2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

221 - 240 of 288 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
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.
thank you , the 3.2 can tow a larger, heavier trailer with a greater tongue weight on fuel with less octane than the other engine hence I believe the 'do more with less' position is quite accurate.

To the members who take exception to some of my mechanical monikers-does a turbo blow air into an engine ?
 

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
thank you , the 3.2 can tow a larger, heavier trailer with a greater tongue weight on fuel with less octane than the other engine hence I believe the 'do more with less' position is quite accurate.

To the members who take exception to some of my mechanical monikers-does a turbo blow air into an engine ?
214526
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
thank you , the 3.2 can tow a larger, heavier trailer with a greater tongue weight on fuel with less octane than the other engine hence I believe the 'do more with less' position is quite accurate.
Since octane is not equivalent to energy content, it's irrelevant to an analysis of comparative engine efficiency. It would make a lot more sense to look at comparative engine displacement if you want to make a "more with less" argument. Of course, that approach would not yield your preferred conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Since octane is not equivalent to energy content, it's irrelevant to an analysis of comparative engine efficiency. It would make a lot more sense to look at comparative engine displacement if you want to make a "more with less" argument. Of course, that approach would not yield your preferred conclusion.
214528
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I have been driving turbo 4cyl vehicles continuously as my daily drivers for the past 36 years. In all those years one of the things I have learned is it is very hard to get the promised mileage if the engine does not make enough power off boost to provide acceptable performance.


What I mean by this is if you need to be going into boost just to keep up with traffic or pull away from a light then you will not get the advertised mileage.

For example; I have a 17 Mustang with the 2.3 liter Ecoboost 4cyl. I can easily drive the car for my entire 25 mile commute while keeping up or pulling away from traffic without the engine ever going into boost. I easily beat the EPA highway rating of 28mpg on my commute which is two lane road with light traffic. But when I want to get up and go I have 350 HP / 390 ft-lbs of torque on tap (engine is not stock).
My brother has a Chevy Cruze with a 1.4 turbo. The performance off boost is dismal forcing you to stomp on it just to keep up with traffic. As such he gets worse mileage than I do with the Mustang.

A 4x4 Cherokee weighs about 4000lbs, that is all together to much weight to push around with a 2.0 engine, hence you wind up being in boost all the time and that is the reason you are getting any better mileage than the 3.2 v6. The Cherokee would be better served with a turbo version of the 2.4. It would overall get better mileage and could have a significant power advantage.

The 2.0 turbo would be better served in the Renagade (about 800 lbs less than a Cherokee) or Compass (about 500 lbs less than a Cherokee).





Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
I have been driving turbo 4cyl vehicles continuously as my daily drivers for the past 36 years. In all those years one of the things I have learned is it is very hard to get the promised mileage if the engine does not make enough power off boost to provide acceptable performance.


What I mean by this is if you need to be going into boost just to keep up with traffic or pull away from a light then you will not get the advertised mileage.

For example; I have a 17 Mustang with the 2.3 liter Ecoboost 4cyl. I can easily drive the car for my entire 25 mile commute while keeping up or pulling away from traffic without the engine ever going into boost. I easily beat the EPA highway rating of 28mpg on my commute which is two lane road with light traffic. But when I want to get up and go I have 350 HP / 390 ft-lbs of torque on tap (engine is not stock).
My brother has a Chevy Cruze with a 1.4 turbo. The performance off boost is dismal forcing you to stomp on it just to keep up with traffic. As such he gets worse mileage than I do with the Mustang.

A 4x4 Cherokee weighs about 4000lbs, that is all together to much weight to push around with a 2.0 engine, hence you wind up being in boost all the time and that is the reason you are getting any better mileage than the 3.2 v6. The Cherokee would be better served with a turbo version of the 2.4. It would overall get better mileage and could have a significant power advantage.

The 2.0 turbo would be better served in the Renagade (about 800 lbs less than a Cherokee) or Compass (about 500 lbs less than a Cherokee).





Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
I average 23-25 MPG with my 2.0T equipped Trailhawk, like you say though, the power is there when you need it, and it also tows my 3500lb trailer up and over the Rockies on a pretty regular basis. Love that engine, and it works perfectly for the Cherokee platform...😎
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
all hot air boys, literally-the turbo engine requires the vastly more expensive high octane fuel to produce full power because the wallet draining premium gas resists power robbing knocking/pinging.

But wait, there's more-even with super high octane fuel it STILL doesn't have the joules to match the 3.2 in terms of getting the job done.

Higher octane=higher price which sadly guys means that the 3.2 does do more for less.

Whats up with that 65k spark plug change ?
 

·
Registered
Blackbird 2019_Limited_4x4 Blk_on_Blk Tech_Lux_Nav
Joined
·
759 Posts
Bless your heart, to have found melioration in the V6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flybynightcru

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
680 Posts
A 4x4 Cherokee weighs about 4000lbs, that is all together to much weight to push around with a 2.0 engine, hence you wind up being in boost all the time and that is the reason you are getting any better mileage than the 3.2 v6. The Cherokee would be better served with a turbo version of the 2.4. It would overall get better mileage and could have a significant power advantage.
Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
Are you speaking from experience of owning a 2.0 Cherokee, or is this merely speculation based on your 36 years of ownership experience with "other" turbo fours?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flybynightcru

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Are you speaking from experience of owning a 2.0 Cherokee, or is this merely speculation based on your 36 years of ownership experience with "other" turbo fours?
I am speaking from 36 years of experience owning turbo fours.

I see no compelling reason for the 2.0 turbo in the Cherokee. It costs more, does not make more power as evidenced by quicker times from the 3.2, doesn't get enough better mileage to offset the cost of premium fuel and has a lower max towing capacity. I love turbo engines but this engine didn't make sense to me in the Cherokee.

Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
I have been driving turbo 4cyl vehicles continuously as my daily drivers for the past 36 years. In all those years one of the things I have learned is it is very hard to get the promised mileage if the engine does not make enough power off boost to provide acceptable performance.
. . .
A 4x4 Cherokee weighs about 4000lbs, that is all together to much weight to push around with a 2.0 engine, hence you wind up being in boost all the time and that is the reason you are getting any better mileage than the 3.2 v6.
I assume you wanted to include a "not" in your sentence about mileage quoted above. I agree with your general observation about very small turbocharged engines, but not with your specific comment about the 2.0T in the Cherokee. In my experience (as you can see, I have both engines), the turbo does get noticeably better mileage than the V6, in both city and highway driving.

As to whether the mileage improvement is enough, or more than enough, to compensate for the higher price of the gas typically used in the 2.0T, that depends on several different factors, obviously including the average mileages obtained and the exact prices paid. We've had entire elaborate discussions of this issue here in the past. It's an empirical question. An accurate answer can't just be hand-waved into being based on general principles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I assume you wanted to include a "not" in your sentence about mileage quoted above. I agree with your general observation about very small turbocharged engines, but not with your specific comment about the 2.0T in the Cherokee. In my experience (as you can see, I have both engines), the turbo does get noticeably better mileage than the V6, in both city and highway driving.

As to whether the mileage improvement is enough, or more than enough, to compensate for the higher price of the gas typically used in the 2.0T, that depends on several different factors, obviously including the average mileages obtained and the exact prices paid. We've had entire elaborate discussions of this issue here in the past. It's an empirical question. An accurate answer can't just be hand-waved into being based on general principles.
An empirical evaluation involves the senses or perhaps more accurately, emotion-something just -feels- more satisfying/faster more powerful and as I have posted this can be a valid reason for some to base a decision on.

I think the best way owners like you could help end the debate is to tell us which one you would give up if you had to get rid of one in the very very near future.

