2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

201 - 220 of 288 Posts

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
One of the first cars I drove was a 1980 VW Rabbit... 4 doors (not the GTI)... That little thing with a 1.6L could shame that Mini Hemi (2.6L) and I even beat my buddy's V6 Skylark. Loved that Rabbit...
214144

Now when I think in German, I think about this!!! 520hp of naturally aspirated, pure sexiness!!! 0-60 in 3 seconds, 11 flat in the quarter mile, and a top "Chipped" speed of 195mph!!! So if you had Jennifer Aniston on one side, and this car on the other, and told me to pick one??? Well, that's a no brainier, and besides, I'm already married!!!😉
Porsche, there is no substitute!!!🏁
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,499 Posts
In the same way the 2.0 is better than the 3.2??? ;)
So gets better fuel economy but requires premium fuel to get the performance increase that is apparently better than the V6, yet no one can show me concrete evidence that the Turbo is faster than the V6?

Even if overall the Turbo got better fuel economy. (example 1L less fuel consumption per 100kms) its still more expensive to operate than the V6 because of the premium fuel price
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,304 Posts
I ended up with the 2.0T due to better drivability and torque.
I also purchased Lifetime MaxCare, which is no longer available.
I have no regrets, but if I had to purchase now with no Lifetime MaxCare available, I might choose the 3.2.
Both engines seem solid, and the Pentastars seem to have put the early issues behind them. We've had several 3.6's in the family and all have been trouble free.
My parents have a 2011 Caravan with the 3.6 and it's been problem free.

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
How is the 2.4 a Pentastar?

The 3.2 is from the Pentastar family, aka the Phoenix engine family under development, there was also a 3.0 version planned and a boosted version planned as well IIRC

In the same way the 2.0 is better than the 3.2??? ;)
If you stay out of boost, but then you're driving a 2.0l 4 cylinder so not sure the point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
So gets better fuel economy but requires premium fuel to get the performance increase that is apparently better than the V6, yet no one can show me concrete evidence that the Turbo is faster than the V6?

Even if overall the Turbo got better fuel economy. (example 1L less fuel consumption per 100kms) its still more expensive to operate than the V6 because of the premium fuel price
The National average of prices in the US-15April21. reg $2.86 premium only .60 more at $3.46

The EPA numbers '21, using REGULAR fuel

2.0 Active Drive 1 4wd 24-21/29
II 23-20/27
TH 22-20/26


3.2 24-21/29
23-20/27
21-18/24

From what I have read the 2.0 is faster in the quarter by about a blistering second-key word, ABOUT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
According to Motortrend

2.0 zero to 60 is 7.6 and the 1/4 is 16.0 @ 85.9 mph while the 3.2 is 6.8 and the 1/4 15.3 @ 89.9 guessing that the times are reversed at any rate the performance difference here is less than insignificant-wouldn't all agree?
 

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
So gets better fuel economy but requires premium fuel to get the performance increase that is apparently better than the V6, yet no one can show me concrete evidence that the Turbo is faster than the V6?

Even if overall the Turbo got better fuel economy. (example 1L less fuel consumption per 100kms) its still more expensive to operate than the V6 because of the premium fuel price
You've never heard me claim for it to be any faster, cuz it's not, but it is proving to be a great little powerplant and, it's sure fun to drive, and performs very well in our Cherokees. That's all I've ever been saying Tyler, but it's sure fun debating, and I hope we continue to have fun with it for years to come...LOL!!!😎
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,499 Posts
According to Motortrend

2.0 zero to 60 is 7.6 and the 1/4 is 16.0 @ 85.9 mph while the 3.2 is 6.8 and the 1/4 15.3 @ 89.9 guessing that the times are reversed at any rate the performance difference here is less than insignificant-wouldn't all agree?
The times aren't reversed here is a ADII 3.2 vs a 2.0 Turbo Limited and note the limited is actually weighs a bit less than the ADII



3.2 = faster by a decent margin.


Here is the motortrend 2019 TH Turbo performance



Here is the motortrend 2014 TH performance (2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk Review - Long-Term Verdict - Motor Trend)



So you can see the 3.2 is appreciably faster in the first example, and in the second example nearly the same (slightly slower) but in the real world basically identical.

I even have a PM from a member here who had a FWD 3.2 he raced at the track and then got a 2.0 FWD, and the 2.0 was slower than his 3.2, the 60fts were the issue with the turbo being slower off the line.

All along i've said the Turbo lacks proper tuning and that's what is holding it back, want proof of that take a look at this comparison to a Stelvio 2.0 Turbo (yes I know its a different engine)



Less than 100lbs of weight difference. The stelvio has 10hp more and 11ft/lbs more torque, but is 2.1s quicker in 0-60 and 1.5s faster in the 1/4 mile. Oh and the difference of 10mph trap speed as well.

So given the above information I would say that once again Jeep has some serious issues with how the cherokees are tuned and again the turbo is not faster than the V6
 

·
Registered
Blackbird 2019_Limited_4x4 Blk_on_Blk Tech_Lux_Nav
Joined
·
756 Posts
If you stay out of boost, but then you're driving a 2.0l 4 cylinder so not sure the point.
You took it a bit out of context, in context, the 2.0T is better than the 3.2 in fuel economy... And the EPA doesn't test without boost ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
The times aren't reversed here is a ADII 3.2 vs a 2.0 Turbo Limited and note the limited is actually weighs a bit less than the ADII



3.2 = faster by a decent margin.


