Refreshed 2019 Jeep Cherokee is No Longer Ugly and Gets New Turbo Engine - Jeep Compass Forum
 2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 37 Old 01-16-2018, 07:37 PM Thread Starter
Sponsored Editorial Content
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 79
 
Refreshed 2019 Jeep Cherokee is No Longer Ugly and Gets New Turbo Engine



Quote:
Jeepís controversially styled Cherokee compact SUV has been reinvigorated for the upcoming model year. Toned-down styling, fresh features, and a new turbocharged engineare a few of its highlights.

Debuting at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, this new Cherokeeís front end is much more conventional looking. Gone are the narrow, alligator-like headlamps found on todayís version. Available bi-LED projector lights are encapsulated in larger housings that look similar to whatís found on other Jeeps. Additionally, the front fascia is new, as is the hood, which is made of lightweight aluminum.
Read more about the Refreshed 2019 Jeep Cherokee is No Longer Ugly and Gets New Turbo Engine at AutoGuide.com.
AutoGuide.com is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 Old 01-16-2018, 09:13 PM
Member
 
ImLost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 48
 
Garage
Curious is you had a 2.4L Tiger Shark powered 4WD Compass vs. Cherokee comparison, what advantages does Cherokee give you. I am choosing 2.4L to be as equal as we can get. Comparing 2nd genration Compass.

Is Cherokee stronger for offroad? Size wise to me they are close enough to be almost equal. I'm not trying to pick a winner but I want to understand difference better. Same 2.4L, same 9 speed auto, what else should I know?

2018 Trailhawk Billet SIlver
ImLost is offline  
post #3 of 37 Old 01-17-2018, 08:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
I would love to have the 2.0 Turbo in my Compass Trailhawk. I drove a Cherokee while they were replacing the transmission in my Compass and I enjoyed the extra room and storage.
If I could do it, I would get the New Cherokee with the Turbo just for the extra room and towing capacity. Now if they were to offer a Compass Trailhawk with the 2.0 Turbo with the battery assist like on some of the new Ram and Jeep models, than you would have a fun little off roader IMO.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
WisHawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 37 Old 01-17-2018, 11:52 AM
Member
 
ImLost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 48
 
Garage
Agreeed on wanting more power. I am trying to understand though if you spec'd a Cherokee with the 2.4L what you would gain over Compass?

2018 Trailhawk Billet SIlver
ImLost is offline  
post #5 of 37 Old 01-17-2018, 10:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImLost View Post
Agreeed on wanting more power. I am trying to understand though if you spec'd a Cherokee with the 2.4L what you would gain over Compass?
IMO roomier interior with more storage options. Higher towing capacity. Close to the same fuel mileage.
As for off-road the only advantage I can think off hand, is you would have increased tire size. I don't know if the Cherokee Trailhawk has any more ground clearance. Power wise comparing 2.4 to 2.4 unless they changed the gearing more on the Cherokee Trailhawk, I would think the Compass Trailhawk would have the advantage since it is lighter in weight.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
WisHawk is offline  
post #6 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 01:24 AM
Member
 
ua_who's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 71
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImLost View Post
Curious is you had a 2.4L Tiger Shark powered 4WD Compass vs. Cherokee comparison, what advantages does Cherokee give you. I am choosing 2.4L to be as equal as we can get. Comparing 2nd genration Compass.

Is Cherokee stronger for offroad? Size wise to me they are close enough to be almost equal. I'm not trying to pick a winner but I want to understand difference better. Same 2.4L, same 9 speed auto, what else should I know?
I've got one of both. Both with the 2.4l and 9-spd.

The Cherokee is definitely larger. It doesn't look like it on the outside, but packing stuff in for long trips.... the Cherokee just fits more stuff.

The Cherokee is also heavier. But for me, that's probably not real fair statement. I have the Cherokee TH, but a Compass Limited. The TH has the skid plates, a lift, and bigger tires. So it really feels heavier and slower than the Compass with the 19" street tires.