With the way things are going would you keep the less capable but better feeling more highly stressed turbo needing more frequent maint and premium fuel or would you opt for the 3.2 knowing the advantages it has listed in the manual?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
An empirical evaluation involves the senses or perhaps more accurately, emotion-something just -feels- more satisfying/faster more powerful and as I have posted this can be a valid reason for some to base a decision on.
While I wholeheartedly agree that subjective feelings are part of the human process of evaluating automotive performance, that's not what "empirical" means in this context. It simply refers to data gathered through experience (rather than axioms announced prior to experience), which here includes things like real-world fuel prices and actual, on-the-road mileage figures.

I'm sensing from this overall discussion that one point needs to be clarified: The 2.0T engine does not require premium fuel. According to Jeep, it requires only 87 octane. 91 octane gas can produce "optimal" performance, especially in situations like towing or other high-heat operating conditions.

This means that with a 2.0T, you can experiment as desired to find the perfect mix of economy, convenience, and performance for you. You can use 87 octane gas if you want to. Or you can try 89 octane and see how that works. And note that the premium fuel recommended for optimal performance is only 91 octane, not 93. 93 octane gas tends to have the most jacked-up prices, i.e., higher costs that are disproportionate to the octane increase from the consumer's point of view.

I run premium in the 2.0T just as a matter of habit, but I could see going with 87 if I wanted to economize as much as possible. Only our 2018 Cherokee with the V6 has the towing package (we don't use it, but it's there if we need it), so I don't have to worry about that factor in the 2019 with the turbo. I don't know exactly what the performance penalty is for using 87 rather than 91 octane, but I imagine that in most normal driving situations, it's quite small. I used to have an Escape with the 2.0 EcoBoost, and Ford published data indicating that the expected drop in peak hp from going from premium to regular gas was only about five hp in that year's engine configuration, from 240 hp to 235 hp. I experimented with different octanes, even creating a homemade, 90-octane blend by pumping half 87 and half 93, and the perceived performance impacts were minor. Again, if you're not always carrying around the maximum payload in 90-degree weather, you don't have to worry much about this factor.
 

·
Registered
2019 Trailhawk Elite 2.0T Olive Green Metallic Pearlcoat
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
While I wholeheartedly agree that subjective feelings are part of the human process of evaluating automotive performance, that's not what "empirical" means in this context. It simply refers to data gathered through experience (rather than axioms announced prior to experience), which here includes things like real-world fuel prices and actual, on-the-road mileage figures.

I'm sensing from this overall discussion that one point needs to be clarified: The 2.0T engine does not require premium fuel. According to Jeep, it requires only 87 octane. 91 octane gas can produce "optimal" performance, especially in situations like towing or other high-heat operating conditions.

This means that with a 2.0T, you can experiment as desired to find the perfect mix of economy, convenience, and performance for you. You can use 87 octane gas if you want to. Or you can try 89 octane and see how that works. And note that the premium fuel recommended for optimal performance is only 91 octane, not 93. 93 octane gas tends to have the most jacked-up prices, i.e., higher costs that are disproportionate to the octane increase from the consumer's point of view.

I run premium in the 2.0T just as a matter of habit, but I could see going with 87 if I wanted to economize as much as possible. Only our 2018 Cherokee with the V6 has the towing package (we don't use it, but it's there if we need it), so I don't have to worry about that factor in the 2019 with the turbo. I don't know exactly what the performance penalty is for using 87 rather than 91 octane, but I imagine that in most normal driving situations, it's quite small. I used to have an Escape with the 2.0 EcoBoost, and Ford published data indicating that the expected drop in peak hp from going from premium to regular gas was only about five hp in that year's engine configuration, from 240 hp to 235 hp. I experimented with different octanes, even creating a homemade, 90-octane blend by pumping half 87 and half 93, and the perceived performance impacts were minor. Again, if you're not always carrying around the maximum payload in 90-degree weather, you don't have to worry much about this factor.
Well said, but I doubt he'll be convinced!!! LOL...I run 89 octane, which equals 91 where I live at 5400 feet above sea level...😎
 
221 - 240 of 288 Posts
Top