I am also a member of the JL Forum. Taking an unbiased opinion, from what I have heard over there, reliability is pretty even. If I was buying a new Wrangler today, I would still go with the PUG 3.6, if for no other reason just the sound of it.

 

Old Dogger, you must be much more 'politically correct' than I am, as I found myself permanently banned from that damned JL Forum within five or six weeks, for a couple of light, offhand, joking comments that the iron-fisted 'moderators' there decided were "political" --- such as jokingly blaming Putin for the lack of certain automotive paint pigments last year.

Just browsing through their threads, and noticing the poster's handles on the left side of the page, displays a list of one (former) forum member after another who has been banned. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, honestly.

 

Both are great. Go with what you like after test driving.

 

Reliability so far of the 2.0 has appeared pretty good overall. The 3.6 has been around forever and has had it's hiccups but it seems to be relatively reliable overall. As stated above test drive both of them and pick what you like best.

 

Longevity would be my concern, I would take a 6cyl over a turbo 4cyl, no matter how much HP you can produce from a 4cyl, the trade off is usually wears the little guy out regardless of today's technology, depends on use and how long you plan on keeping the Jeep, just my .02 based on the history of turbo'd smaller engines, even if there are exceptions out there.

 

I have been a member of probably ten different online forums over the past 15 or 16 years, of wildly divergent focus, and yes, this one has been one of the, if not the most, friendly and welcoming of them.

Another thing that is nice about this forum is that it is not a heavy-handed, overcensored gulag of a forum, which I've seen several of (JLWranglerForum, take a bow). Nor has it ever been bedeviled by any malicious and purposefully divisive and distracting trolls --- I've seen two different online forums literally destroyed by such activity (in one case by one single maniacal troll), in which cases the moderators were totally unwilling or too indifferent to stop the trolling. This forum strikes a very good balance in that regard.

 

No matter what, once you hit 150k it’s much more likely you will be replacing or rebuilding the turbo. They spin at 10s of thousands of rpms in an environment in excess of 1350F. Even with being taken care of (cool down time after being driven etc) they’re gonna fail. I don’t think the housing is water cooled - but even if it is you see coking of the oil after shut down because the temp continues to rise for a few minutes.

It’s just the physics of the things there is no free lunch and the power obtained in the smaller motor is offset By heat.

 

When the 2.0T first became available for the Wrangler JL people were hooting and hollering that they wouldn't last. Guess what? They lasted. First introduced in the 2018 MY and with the 2024s we're now at 7 years and counting.

Now people are saying they will fail after 100,000 miles. Guess what? 2.0T owners are rolling beyond 100,000 miles and I haven't read of any widespread failures.

There are a few who say they will fall apart after 150,000 miles. I guess we will have to wait and see. I'm sure they will continue to move the goalposts as more and more 2.0T owners approach that mileage and no massive failures have been reported.

We're happy with our 2020 2.0T JLU at 61,000 miles...and counting.

 

Guess what? 2.0T owners are rolling beyond 100,000 miles and I haven't read of any widespread failures.

300,000+ miles is the benchmark we 4.0L Jeepers use. Hope that works out for you. Report back then. The Crown Vic cabs I drove all had a half million or more on 'em. Yellow Cab fleet is purchased from law enforcement each with at least 125,000 on the clock before being used as cabs.

 

I believe the 2.0L Turbo has it's own water-cooling. There's a separate coolant reservoir to fill for Turbo. Nevertheless, assuming the Turbo goes out after 150k miles, this looks to be one of the easiest ones to swap out. And it's a Garrett (mine, is anyway), so parts aren't terribly expensive or perhaps proprietary. The only catch is, priming the new one.

I recently read an article (on Motales?) that discussed the genesis of the GME 2.0T engine. It was borne out of the desire for the company to replace all (rather differently engineered) smaller engines with one new design, taking the better ideas from each to make one remarkable engine. It even pulls some clever technology from the Pentastar V6.

While I cannot submit that this engine will be reliable past 150k miles, I don't believe anyone can expertly proclaim that it won't last much longer without serious repair. We'll have to wait and see as these engines begin to see their longevity.