The Cherokee TH is by FAR better offroad than the Compass TH. True low range and a rear locker make a huge difference.
A Cherokee with the AD1 4wd system versus the Compass with the AD1 4wd would probably be very similar though.

edit: here's a pic where you can see the general size differences
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20170902_065048.jpg (76.8 KB, 31 views)
WisHawk and Koily like this.

2017 Compass limited 4x4

Last edited by ua_who; 01-18-2018 at 01:27 AM.
ua_who is offline  
post #7 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 05:17 AM
Super Moderator
 
Tyler-98-W68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by ua_who View Post
I've got one of both. Both with the 2.4l and 9-spd.

The Cherokee is definitely larger. It doesn't look like it on the outside, but packing stuff in for long trips.... the Cherokee just fits more stuff.

The Cherokee is also heavier. But for me, that's probably not real fair statement. I have the Cherokee TH, but a Compass Limited. The TH has the skid plates, a lift, and bigger tires. So it really feels heavier and slower than the Compass with the 19" street tires.

The Cherokee TH is by FAR better offroad than the Compass TH. True low range and a rear locker make a huge difference.
A Cherokee with the AD1 4wd system versus the Compass with the AD1 4wd would probably be very similar though.

edit: here's a pic where you can see the general size differences
Question how is the road noise on the new compass vs the cherokee as well can you hear the engine noise as much, I still haven't had the chance to drive one of the new compass'


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2012 Red FDII Jeep Compass Limited
235/75/15 Wranger Territory AT
WK2 Headlight Swap
Magnaflow Muffler

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Interior LED's + Front/Rear Signal & Backup LEDS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tyler-98-W68 is offline  
post #8 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
zoner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 210
 
The Cherokee has been in production since 2014 I believe. The facelift hopefully won't change things much, and assuming you avoid the new engine - most of the bugs will have been worked out by now. A reasonable choice for a reliable new vehicle, now.
zoner99 is offline  
post #9 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 11:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by ua_who View Post
I've got one of both. Both with the 2.4l and 9-spd.

The Cherokee is definitely larger. It doesn't look like it on the outside, but packing stuff in for long trips.... the Cherokee just fits more stuff.

The Cherokee is also heavier. But for me, that's probably not real fair statement. I have the Cherokee TH, but a Compass Limited. The TH has the skid plates, a lift, and bigger tires. So it really feels heavier and slower than the Compass with the 19" street tires.

The Cherokee TH is by FAR better offroad than the Compass TH. True low range and a rear locker make a huge difference.
A Cherokee with the AD1 4wd system versus the Compass with the AD1 4wd would probably be very similar though.

edit: here's a pic where you can see the general size differences
Thank you for sharing your experience with these vehicles.
If I could do it, I would trade my compass TH in for the 2019 Cherokee TH with the turbo. But we are going to replace our Wrangler JKU with the new JL Rubicon 4 door in the near future so I will be driving the Compass TH for a while yet.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
WisHawk is offline  
post #10 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 12:18 PM
Member
 
ua_who's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 71
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler-98-W68 View Post
Question how is the road noise on the new compass vs the cherokee as well can you hear the engine noise as much, I still haven't had the chance to drive one of the new compass'
Tough to compare Tyler.
Even at stock the Cherokee TH had firestone ATs and the Compass has ContiProcontact's. No comparison at all on the road noise from the tires.

I think the cabins themselves are similar though.

