2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

141 - 160 of 185 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I did answer you, because it doesn't need a higher gear ratio. Why would Jeep put any higher, or lower at that matter final ratio than necessary for optimal performance, fuel mileage, etc??? This isn't your Dad's old CJ with 4.56 Dana's designed for crawling around, with a top speed of like 65. There's a lot of factors that go into it, optimal powerband range of the engine, the fact that we have a 9 speed transmission, and other various parts of the math equation, equal what we have. Also the fact that final overdrive gears (plural) in the ZF9 are obviously pretty high as well. I'm just guessing, but I'm going to say the overdrive probably starts at around 7th gear???😎
I guessing a possible reason maybe is to minimize the engine's time of being in boost. This is a way to reduce stress on internal components.
This way to extend the engine's life before it goes Boom.


213900



Flybynightcru
Thank you for admitting the 3.2 L V6 is a superior engine
3,2 V6 L vs 2.0 T argument is settled.
( Yes I'm throwing gas on a Fire )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Just be certain to throw only premium fuel on the fire..

The issue is not whether the driver of a 2.0 CAN tow the same as a driver with a 3.2 but rather is the 2.0 -designed- to do so and the answer is a clear-its in the manual - NO.

The 3.2 -BY DESIGN- is capable of towing 500 lbs more than the 2.0, can handle 50lb more tongue weight than the 2.0 and can punch roughly an 9% larger hole in our atmosphere than than the 2.0

But wait, there's more - for the 2.0 to be able to do this one must be feeding it super duper gasoline because:

from pg 413 '21 owners manual

2.0 engine
"This engine is designed to meet all emission requirements, and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance,when using unleaded "regular" gasoline having an octane rating of 87,as specified by the (R+M/2)) method. The use of 91 or higher octane "premium" gasoline will allow these engines to operate to optimal performance This increase in performance is most noticeable in hot weather or other heavier load conditions, such as towing" (off roading included ????)

2.4L and 3.2 Engines

"These engines are designed to meet all emission requirements, and provide optimum fuel economy and performance when using unleaded "Regular" gasoline having a posted octane number of 87 as specified by the (R+M/2) method.
THE USE OF HIGHER OCTANE 'PREMIUM' GASOLINE IS NOT REQUIRED, AS IT WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT OVER 'REGULAR' GASOLINE IN THESE ENGINES.

*caps by me not the Jeep engineers

Are the differences between the two engines significant, yes undeniably.

Are the differences between the two engines requirements significant, maybe/probably-depending on ones situation, expectations and driving situations.

Are the differences between the two engines performance significant-only the buyer can decide for her/him self.

Remember, there are emogi's everywhere in my responses -remember the intent is to objectively (while gently busting and having sport) point out the differences between these two very good engines in these really great little suv's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,005 Posts
Someone (maybe Tyler) posted torque curves for both the 2.0T and 3.2 a while back, and one thing that popped into focus was how the 3.2 had more torque below 2000 rpm. Perhaps this is a factor. Fun fact (mentionned a few times across a few threads here) : in some countries, a 2.4L KL can tow 5500 lbs. Yep. Go figure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
Someone (maybe Tyler) posted torque curves for both the 2.0T and 3.2 a while back, and one thing that popped into focus was how the 3.2 had more torque below 2000 rpm. Perhaps this is a factor. Fun fact (mentionned a few times across a few threads here) : in some countries, a 2.4L KL can tow 5500 lbs. Yep. Go figure.
A fine gentlemen posted some engine torque data from AlfaOBD on his 2.0 Turbo and the data was that the turbo made more torque than the V6 but really only in a spread from about 3500-4500rpm a very narrow window because of the tuning and fact the engine doesn't rev very high before shifting. The turbo is a great motor and if you look back at posts from years ago I wanted a Turbo 2.0 Cherokee but the tuning has left so much to be desired I have no interest in getting one. I have test driven one and found that it feels relatively strong off the line but with a bit of turbo lag but quicky runs out of steam as the RPMs rise, the V6 just keeps pulling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Confirmation please:

Compression ratio: 2.0T 10.0:1 and the 3.2 10.7:1
I searched the compression ratios and found those are correct from several sites, your numbers are correct.
Does anyone know the maximum amount of boost for the 2.0 turbo engine? My searches found zero, zip, nothing on the boost pressure.
Way back I had a 1987 Thunderbird turbo coupe. 2.3L 4 cylinder. The boost could hit 18 psi for about 4-6 seconds, then it was limited to 14 psi. Short time higher boost- HP, I believe that was only allowed in first or second gear, then lowered automatically to a safer level. Third to fifth gear was 14 psi max only.


