How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee? - Page 14 - Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum

Go Back   Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum > Jeep Platform Discussion > Grand Cherokee - WK2 -

Join Jeep Garage Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #157  
Old 12-20-2015, 03:10 PM
billt's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 5.7L WK2
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 322
Thanked 263 Times in 183 Posts
Rep Power: 2031
billt is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by rszwestko View Post
Car manufactures are not interested in longevity beyond 6-7 years or past 100k miles, they want you to buy a new car every few years. You may be right that a turbo engine won't last longer than a V8 but it will last during the warranty period and then some. Most people don't keep their cars forever and even though the engine may last a long time other components start failing before that.
Sure they are. If they weren't they wouldn't employ so many more higher cost, rust and corrosion resistant materials in their construction. They would use cheap carbon steel everywhere they could. Much like they did 40 years ago when cars rusted through in 5 years or less in temperate climates. People are not going to tolerate paying $50K+ for a vehicle that isn't going to last but a few years. 30 years ago almost no one made Stainless Steel exhausts. Now they're the norm. Same thing with rust resistant body panels.

With cars costing more and more all the time, people are keeping them longer. That is a fact. As far as turbo engines, they have a following. Albeit a small one. But it's no where near the majority of the buying public. Another thing is resale value. No one wants to buy a timed out turbo. They know it's an economic disaster waiting to happen. So do dealers. A turbo beyond the warranty will kill your trade in value, compared to the same vehicle with a standard V-6 or V-8.

Big pushrod V-8 engines that have seen regular maintenance will easily go 300,000 miles. People know this, and will not hesitate to purchased used, with well into 6 figures of mileage if the vehicle is in good condition. Put a turbo in it and they'll run the other way. And with good reason. Turbocharged engines are still looked at as an expensive novelty. And as long as the masses want V-8 pushrod engines, they'll be produced.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #158  
Old 12-20-2015, 05:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 128
Thanks: 13
Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Rep Power: 2177
Paul 92688 is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyMontana View Post
Started as a TT but then went to a single turbo. People love to buy the used TT 3 Series as they are a bit more tunable than the new single turbo inline 6's.


Sent from my iPhone using JeepGarage
I had the 335 with twin turbos before they went to "twin scroll" which in my opinion was a name to hide the fact that it lost a turbo. That was the only car I have owned that possessed a turbo ( or two ) . During it's lifetime, the car lost 1 of the turbos and was replaced under warranty. To be blunt, there is NO CHANCE I would own any car ( especially a BMW ) with a turbo that was outside of the warranty.

I am open to a turbo as the powerplant in a Jeep, but I hate to see such a small displacement engine as it will need to be run into fairly high RPMs to get into the power band. Personally I would prefer a 6 and a smaller amount of boost even if it means a loss of fuel economy over a 4 cyl 2 liter motor.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-20-2015, 05:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 319
Thanks: 11
Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
Rep Power: 2475
rszwestko is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Take a trip to Europe and see how many cars are turbocharged and how many of them are 5, 10 years and older (mostly older). Yes fuel is 3x as much but my point is that turbocharged cars are all over the place, you won't find too many v8 or v6's for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using JeepGarage
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-20-2015, 06:08 PM
billt's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 5.7L WK2
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 322
Thanked 263 Times in 183 Posts
Rep Power: 2031
billt is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul 92688 View Post
.....To be blunt, there is NO CHANCE I would own any car ( especially a BMW ) with a turbo that was outside of the warranty. Paul
Actually, there really isn't a very good reason to own one period. Most all the one's tested had overblown performance and fuel economy claims. Especially when compared to their normally aspirated, much cheaper, counterparts.

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims

Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 12-20-2015, 06:28 PM
silvermax04's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 5.7L WK2
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,394
Thanks: 259
Thanked 569 Times in 440 Posts
Rep Power: 30373
silvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond reputesilvermax04 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Sure they are. If they weren't they wouldn't employ so many more higher cost, rust and corrosion resistant materials in their construction. They would use cheap carbon steel everywhere they could. Much like they did 40 years ago when cars rusted through in 5 years or less in temperate climates. People are not going to tolerate paying $50K+ for a vehicle that isn't going to last but a few years. 30 years ago almost no one made Stainless Steel exhausts. Now they're the norm. Same thing with rust resistant body panels.

With cars costing more and more all the time, people are keeping them longer. That is a fact. As far as turbo engines, they have a following. Albeit a small one. But it's no where near the majority of the buying public. Another thing is resale value. No one wants to buy a timed out turbo. They know it's an economic disaster waiting to happen. So do dealers. A turbo beyond the warranty will kill your trade in value, compared to the same vehicle with a standard V-6 or V-8.

Big pushrod V-8 engines that have seen regular maintenance will easily go 300,000 miles. People know this, and will not hesitate to purchased used, with well into 6 figures of mileage if the vehicle is in good condition. Put a turbo in it and they'll run the other way. And with good reason. Turbocharged engines are still looked at as an expensive novelty. And as long as the masses want V-8 pushrod engines, they'll be produced.
Here is an interesting fact, the average age of a registered light duty vehicle(car/suv/pickup) in this country is 11.5 years old which has been steadily increasing every year for the last 20 years when that number was 8.5 back in 1995. people are keeping them longer as they cost so much and last better then they used to.

