2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

181 - 185 of 185 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Just as the 3.2 is a completely different 'animal' than the 2.0.

The 2.0 is a brand new design while the 3.2 has a track record of many years
The 2.0 costs far more to use and maintain than the 3.2, unless of course the owner does not wish to have available maximum performance all the time-then the little engine that blows will cost just a bit more to maintain but more to acquire.
The 2.0 tries, with all the drama that the little turbine can rev up to, to be able to match the 3.2 in towing capacity/tongue weight/trailer size and yes, off road use but falls short in each and every attempt. Its gets close but the blower just cannot blow enough-not enough Rev-atio....

These are the facts, as listed in the owners manual, provided by the great engineers at Jeep-but the 2.0 community is resistant to having an intelligent exchange regarding the differences between the engines.

The only compelling reason to get the 2.n0T is to experience that brief moment of ever so slightly faster acceleration and power which regrettably arrives at a point in the power band to be essentially worthless-but hey, it probably will still feel good-you know; spinning tires, dust and such.

Rev on boys.
The 3.2 has been around since 2014. The 2.0L Turbo has been around since 2018 (JL first got it). 8 years vs 4 years. There are many differences between the 2.0L Turbo and the version used by Fiat in the Alfa Romeo Giulia, but there are similarities as well. The current incarnation of the 2.0L Turbo is considered a derivative of the Fiat 2.0L Turbo, which came out in 2016. Yes, the 3.2 has been around longer, but I would hardly consider 4 years (or 6 if you count the Fiat one) a "brand new engine". Check out the "facts" for yourself:

FCA Global Medium Engine - Wikipedia

Not sure how much "far more" is, but the 2.0L Turbo taking 91 octane (not required unless, as you say, one desires maximum performance). BTW - the original 3.2 was tested by the EPA on "Midgrade" gas - only recently retested using "Regular". In fact, the 2014 Owner's Manual states the for the 3.2 engine: "The manufacturer recommends the use of 89 octane premium gasoline for optimum performance". So we can split hairs on what fuel grade gives the best performance for each engine. As far as "facts" go, according to the EPA the fuel costs for the 2.0L Turbo is LESS than for the 3.2! Since we are speaking of "facts", check it out for yourself:


Over the life of a vehicle, Yes, the 2.0L Turbo requires the more expensive full synthetic engine oil but judging by the posts on the forum many use the full-syn in their 3.2 as well. Same battery.

"Falls short in every attempt" at what? Towing is rated at 4,000 for the 2.0L Turbo and 4,5000 for the 3.2. That's not "falling short", that dealing with heat. 1 HP less is significant? For sure 56 ft-llb of torque along a flatter torque curve is significant to me. And from what I can tell, the JL community pretty much likes the little engine that could - especially for off-roading.

So you don't have a lot of "facts", you are just trolling. Forget inflammatory words like "brand new", "far more", and "drama" - unless you are aiming to stir up emotions. In that case, you succeeded.

Keep on beating that dead horse!! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
Just as the 3.2 is a completely different 'animal' than the 2.0.

The 2.0 is a brand new design while the 3.2 has a track record of many years
The 2.0 costs far more to use and maintain than the 3.2, unless of course the owner does not wish to have available maximum performance all the time-then the little engine that blows will cost just a bit more to maintain but more to acquire.
The 2.0 tries, with all the drama that the little turbine can rev up to, to be able to match the 3.2 in towing capacity/tongue weight/trailer size and yes, off road use but falls short in each and every attempt. Its gets close but the blower just cannot blow enough-not enough Rev-atio....

These are the facts, as listed in the owners manual, provided by the great engineers at Jeep-but the 2.0 community is resistant to having an intelligent exchange regarding the differences between the engines.

The only compelling reason to get the 2.n0T is to experience that brief moment of ever so slightly faster acceleration and power which regrettably arrives at a point in the power band to be essentially worthless-but hey, it probably will still feel good-you know; spinning tires, dust and such.

Rev on boys.

214051


Ok, at this point you are just trolling. I see this thread dying off quickly now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
Just as the 3.2 is a completely different 'animal' than the 2.0.
Well duh...We already knew that!!! One's a Pentastar, and one isn't!!! In the case of the 2.4 Tigershark, and the 3.2, umm, they're BOTH Pentastars!!! BTW. how come the 3.2 doesn't have a catchy nickname???🤔😎
<Emojis inserted
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
The 3.2 has been around since 2014. The 2.0L Turbo has been around since 2018 (JL first got it). 8 years vs 4 years. There are many differences between the 2.0L Turbo and the version used by Fiat in the Alfa Romeo Giulia, but there are similarities as well. The current incarnation of the 2.0L Turbo is considered a derivative of the Fiat 2.0L Turbo, which came out in 2016. Yes, the 3.2 has been around longer, but I would hardly consider 4 years (or 6 if you count the Fiat one) a "brand new engine". Check out the "facts" for yourself:

FCA Global Medium Engine - Wikipedia

Not sure how much "far more" is, but the 2.0L Turbo taking 91 octane (not required unless, as you say, one desires maximum performance). BTW - the original 3.2 was tested by the EPA on "Midgrade" gas - only recently retested using "Regular". In fact, the 2014 Owner's Manual states the for the 3.2 engine: "The manufacturer recommends the use of 89 octane premium gasoline for optimum performance". So we can split hairs on what fuel grade gives the best performance for each engine. As far as "facts" go, according to the EPA the fuel costs for the 2.0L Turbo is LESS than for the 3.2! Since we are speaking of "facts", check it out for yourself:


Over the life of a vehicle, Yes, the 2.0L Turbo requires the more expensive full synthetic engine oil but judging by the posts on the forum many use the full-syn in their 3.2 as well. Same battery.

"Falls short in every attempt" at what? Towing is rated at 4,000 for the 2.0L Turbo and 4,5000 for the 3.2. That's not "falling short", that dealing with heat. 1 HP less is significant? For sure 56 ft-llb of torque along a flatter torque curve is significant to me. And from what I can tell, the JL community pretty much likes the little engine that could - especially for off-roading.

So you don't have a lot of "facts", you are just trolling. Forget inflammatory words like "brand new", "far more", and "drama" - unless you are aiming to stir up emotions. In that case, you succeeded.

Keep on beating that dead horse!! :)
Another member on here posted real time torque reading from his Turbo cherokee, and found it only made more torque than the V6 in a narrow 1000-1500rpm range, and through my testing of both my V6's they starting making more torque down lower than the turbo engine did. I have no doubts the 2.0 in the wranglers is a better option than the V6, but in the Cherokee Jeep continues to totally ruin the performance with their engine/transmission tuning
 
181 - 185 of 185 Posts
Top