2017 Compass limited 4x4
ua_who is offline  
post #11 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisHawk
I would get the New Cherokee with the Turbo just for the extra room and towing capacity.
I doubt the 2.0 Turbo will be rated to tow more than the 2.4 NA. There is not going to be enough low-end torque for it to be a good towing buggy, the extra power that comes with turbocharging comes in too late in the RPM band typically and you need low-end grunt for starting heavy trailers, and there is typically little or no boost pressure at highway cruising RPMs so you won't have enough oompf there either. You can't cross the country at 4500 RPM the whole way and expect it to last so... I predict the towing capacity of the turbo will be no more than 2000 pounds or less.
arudlang is online now  
post #12 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 05:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
This is what was posted on one of the Auto show pages I was reading.
Quote:
The 2.0 makes 270 horsepower at 5,200 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at only 3,000 rpm. That torque number actually beats the output of the 3.6-liter V-6 by 35 pound-feet! Better still, the 2.0 makes its power lower in the rev range, likely making it a better choice for serious off-roading. Horsepower-wise, the 2.0 only gives up 15 ponies to the V-6.It makes more power than the standard 4-cylinder, and more torque lower in the rev range than the optional V6.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery

Last edited by WisHawk; 01-18-2018 at 05:17 PM.
WisHawk is offline  
post #13 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 05:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Well, maybe it could be a hauler. Its a lot to squeeze out of a 2 liter, still seems like reliability would be suspect for say, pulling a larger pop-up camper around the mountains. Will be interesting to see what the official tow rating comes out as, but they are so conservative with those numbers it will only mean so much. For a short trip I wouldn't hesitate to pull something heavy with the 2.0, just unsure about 3000-mile treks at max GCVW
arudlang is online now  
post #14 of 37 Old 01-18-2018, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
Quote:
still seems like reliability would be suspect for say
Your statement is correct there. We are talking FCA products. Just got the wife to agree to wait a few months on the new Wrangler JL Rubicon she wants.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
WisHawk is offline  
post #15 of 37 Old 01-19-2018, 01:23 AM
Junior Member
 
triadjeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Davidson Co. NC
Posts: 26
 
Garage
Most Gas turbos have a shorter life span. And turbo lag is another thing to consider.

2018 Jeep Compass Sport, FWD, Auto
triadjeep is offline  
post #16 of 37 Old 01-19-2018, 03:55 AM
Super Moderator
 
Tyler-98-W68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
 
Garage
I can't believe everyone's resistance to the new turbo engine. 1 less hp and 56ft/lbs more torque than the V6. If the engine wasn't reliable do you think FCA would release it. I haven't heard any horror stories about the 1.4T that has been around for years now. That's ok though none of you need to buy the new engine. There is nothing wrong with the 3.2L as I have 2 cherokees both with that engine but more low end torque would be very welcome and make the cherokee alot faster, yes it doesn't need to be fast but after driving a compass and patriot for 8 years the extra power was very welcome


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2012 Red FDII Jeep Compass Limited
235/75/15 Wranger Territory AT
WK2 Headlight Swap
Magnaflow Muffler

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Interior LED's + Front/Rear Signal & Backup LEDS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tyler-98-W68 is offline  
post #17 of 37 Old 01-19-2018, 09:17 AM
Senior Member
 
zoner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 210
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
Well, maybe it could be a hauler. Its a lot to squeeze out of a 2 liter, still seems like reliability would be suspect for say, pulling a larger pop-up camper around the mountains. Will be interesting to see what the official tow rating comes out as, but they are so conservative with those numbers it will only mean so much. For a short trip I wouldn't hesitate to pull something heavy with the 2.0, just unsure about 3000-mile treks at max GCVW
Technology has progressed a lot, and 'turbo' never necessarily meant you couldn't tow - heavy trucks are typically turbos. Not likely that the engine would simply fail under heavy towing, more likely the control logic would cut back boost to protect the engine, based on inputs such as exhaust temperature. So if pulling max load up a grade in summer weather you might find you lose power.
The real reason not to buy the turbo is that it is FCA. If you are intending to purchase and keep the vehicle past the warranty you would be risking very costly repairs. Let other people be the unwitting test subjects for the first few years.
zoner99 is offline  
post #18 of 37 Old 01-19-2018, 07:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
heavy trucks are typically turbos
A lot of them are but a turbo on a big V8 or V10 is not the same deal as a turbo 2 liter, those trucks have mountains of torque long before boost comes on and would function just fine without any boost at all. 4 bangers do not have the grunt and its a catch-22 when you don't make power till higher RPMs and you can't make higher RPM's until you get moving, unless you slip the torque-converter or clutch a lot for a long time which equals heat and wear.