 

I enjoyed the 2.0L when I test drove one, but was disillusioned by the 18 mpg it got driving 15 miles on the interstate at 70 mph and I still wanted a manual. It also would not stay in 8th gear... kept down shifting. The 2.0 was great in town.... but I returned to my XJ until it was stolen. I never could understand why Jeep kept farting around with small engines rather than just calling it a day with a manual short block V8. The CJ 5 had the less impressive 304. My 69 Mustang 302 got 22 mpg freeway with its 3 speed manual. The 289 Mustang I traded in got 20, but it was a 4 throat carb where the 302 had a conservative 2 bbl. Neither lacked power.

 

I never could understand why Jeep kept farting around with small engines rather than just calling it a day with a manual short block V8.

My thoughts exactly as well!

 

I can't even imagine driving a Jeep at 80 mph, anywhere, at any time.

 

Try it on the interstates in the desert states. If you’re not going 75 the trucks are running you over!🥹

 

Missed this the first time through.

I like the 3.6L.

It was so good (from a base mechanical standpoint) in our 2012 WK2 (didn't burn a drop of oil in 8k mile oil changes after 100k) that I bought a 2016 JKU with one and didn't worry a bit. I still have it, and love it, now in the mid 60k range.

But there is so much winging on this forum regarding lifter tick, camshaft/rocker arm wear, and oil housing failures, that I said WTF and put my money where my mouth was and picked up a 2.0T as a second Jeep/DD.

I expect reliability to be fine for both of them.

That said there are a couple of old guys on this thread preaching myths.

Sure there's no free lunch and turbo power comes at a cost of stress and component rpm. HOWEVER it does not automatically follow thus that there will be failures sooner to any one component because of this. There would be if the components were literally the same (metallurgy, weight, design etc). But they are not. Both engines NA and forced induction are likely engineered to the same overall life expectancy standards, which means components themselves are different for the different stresses etc.

Don't get me wrong, early turbos (decades ago) suffered premature wear and failures that caused me to get warm and fuzzies from port injected NA motors like the 3.6L. But at this point I've owned some forced induction motors (turbo/supercharged) that gave me long term reliability, so I'm comfortable it's not a fait au complet to suffer unreliability just because of forced induction.

 

I just wish someone would build one where you didn't have to disassemble half the engine compartment to do routine maintenance like spark plugs and such. You can't even just take out/replace the engine air filter without removing screws, etc.

 

That's the 2.0T. You only need to remove the beauty cover and one sensor connector to access the four spark plugs, IIRC. Air filter screws are common to most vehicles––so common that most all use the same screw/socket sizes. This is why most Oil-change places carry around a drill with one bit on it for most all Air Filter housings.

 

I agonized over engine/trans choice before ordering my '23, but this board (and others) didn't throw up any red flags on the 2.0T at all. I decided I wanted the 8-speed auto and wasn't terribly interested in the eTorque nonsense that came with the auto and 3.6 so my choice was basically made for me.

No regrets whatsoever. The 2.0T/8-speed in the 2-door flat out rips compared to my JKs (which were also 2-doors) and will pull down 21-22 MPG (calculated) on normal highway trips. Easy to change oil on also, and no cheesy plastic oil filter housing to leak or break.

 

21-22 MPG (calculated) on normal highway trips. Easy to change oil on also, and no cheesy plastic oil filter housing to leak or break.

Sounds like a keeper. Not all perform that well. There were differences in the 4.0s too.

 

Not a direct, and maybe not a fair comparison, my Buick 2.0 liter (4 cyl) turbo failed at 80,000 miles. Predominantly highway use.

 

What model year was it? My mom had a 1980-something Chrysler Lebaron that had a turbo. After the first few years it was a bundle of problems.

 

I am sold on the turbo 4, although I have no experience with Chryslers turbo 4's.

My sister needed a car and I gave her my 2017 2.0T Fusion. At 165k, it has needed a water pump and one brake caliper.

We also had a 2017 2.3T Mustang.

Both engines were flawless, delivered great mileage and had gobs of power.

My current Hyundai Sant Cruz 2.5T AWD is one of the best vehicles that I have ever owned.

I will probably only buy turbo 4's in any new vehicle I ever buy again.