Here is the motortrend 2019 TH Turbo performance



Here is the motortrend 2014 TH performance (2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk Review - Long-Term Verdict - Motor Trend)



So you can see the 3.2 is appreciably faster in the first example, and in the second example nearly the same (slightly slower) but in the real world basically identical.

I even have a PM from a member here who had a FWD 3.2 he raced at the track and then got a 2.0 FWD, and the 2.0 was slower than his 3.2, the 60fts were the issue with the turbo being slower off the line.

All along i've said the Turbo lacks proper tuning and that's what is holding it back, want proof of that take a look at this comparison to a Stelvio 2.0 Turbo (yes I know its a different engine)



Less than 100lbs of weight difference. The stelvio has 10hp more and 11ft/lbs more torque, but is 2.1s quicker in 0-60 and 1.5s faster in the 1/4 mile. Oh and the difference of 10mph trap speed as well.

So given the above information I would say that once again Jeep has some serious issues with how the cherokees are tuned and again the turbo is not faster than the V6

Interesting - so as a satisfied owner posts, the 2.0 appeals to a segment for the perception of increased driving satisfaction; nothing wrong with this so long as the owner has the little guy spinning an ADII system, or an AD locker.

Real Jeeps have low range don't you know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
Interesting - so as a satisfied owner posts, the 2.0 appeals to a segment for the perception of increased driving satisfaction; nothing wrong with this so long as the owner has the little guy spinning an ADII system, or an AD locker.

Real Jeeps have low range don't you know.

Real Jeeps have 4LO. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: UN4GTBL

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Here's my take from owning both at the same time:

The V6 is, naturally, a little smoother. No lag. But I've been driving turbos for a long time, so their tendencies don't bug me.

The biggest difference to me is that, depending on driving conditions, the 2.0T offers both power and mileage, whereas the V6 offers mainly power. With the pandemic, our driving habits have changed: lots and lots of very short suburban and city trips. Lots of going up and down big hills (as always). In these conditions, the V6's mileage is, frankly, terrible. The 2.0T's mileage isn't great either, but it's better. But the last time we took a long trip, more than a year ago (sadly), the turbo got excellent highway mileage, well above 30 mpg.

My perception is that the 2.0T is a little faster in midrange acceleration, say, going from 30 to 60, but I haven't attempted to measure it. But the 2.0T obviously responds better when the turbocharger doesn't have to be spun up from zero.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
680 Posts
This is like the old 2.4 vs 3.2 debate, where the lesser engine is totally bullied. My 2.4 gave me six years of trouble free service, and not once was I in a situation where I needed V6 power.
Obviously I chose the wrong engine - again!
Trading my 2.0T on a 3.2 - NOT!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
This is like the old 2.4 vs 3.2 debate, where the lesser engine is totally bullied. My 2.4 gave me six years of trouble free service, and not once was I in a situation where I needed V6 power.
Obviously I chose the wrong engine - again!
Trading my 2.0T on a 3.2 - NOT!

We have both the 2.4 in the Lat+ and the 3.2 in the TH. The 2.4 is great
as a commuter, and the way my wife drives she gets 4-5 MPG better than
me. But remote starts, and floor boarding the 3.2 sometimes kills my MPG. LOL

My only complaint is having to top off the oil on the 2.4. Otherwise not a
bad engine. It just doesn't have the get up and go I like with the 3.2.
Plus one day I plan on towing a boat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
It is surprising to me that one would opt out of any engine he/she was completely satisfied with when it comes to buying again.

For those who have both the 2.0 and 3.2-if you could have just one which would it be/why-please be specific as many are trying to decide between the two choices and do you tow or spend time off road?

For owners of the 2.4 just how much oil do you have to add every 1k miles or so?

Additionally could all fuel economy reports cite the method/culprit for obtaining the data?

Like the good Joe often said; 'all we want are the facts ma'am'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
If I may add one thing to this, to settle this once, and for all, attach a 3500lb trailer to the same year Cherokees with identical trim levels, but the engine being the only difference. Take them up the Ike Gaunlet like what TFL has done for years, and see in that particular circumstance which engine does better.

See which one does better downhill for braking applications (will the turbo create more engine braking?), and see if the low-end torque of the 2.0 will keep the whole thing going up the hill at 60mph, or if the high-revving V6 will outperform in the end? And then of course, see how fuel economy compares.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Flybynightcru

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
I'll also throw in, towing anything, of course within the vehicle specific towing recommendation, is about 20% vehicle, and 80% driver ability...😎
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Just why can the 3.2 pull more/bigger using less expensive fuel ?-inquiring minds really do want to know.
Two separate questions there: 1. The reason the V6 uses "less expensive fuel" is that the turbocharged engine needs higher octane to operate at peak performance, due to its higher pressures and temperatures. But the fact that the lower-octane gas is cheaper doesn't mean it has any less energy content. This is not a case of doing more with less.

2. Heat is also the reason the recommended towing maximum is less for the 2.0T than for the V6. Theoretically, the turbo has enough power and torque to pull the same load, but it'll get hotter doing so, and evidently Jeep has decided that it's safer to go with a lower limit to reduce heat output.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UN4GTBL
201 - 220 of 288 Posts
Top