Most turbo vehicles do not make any boost cruising on the highway, you are rolling along entirely on the amount of air the atmosphere is pushing through and making minimal power while using minimal fuel. Boost comes into play pretty much only during acceleration and the rest of the time there is no boost and you are making MUCH much less torque and power. For a light load this is ideal but it may take a lot more continuous power to keep a heavy trailer at speed, especially if it is catching the wind. For an undersized motor this could mean you have to stay in a higher rev range to maintain continuous boost and if you are crossing the whole country end to end, this is not ideal. The turbo is meant to be more or less idle while cruising, if you keep it working for thousands of miles on end, its not going to last. And if some kind of mitigation control comes in from the ECU as you mentioned, cutting boost to preserve the longevity of the components, then you will not have the power you need to move a heavy trailer up a 7% grade for 25 miles.

Like I said, a short tow would probably be fine but any kind of road trip would probably be pretty hard on it. I want to be able to pull my 1700# show car to various meets from state to state, I don't think a 2.0 4 cylinder would be up to the task turbo or not.
arudlang is online now  
post #19 of 37 Old 01-19-2018, 10:40 PM
Member
 
ImLost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 48
 
Garage
True low range and rear locker, now I know the biggest difference to me at least. Thanks.

2018 Trailhawk Billet SIlver
ImLost is offline  
post #20 of 37 Old 01-20-2018, 12:08 PM
Senior Member
 
zoner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 210
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
A lot of them are but a turbo on a big V8 or V10 is not the same deal as a turbo 2 liter, those trucks have mountains of torque long before boost comes on and would function just fine without any boost at all.
I think there are some ideas behind your comments that don't make sense to me. Size or layout of the engine don't change the effect of turbocharging. And they wouldn't work 'just fine' without the boost - no one spends money on additional equipment unless there is a good justification for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
4 bangers do not have the grunt and its a catch-22 when you don't make power till higher RPMs and you can't make higher RPM's until you get moving, unless you slip the torque-converter or clutch a lot for a long time which equals heat and wear.
Again, I disagree with the basic principle you seem to be relying on. There is nothing about a '4 banger' design itself that implies lack of torque. Google Detroit Diesel Series 50, for one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
Most turbo vehicles do not make any boost cruising on the highway, you are rolling along entirely on the amount of air the atmosphere is pushing through and making minimal power while using minimal fuel.
I believe that is true if you are thinking of a 1980's era gasoline turbo engine. Drive a FCA 1.4T engine today and you'll hear the turbo spool up as soon as you touch the gas. I had one as a rental and it appeared it was always on some amount of boost except for idling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
The turbo is meant to be more or less idle while cruising, if you keep it working for thousands of miles on end, its not going to last.
It's a question of design and technology. If it is designed for continuous operation then there is no reason why it can't operate continuously. Certainly the technology exists. Whether FCA can design and build it successfully is another story. But generally speaking their engines are good, it's everything else on the vehicle that fails - hasn't really changed in decades in that respect.
zoner99 is offline  
post #21 of 37 Old 01-20-2018, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 181
 
Garage
I would not even consider using a Compass or a Cherokee. For any thing over 2000 lbs. Personal preference.
I would be using a larger vehicle, just to have the weight and the braking capacity.
I have seen many light weight SUV's heading up north towing campers, snow machines you name it. They can't stop or they start to sway and lose control.
I occasionally pull a trailer when loaded is right around 1500 lbs. Even though it does okay, I would not want to take it for much more than few hundred miles. And if the wind is blowing hard forget it.

