3.6 Turbo
12-10-2014, 05:35 PM
#11
JK Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: West Richland Washington
Posts: 2,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if forced induction in a smaller engine naturally means better mileage than a naturally aspirated slightly larger engine. There's more fuel and air being put in to the smaller engine than what goes in to the bigger engine so what one hand gives, the other takes.
The real way that modern turbo engines do well in terms of both power and mileage is by not having the turbo spool up too early. So when you're in traffic and you need to inch forward, there's hardly any turbo boost and the engine effectively works like a smaller, naturally aspirated engine. Putting the foot down (and waiting for a bit for the turbo to spool up) gives the additional boost. Effectively like having two engines in one.
I for one don't like the idea of the V6 turbo, if it does make it to the Wrangler. Right now the 3.6 is very responsive even with the automatic transmission and there's plenty of torque also thanks to the 3.73 and up gearing. A 3.2 turbo would be more sluggish to move from crawl and the benefits would mostly come in higher revs which is like giving a comb to a bald guy. The only way around this is to have a multi-stage or a variable geometry turbo and I'm not hopeful that such a thing would come for the Wrangler... for the Grand Cherokee maybe.
12-10-2014, 10:12 PM
#13
Jeep could follow Volvo's lead and couple the turbo with a supercharger. They are seeing some good numbers on their new engines. Squeezing 300hp out of 2.0L engines. And 30mpg #'s in the process.
12-11-2014, 02:32 AM
#14
JK Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-11-2014, 03:17 AM
#15
JK Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best of both worlds.VW TFSI is probably the more popular example of combining the two. Personally i think a variable supercharger can be just as effective while being simpler.
12-11-2014, 04:55 AM
#16
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A turbo on a mud bog truck would make sense but I can't see the benefit on a jeep considering the low speed crawl and potential for lag. I can just imagine a guy crawling rocks spooling up and then the turbo kicking in and flipping the jeep. It'd be pretty interesting to see a rock crawler with a two step though ha.
12-11-2014, 05:48 AM
#17
JK Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: West Richland Washington
Posts: 2,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point i raised was about performance off idle crawl, not necessarily 0-60, which has room for high revs.
How about a supercharger?
Best of both worlds.VW TFSI is probably the more popular example of combining the two. Personally i think a variable supercharger can be just as effective while being simpler.
12-11-2014, 06:08 AM
#18
yep! They are also placing the turbos closer to the heads as well, which gets boost up quicker. Most people who mention "turbo lag" are often referring to older systems. I know we had a 2002 Volvo S60 T5 which was far less efficient than turbos developed today and it still hit peak torque of 250 ft.lbs. at 1800 RPMs. And this is from a 2.3L
12-11-2014, 06:41 AM
#19
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a graph comparing stock Ecoboost to superchips tuned. As you can see at 1900rpms it's making no where near 90% peak power. Hell, it doesn't even make peak power until 4900rpms. Torque, on the other hand, is impressive.
Last edited by Stubicon; 12-11-2014 at 08:48 AM.
12-11-2014, 06:47 AM
#20
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on top of that, heat kills turbos and revving up the RPMS going 3mph will reduce the output like crazy. I hope people are prepared to carry ice bags on the trail.