In talking about the good old 3.5 ecoboost, a good friend of mine is a diehard ford person and car shopping the F150. In comparing the engines the 5.0L v8 and the ecoboost 3.5L have very similar power specs, the 5.0L has a bit more horsepower and the 3.5L has a bit more torque. the 3.5L weighs 42lbs more overall. the 3.5L claims 1 mpg better on city/hwy/combined. However as my friend along with other f150 people will state the 3.5L ecoboost gets rotten real world mileage fitted to the f150 probably bringing them closer to the same mileage in real world operation if even that. Likely due to the fact that people need to wind out the smaller engine to get it to do the same work. Ford themselves have stated that the direct injection carbon build up issue with that engine will not likely be a problem until after 100k(how reassuring). So given all that, two engines with about the same power and about the same mileage which one would you choose for longer term operation? the more expensive, heavier, more complicated, more moving parts, higher reving, hotter running smaller 3.5L engine which only god knows why is considered an upgrade or the larger displacement 5.0L? My friend is of course looking for the 5.0L but its harder to find on the platinum trim levels because the ecoboost is considered an "upgrade"

Anyway iam not anti-turbo I just go by the numbers and facts not the hype or the glamor, I need to see significant advantages to off set something less reliable long term. not every application is a good turbo application as you can see above. They have their place but trying to stuff them into everything is not always the best decision. BMW has done some good things with turbos on their smaller cars but of course anyone who knows BMW also knows its financial suicide to own BMWs out of warranty, I have a few friends that have fallen into that trap also. Turbos will get there at some point but I am unimpressed with what they are today.

Also the other thing is that as long as the Arabs keep the oil tap cranked all the way to open feeding us cheap crack the V8s wont go anywhere. This wont last for ever but they will do it long enough to destroy the fracking and alternative fuels industry then they will take it back up.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to silvermax04 For This Useful Post:
  #162  
Old 12-20-2015, 07:14 PM
billt's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 5.7L WK2
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 322
Thanked 263 Times in 183 Posts
Rep Power: 2031
billt is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Another fact, is that the old pushrod V-6 and V-8 designs have seen a great deal of improvements over the years in regards to longevity and performance. 1 horsepower per cubic inch used to be a hot rodder's wet dream. Today that type of performance and beyond is not only available from stock V-8's in any showroom, it's commonplace. And it's available with unlimited mileage warranties. Yes, a lot of it can be attributed to cleaner burning unleaded fuel. But it wasn't that long ago if you had ANY engine that made to the 100,000 mile mark without having to remove the heads, it was something you bragged about down at the local bar.

Today you don't even change the spark plugs or coolant until then. Todays modern vehicles with normally aspirated engines go farther, last longer, produce more power, and get better mileage, and with far less maintenance, then the same vehicles of just 20 years ago. This trend will continue, no doubt. Modern designs, better materials and manufacturing methods will make it possible. Not that long ago "Tune Ups" used to be advertised at every service station, and in every newspaper. Most of today's millennial drivers wouldn't even know what one was.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-21-2015, 12:56 AM
Jsboening's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 6.4L SRT WK2
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Rockford, MI
Posts: 1,021
Thanks: 146
Thanked 230 Times in 186 Posts
Rep Power: 2440
Jsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

I feel like I don't want a Twin turbo 4 cylinder doing the job that a much simple V8 can do. Even if the V8 has less torque and hp I'm sticking with it. If a V8 is not offered my money is going elsewhere. I hope this trend of TT 4's in trucks and suv's goes the way of the Dodo. It'll be interesting to see the resale value on these wheezing tt's after they have a 100k on them. I wouldn't touch one.


Sent from my iPad using JeepGarage
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jsboening For This Useful Post:
  #164  
Old 12-21-2015, 07:26 AM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,727
Thanks: 77
Thanked 208 Times in 150 Posts
Rep Power: 160025
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post

With cars costing more and more all the time, people are keeping them longer. That is a fact.

Big pushrod V-8 engines that have seen regular maintenance will easily go 300,000 miles. People know this, and will not hesitate to purchased used, with well into 6 figures of mileage if the vehicle is in good condition.

I wish I could say "Are you serious?" but reality is that you are serious. You are also quoting convenient, misleading truths.

Yes length of ownership of a vehicle has extended over the years. No doubt about it and I am one of those people. Next month my turbocharged Subaru will be 11. We can find any number of statistics to show that. One was quoted above, KBB also mentions it here.

But the manufacturers still have 30 K, 60 K and 100 K maintenance intervals. Most people will still ditch their cars around the 100 k miles mark because of the sudden costs of expensive timing belts, coolant flushes, brakes, tires, struts, bushings, the worn-out upholstery, the road rash, creaking noises and dings and the annoying electric glitches that require expensive modules to replace.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the average American family with 1.9 kids, 1.4 petss, a mortgage and 39.5 mile commute will push their big block V8 car till it reaches 300,000 on the odometer. Or even 200,000. Most will ditch the vehicle when it goes out of warranty at around the 100,000 mile mark or when the first major component that fails.