Spending time learning the science of the mechanisms of friction, lubrication, and wear of interacting surfaces that are in relative motion
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery
WisHawk is offline  
post #22 of 37 Old 01-21-2018, 05:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Let me start with a thank-you for the valuable discussion, as usual I have a number of rebuttals I want to reply with but only with the friendly intent of continuing the good discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
And they wouldn't work 'just fine' without the boost - no one spends money on additional equipment unless there is a good justification for it.
Surely they would work without boost. I think the only justification companies needed to turbo their big trucks was because of the HP and Torque wars between brands. In a race to beat each other out in peak power, they can't just keep spending R&D on larger and larger blocks with more pistons, right? At some point its more economical to turbo or supercharge and existing engine than to build a bigger engine, but its not at all because the turbo is necessary to the truck's operation. Naturally aspirated 8 cylinder trucks do just fine and dandy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
There is nothing about a '4 banger' design itself that implies lack of torque. Google Detroit Diesel Series 50, for one.
You can't compare diesel and gasoline! Totally different animals, nice try though! Gasoline is implied in this conversation, don't try to throw any red herrings in here!

A 4-cylinder gas motor is always going to lack torque over other gas engines with similar displacement but more pistons, to me that is a given and I will continue to stand on that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
I had one as a rental and it appeared it was always on some amount of boost except for idling.
There is no reason it should have been. In what way did you assert that it was making boost while cruising? Our 2016 turbo civic has a boost gauge, we make many road trips and we can easily see there is no boost while cruising or idling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
you'll hear the turbo spool up as soon as you touch the gas
When you open the throttle exhaust gas velocity increases and the turbo starts to do its thing, but there has to be enough exhaust gas velocity for it to actually pressurize the intake manifold relative to ambient air pressure. That condition is not continuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
If it is designed for continuous operation then there is no reason why it can't operate continuously.
This is the crux of what I'm saying. It is not designed for continuous operation. Boost is only made while total engine load is beyond some load percentage that varies by vehicle, which 99% of the time is only during acceleration or hill-climbing in passenger vehicles.

This is why there are no mass production cars using two cylinder engines boosted to 100+ horsepower. The ability to boost a 2-cylinder to 100+ HP has been around a long time and that is enough to move a car around no problem, but we find this type of thing is only used in things like snowmobiles or motorcycles, where the total miles put on the vehicle will often never exceed 20,000. The long-term reliability just isn't there when you squeeze big HP continuously out of small engines via forced induction.

So FCA can produce a 2.0 liter 4 that makes over 250 HP at peak but the vehicles will spend 99.9% of their running life well below that peak power point, only achieving it for seconds at a time relative to thousands of hours of part-throttle cruise. Thats why I don't believe there is any intention for the engine to run boost continuously in the scenario of pulling a trailer across country.
arudlang is online now  
post #23 of 37 Old 01-21-2018, 11:59 PM
Senior Member
 
zoner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 210
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post

At some point its more economical to turbo or supercharge and existing engine than to build a bigger engine, but its not at all because the turbo is necessary to the truck's operation. Naturally aspirated 8 cylinder trucks do just fine and dandy.
I think you answered the point yourself. "trucks" are vehicles that work, to earn money, so they need to make economic sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post

You can't compare diesel and gasoline! Totally different animals, nice try though! Gasoline is implied in this conversation, don't try to throw any red herrings in here!
I can't say I fully agree. Technology has lessened the differences in some respects, such as direct injection gasoline engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38
A 4-cylinder gas motor is always going to lack torque over other gas engines with similar displacement but more pistons, to me that is a given and I will continue to stand on that point.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Do you think that, say, a five cylinder engine would make more torque than a four cylinder engine, all else being equal? Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38