To Quote Activedrivell,
(while gently busting and having sport)

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
So if a higher compression ratio is better, to a point, than a lower compression ration than the 3.2 gets the nod once again... but why can the the 3.2 using the much less expensive fuel out perform the 2.0 when the driving gets tough?

And, why do the spark plugs last much longer in an engine which can do more work across the scope of intended use??

And, why can the 3.2 do more work using far less expensive fuel and not be required to use the more expensive full synthetic engine oil???

The 'fun' factor is a legitimate reason for certain markets/demographics to opt for one thing over another, as is a 'perceived' increase in fuel economy when all is said and done do these characteristics justify selecting the 2.0 over the 3.2 or is there more? I really do think an awful lot of people want to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,005 Posts
So if a higher compression ratio is better, to a point, than a lower compression ration than the 3.2 gets the nod once again... but why can the the 3.2 using the much less expensive fuel out perform the 2.0 when the driving gets tough?

And, why do the spark plugs last much longer in an engine which can do more work across the scope of intended use??

And, why can the 3.2 do more work using far less expensive fuel and not be required to use the more expensive full synthetic engine oil???

The 'fun' factor is a legitimate reason for certain markets/demographics to opt for one thing over another, as is a 'perceived' increase in fuel economy when all is said and done do these characteristics justify selecting the 2.0 over the 3.2 or is there more? I really do think an awful lot of people want to know.
Cubic inches do count.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Cubic inches do count.
There's no replacement for displacement.... LOL

808-hp supercharged 6.2-liter Hemi V-8.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark_

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
So if a higher compression ratio is better, to a point, than a lower compression ration than the 3.2 gets the nod once again... but why can the the 3.2 using the much less expensive fuel out perform the 2.0 when the driving gets tough?

And, why do the spark plugs last much longer in an engine which can do more work across the scope of intended use??

And, why can the 3.2 do more work using far less expensive fuel and not be required to use the more expensive full synthetic engine oil???

The 'fun' factor is a legitimate reason for certain markets/demographics to opt for one thing over another, as is a 'perceived' increase in fuel economy when all is said and done do these characteristics justify selecting the 2.0 over the 3.2 or is there more? I really do think an awful lot of people want to know.
You are WAY OVERTHINKING THIS!!!😉🥁🥁🥁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Exactly the opposite, no thinking necessary- just have to read the owners manual.

Does anyone have the 0-60 times for both engines-how about real world fuel economy numbers??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
Exactly the opposite, no thinking necessary- just have to read the owners manual.

Does anyone have the 0-60 times for both engines-how about real world fuel economy numbers??
Don't care, not a racecar...I know the 0-60 on my Shelby is about 4 seconds if you're good at grabbing gears...😎
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
847 Posts
So if a higher compression ratio is better, to a point, than a lower compression ration than the 3.2 gets the nod once again... but why can the the 3.2 using the much less expensive fuel out perform the 2.0 when the driving gets tough?

And, why do the spark plugs last much longer in an engine which can do more work across the scope of intended use??

And, why can the 3.2 do more work using far less expensive fuel and not be required to use the more expensive full synthetic engine oil???

The 'fun' factor is a legitimate reason for certain markets/demographics to opt for one thing over another, as is a 'perceived' increase in fuel economy when all is said and done do these characteristics justify selecting the 2.0 over the 3.2 or is there more? I really do think an awful lot of people want to know.

You clearly dont understand turbocharging.. or why a turbo engine would have a lower compression ratio than a N/A engine.
IIRC engineering explained has a good video on that.

I use 87 or 88 95% of the time. Use 92/93 when sams or costco has a good price on it.

as far as out perform if 4500 vs 4000 makes a difference you should be in a bigger tow vehicle such as a grand cherokee or ram.

And who knows why Jeep does anything.. I assume the 2.0 gets the 4cyl axle ratio because its a 4 cylinder
otherwise it could be because they felt like it who knows.
not sure why we everyone doesnt have a higher(numerically) ratio then we could actually use 9th gear.


the 2017 3.2 would drop 4 gears on cruise control on small hills such as i90 towards buffalo (from cleveland)

on the same hills the 2013 2.4L equinox with 1500lbs cargo/passengers holds 6th gear

I could talk alot of trash about the 3.2 but both have their strong points.