Your convenient truth this time is that while the classic V8 engine might be simpler, easier to repair and maintain than a turbo, it will not result in a far longer ownership in consumer applications. We are not talking industrial (commercial) applications. It may result in a longer initial ownership perhaps, but not in a second coming. A taxi fleet manager might be having sweaty hands bidding for those used and abused police cars (Crown Vics) or the used Avis/Budget rental fleet, as will your compassionate street corner drug dealer. There is no second coming of the high mileage V8 powered mainstream car or SUV, to be purchased by someone intent on keeping it a long time. The engine might still be up for it, but not the overall package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Turbocharged engines are still looked at as an expensive novelty.
I got educated on this matter on November 4th, in this very thread so I learned my lesson. Turbochargers are a novelty from 110 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Your concept of what represents "modern" is quite laughable. In 1929 the Duesenberg J Model came with a dual overhead cam engine, equipped with 4 valve heads..... And this year the turbocharger celebrated it's 100th birthday, (Invented and patented in 1905.)
What about the convenient truth above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
You're going to spend $1,000.00 more for a smaller, less powerful, far more mechanically complex engine. That delivers 10 horsepower less. And in the process only gives 2 MPG more across the board on more expensive fuel. Where is the upside?
The upside is that all diesel JGC owners are fools who mistakenly chose the measly 245 hp engine over the V8 because they wrongly thought torque, rather than horsepower, is more important in an SUV. Or are they? I will answer my own question and hereby I state that I do not consistently drive my gasoline-powered Jeep between 5200 rpm and 6500 rpm red line where horsepower is more important than torque.

As far as small turbo engines not delivering the stated EPA fuel economy, this is the first time we ever heard such craziness. Fortunately even Consumer Reports acknowledges that
Quote:
though we haven't tested any identical model powered by two different engines for such a direct comparison.
Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims

With emphasis on the bold part, Chevrolet Cruze, Dodge Dart, BMW X3 and the Ford F-150 are the only ones worthy of comparison. Where it did not deliver better fuel economy, it delivered better acceleration. And probably better handling due to less weight over the front axle. And probably polluted less (CO, CO2, NOx, SOx) over the same driven distance.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to f1anatic For This Useful Post:
  #165  
Old 12-21-2015, 07:58 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 319
Thanks: 11
Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
Rep Power: 2475
rszwestko is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Actually, there really isn't a very good reason to own one period. Most all the one's tested had overblown performance and fuel economy claims. Especially when compared to their normally aspirated, much cheaper, counterparts.

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims

I have one and the performance is not overblown in fact the Hp that they quote is lower than on the dyno, I don't know where you google your stuff but its apparent you haven't driven one. Yes they are expensive but there is something addictive in the way the power is delivered from your right foot to the wheels, its hard to explain you just have to drive one for some time to feel it. Costs and reliability aside, its the best SUV I had to date which doesn't mean I won't be getting a Jeep. For most its the badge, for some its just the way the car rides.
(talking about a BMW specifically here I6 turbo)
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-21-2015, 08:20 AM
Jsboening's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 6.4L SRT WK2
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Rockford, MI
Posts: 1,021
Thanks: 146
Thanked 230 Times in 186 Posts
Rep Power: 2440
Jsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond reputeJsboening has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Has any manufacturer ever stated that adding a turbo or twin turbo to their engine has improved it's reliability? And if so, have they ever increased the warranty coverage on that engine?




Sent from my iPhone using JeepGarage
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jsboening For This Useful Post:
  #167  
Old 12-21-2015, 08:28 AM
billt's Avatar
Senior Member
My Jeep: 2015 5.7L WK2
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,348
Thanks: 322
Thanked 263 Times in 183 Posts
Rep Power: 2031
billt is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by rszwestko View Post
Costs and reliability aside,...............
Cost and reliability is what steers most people away from turbo's. That, along with a perceived performance and mileage benefit that simply isn't there. Especially when compared to normally aspirated engines available in the same vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 12-21-2015, 08:31 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 319
Thanks: 11
Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts
Rep Power: 2475
rszwestko is on a distinguished road
Re: How do you feel about a 2.0L TT as the base engine for the 2019 WL Grand Cherokee

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Cost and reliability is what steers most people away from turbo's. That, along with a perceived performance and mileage benefit that simply isn't there. Especially when compared to normally aspirated engines available in the same vehicle.
I was talking about cost of the whole package not the engine.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
grand cherokee

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2019 Grand Wagoneer mattagrella 2019+ Wagoneer & Grand Wagoneer-WS 50 11-14-2016 10:40 AM
JGC redesign moved possibly to 2019 dsi jeep Grand Cherokee - WK2 - 34 08-27-2015 11:04 AM
What grade of gas are you usin(g and do you feel the diff? OutlanderTT Engine Performance/Intakes/Exhausts 20 01-02-2013 01:08 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 - JeepGarage.Org
The Jeep Grand Cherokee Owners Community

JeepGarage.org is in no way associated with or endorsed by FCA US LLC. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Mopar and SRT are registered trademarks of FCA US LLC.