There is no reason it should have been. In what way did you assert that it was making boost while cruising? Our 2016 turbo civic has a boost gauge, we make many road trips and we can easily see there is no boost while cruising or idling.
Why do you think it shouldn't have been making boost? I personally don't know enough about that engine it to assert whether it 'should' or 'shouldn't' make boost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38
When you open the throttle exhaust gas velocity increases and the turbo starts to do its thing, but there has to be enough exhaust gas velocity for it to actually pressurize the intake manifold relative to ambient air pressure. That condition is not continuous.
The turbine and compressor are directly coupled. If one is spinning the other is also. In normally aspirated engines the intake manifold operates at less than ambient air pressure (it has to, no pressure differential = no flow). I'd say that boost means more pressure than would exist without the turbo. Initially that would be less than ambient. As boost increases pressure will be more than ambient, sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38

This is the crux of what I'm saying. It is not designed for continuous operation. Boost is only made while total engine load is beyond some load percentage that varies by vehicle, which 99% of the time is only during acceleration or hill-climbing in passenger vehicles.
How do you know what service factor it is designed for? I sure don't. I suspect it is designed for more than 1%, with some additional allowances, plus electronic limiting if it goes beyond specified inputs. But I'm not claiming to know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38
This is why there are no mass production cars using two cylinder engines boosted to 100+ horsepower. The ability to boost a 2-cylinder to 100+ HP has been around a long time and that is enough to move a car around no problem, but we find this type of thing is only used in things like snowmobiles or motorcycles, where the total miles put on the vehicle will often never exceed 20,000. The long-term reliability just isn't there when you squeeze big HP continuously out of small engines via forced induction.
Well there is already the 3 cylinder Ecoboost from Ford, which I think produces something like 125 peak HP. Four cylinder four stroke engines produce power on each stroke by definition. Few cylinders means that not all revolutions produce power leading to some design issues and requirements such as a heavier flywheel. But Ford obviously sees some advantages to less than four cylinders in a smaller displacement application.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang;1131
38

So FCA can produce a 2.0 liter 4 that makes over 250 HP at peak but the vehicles will spend 99.9% of their running life well below that peak power point, only achieving it for seconds at a time relative to thousands of hours of part-throttle cruise. Thats why I don't believe there is any intention for the engine to run boost continuously in the scenario of pulling a trailer across country.
I think that the technology and industry trends in general are towards smaller displacement engines designed to run on boost for much longer periods. There isn't any fundamental reason, to my knowledge at least, that they can't be designed to operate continuously at full boost. Personally I wouldn't have any concerns about towing with the new 2.0 engine, within whatever limits specified by the manufacturer. The things I would worry about are the typical FCA screw ups and penny pinching, leading to costly repairs outside of warranty, those being even more costly with a turbo motor. "Mr. Zoner your vehicle has been repaired, that will be $23,000 dollars please". But even then I wouldn't worry after its been in production for a few years.
zoner99 is offline  
post #24 of 37 Old 01-22-2018, 02:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
"trucks" are vehicles that work, to earn money, so they need to make economic sense.
Nooooooooooooooo nononnononononono noooo noon noo no no no no no...! Where have you been the past decade? Do you not live in the united states?? The idea that trucks here "need to make economic sense" is so far out the window everyone across the whole globe knows it! The majority of people don't buy trucks to do real "work" anymore, they haven't for years and years! For every farmer pulling a horse trailer with his trusty old dodge there are 100+ wealthy pencil pushers who cruise around in their exuberant jacked up pea**** trucks that will never have a single chunk of wood or a shovel-full of dirt thrown in the bed for the lifetime of the first five owners!

Economic sense... as if. You gotta be trollin me. I haven't even read the rest of what you wrote yet lets see here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Do you think that, say, a five cylinder engine would make more torque than a four cylinder engine, all else being equal? Why?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
I personally don't know enough about that engine it to assert whether it 'should' or 'shouldn't' make boost.
First you say it was making a little boost all the time, now you say you don't actually know enough to say... need I say more?

