out the 2.0 has nothing in common with that engine.

I really don’t hear turbo whine, but under hard acceleration the engine is a bit louder than the 3.2 V6.
Mileage can be excellent. I’ve had tanks of mostly freeway driving that were better than 33 mpg measured.
The downside is that those numbers plummet rapidly if you’ve got your foot in the pedal.
The upside is the turbo is a blast to drive.
The 3.2 has proven reliability, but the 2.0t is building a record of good performance as well.
Again, you really cannot go wrong with either choice.
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top