PS I owned both, I liked both, the 19 2.0 I like alot more.

This whole thread reeks of my Unit is bigger than yours.

I would own either engine, but definitely would love lifetime maxcare.

and Having owned both I would chose the 2.0t again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,661 Posts
You clearly dont understand turbocharging.. or why a turbo engine would have a lower compression ratio than a N/A engine.
IIRC engineering explained has a good video on that.

I use 87 or 88 95% of the time. Use 92/93 when sams or costco has a good price on it.

as far as out perform if 4500 vs 4000 makes a difference you should be in a bigger tow vehicle such as a grand cherokee or ram.

And who knows why Jeep does anything.. I assume the 2.0 gets the 4cyl axle ratio because its a 4 cylinder
otherwise it could be because they felt like it who knows.
not sure why we everyone doesnt have a higher(numerically) ratio then we could actually use 9th gear.


the 2017 3.2 would drop 4 gears on cruise control on small hills such as i90 towards buffalo (from cleveland)

on the same hills the 2013 2.4L equinox with 1500lbs cargo/passengers holds 6th gear

I could talk alot of trash about the 3.2 but both have their strong points.

PS I owned both, I liked both, the 19 2.0 I like alot more.

This whole thread reeks of my Unit is bigger than yours.
Again, because it just works, really well!!! LOL...😎🥁🥁🥁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Exactly the opposite, no thinking necessary- just have to read the owners manual.

Does anyone have the 0-60 times for both engines-how about real world fuel economy numbers??
Don't care, not a racecar...I know the 0-60 on my Shelby is about 4 seconds if you're good at grabbing gears...😎

Flybynightcru
I enjoy my Trailhawk for its intended purposes, Some off road, winter use, and as a grocery getter. Best multi purpose vehicle that matches my needs.
You need to rephrase your response to: "Both engines work really well !!!!"

On a different note: Time to wake the Shelby up from its winter hibernation.
For your reading pleasure:
Ford Mustang Performance: 0-60 Times, 1/4 Mile Times & Top Speed (mustangspecs.com)
I have a 2019 GT with the Performance Package, tired of shifting gears now days. I have the 10 Speed auto with The level 1 performance package.
It's my sixth GT , First with a automatic.
0-60 3.9 Seconds per link.


IMG_2696.JPG
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
When I think about going fast, the last thing I think of is a Jeep!

Well one exception.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
The thrust of my posts might be getting lost. The 2.0, like the 3.2 is a 'good' engine the really big but is that one does not have to look very far, or do much thinking (or overthinking) to see that there are a few differences, objective/verifiable differences between the two.

The sole advantage of the 2.0 appears to be off the line speed and slightly more power in a certain rpm level/band hence the question about speed; with speed of course usually comes a penalty with regard to miles per gallon which is why I inquired about this also.

Once again, both owners have 'good' engines or certainly as as good as any modern day open deck engine can be but to deny that one seems better suited for the really big picture is to deny the obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
You clearly dont understand turbocharging.. or why a turbo engine would have a lower compression ratio than a N/A engine.
IIRC engineering explained has a good video on that.

I use 87 or 88 95% of the time. Use 92/93 when sams or costco has a good price on it.

as far as out perform if 4500 vs 4000 makes a difference you should be in a bigger tow vehicle such as a grand cherokee or ram.

And who knows why Jeep does anything.. I assume the 2.0 gets the 4cyl axle ratio because its a 4 cylinder
otherwise it could be because they felt like it who knows.
not sure why we everyone doesnt have a higher(numerically) ratio then we could actually use 9th gear.


the 2017 3.2 would drop 4 gears on cruise control on small hills such as i90 towards buffalo (from cleveland)

on the same hills the 2013 2.4L equinox with 1500lbs cargo/passengers holds 6th gear

I could talk alot of trash about the 3.2 but both have their strong points.

PS I owned both, I liked both, the 19 2.0 I like alot more.

This whole thread reeks of my Unit is bigger than yours.

I would own either engine, but definitely would love lifetime maxcare.

and Having owned both I would chose the 2.0t again.

Both engines indeed have their 'strong points' but one has more than the other without significant liabilities or do you dispute this?
 

·
Registered
Blackbird 2019_Limited_4x4 Blk_on_Blk Tech_Lux_Nav
Joined
·
617 Posts
How one rates what is the better engine is totally subjective, what is important for one buyer may not be for another. Soooo, there is no correct answer in this case....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flybynightcru
141 - 160 of 185 Posts
Top