Now I'm starting to feel like I'm being rude here and I don't want to but I'm just a little exasperated with having to explain everything. Here is a core concept of turbocharging: They are not intended to be producing significant boost all the time. The best bearings in the world ain't gonna last if the turbo is spooling close to 300,000 RPM non-stop driving all the way across the country. You wouldn't want it to if it could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
I'd say that boost means more pressure than would exist without the turbo. Initially that would be less than ambient.
No, you have boost when you have greater than ambient pressure. The vacuum in the intake is varying, ambient air pressure is the constant force that is pushing air into the engine and when you force more air than that in, then you have forced induction.

Funny you should mention that though because it reminds me of another reason turbos cannot be "boosting" all the time: You'd never have any vacuum to run your brake booster and any other vacuum-powered components a car may have such as hvac controls. When a turbo engine is producing boost a one-way valve keeps it from blowing up your brake booster diaphragm like a balloon, and allows the brake booster to hold vacuum so it ca help you stop better. Brake boosters are the biggest example but a lot of cars have multiple components that do their work utilizing vacuum from the engine so there is again some proof the "boost" of the turbo is only intermittent.

Where are we?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
How do you know what service factor it is designed for?
Oh! Just re-read the stuff about engine vacuum being required for brakes to work properly above. We know the turbo can't be designed to produce boost continuously. Bearings can't take it. Vacuum required for brakes and other things to work. etc etc. Moving on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
Well there is already the 3 cylinder Ecoboost from Ford, which I think produces something like 125 peak HP. Four cylinder four stroke engines produce power on each stroke by definition. Few cylinders means that not all revolutions produce power leading to some design issues and requirements such as a heavier flywheel. But Ford obviously sees some advantages to less than four cylinders in a smaller displacement application.
"Four cylinder four stroke engines produce power on each stroke by definition." - You mean to say there is a power stroke for each single rotation of the crankshaft, I think? Which isn't really an important factor in anything except perceived smoothness of the engine. Certainly not related to power. This 3 cylinder turbo from ford is nothing ground-breaking, the Turbo Chevy Sprint of the late 80's was a turbo-3 and just like today it was fine in a small lightweight car but nothing you could hook up a trailer full of bricks to and pull away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
There isn't any fundamental reason, to my knowledge at least, that they can't be designed to operate continuously at full boost.
See above, bearings can't take it, manifold vacuum that occurs when not under boost usually is needed by brake booster, hvac controls, and sometimes other miscellaneous actuators and components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoner99
The things I would worry about are the typical FCA screw ups and penny pinching, leading to costly repairs outside of warranty
I'm with you on that one. If they say "here is a turbo 2.0 and you can pull 2000 pounds with it have fun" then fine, great, I would buy it and happily pull with it too I guess. To be more specific, if they drop this 2.0 turbo in the Compass next year, chances are very high I would trade up to gain some much needed performance. But while I would not feel bad about pulling a 3000 pound trailer across country with our current 2.4, I wouldn't push my luck with the 2.0 turbo. As you said there is enough to worry about with FCA turbo product to begin with.

arudlang is online now  
post #25 of 37 Old 01-22-2018, 08:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
Tyler-98-W68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
 
Garage
The towing capacity of the Turbo isn't going to be any less than the V6, 1 less HP and 56 more torque........3.0L ecodiesel is turbo'd same with the 2.7 and 3.5L ecoboost in f150's and they are advertised to tow lots. So many of you are freaking out over this new engine without a bit of evidence to support its a bad engine.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2012 Red FDII Jeep Compass Limited
235/75/15 Wranger Territory AT
WK2 Headlight Swap
Magnaflow Muffler

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Interior LED's + Front/Rear Signal & Backup LEDS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tyler-98-W68 is offline  
post #26 of 37 Old 01-22-2018, 09:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
Aha! More have entered the fray! Isn't this fun? =D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler-98-W68
The towing capacity of the Turbo isn't going to be any less than the V6, 1 less HP and 56 more torque........3.0L ecodiesel is turbo'd same with the 2.7 and 3.5L ecoboost in f150's and they are advertised to tow lots. So many of you are freaking out over this new engine without a bit of evidence to support its a bad engine.
I didn't say it was a bad engine, I said it might not be good for long-distance towing. I also said I would probably go out and buy one if it came in the Compass next year. It may still not be as good as the 2.4 for long-distance towing.

As far as 1 HP less and 56 more torque, you must remember you are only talking peak numbers. Engines don't run at peak hardly ever, certainly they are not at their peak when starting a stopped load in first gear. And they cannot be ran at their peak continuously, they will suffer an early death. Many race engines only last a handful of races before they must be replaced or rebuilt. That is not what you want for your consumer car.

You bring up the ford 2.7 but that is a V6, not a four cylinder. More cylinders = more torque (especially at the low end), all other things being equal. Four cylinder engines struggle to produce low-end torque. It doesn't matter if they can wind out to 300 ft lbs at 7000 RPM, thats just not usable power for towing up that high in the RPM band.
arudlang is online now  
post #27 of 37 Old 01-23-2018, 04:23 AM
Super Moderator
 
Tyler-98-W68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
 
Garage
Well, lets take a look at some numbers

New 2L turbo has 295 FT/lbs Tq at 3000rpm

Your "reliable" 2.4L has 175 FT/lbs TQ at 3900rpm

Most (not all) turbo 4's have their torque come on at lower RPMs so yes peak numbers don't always tell the whole story but i'm willing to bet that the turbo 4 will have more than 171ft/lbs TQ through all ranges of the RPM.

If you were to hook up 2000lbs to an identical vehicle with the above 2 engines which one would be more reliable?

The 2.4L engine would probably be screaming at incredibility high rpms while towing at highway speeds but that's more reliable than having a turbo 4 which wouldn't need to work nearly as hard to maintain speeds while towing a heavy load?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2012 Red FDII Jeep Compass Limited
235/75/15 Wranger Territory AT
WK2 Headlight Swap
Magnaflow Muffler

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Interior LED's + Front/Rear Signal & Backup LEDS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tyler-98-W68 is offline  
post #28 of 37 Old 01-23-2018, 01:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 667
 
I hadn't seen the exact figures for the 2.0 turbo's torque, I am pleasantly surprised to hear of it making such good torque at 3000 RPM. It must be tremendously tuned for low end and relying entirely on the turbo to hold up everything past 3500. Nothing wrong with that. You guys may make a convert of me yet!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler-98-W68
If you were to hook up 2000lbs to an identical vehicle with the above 2 engines which one would be more reliable?
Well... at 2000 lbs, still probably the naturally aspirated one since it is much less complex and fewer components, and 2000 lbs is well within its comfortable range. At 4000 pounds, I'm not so sure..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler-98-W68
The 2.4L engine would probably be screaming at incredibility high rpms while towing at highway speeds but that's more reliable than having a turbo 4 which wouldn't need to work nearly as hard to maintain speeds while towing a heavy load?
Thats the question I brought up originally, which engine will work "harder" to keep a heavy trailer at highway speed? But you must not have a 2.4 now, or maybe you haven't towed with it. I have towed a few dozen miles with mine at an estimated 6000-6500 lbs GCVW and it was no problem, still got over 20 MPG (flat ground around here) but it was pulling a 2000 lb fiberglass boat loaded with fuel, coolers of beer, tools, beach gear, then five people (including me) in the cabin with our other snacks and supplies. Worked like a charm. No high screaming RPMS.

Would the 2.0 Turbo do better in that scenario? Maybe... I'm still skeptical (but thanks all for the good info). I would have to try both and see for myself I think.
arudlang is online now  
post #29 of 37 Old 01-24-2018, 12:28 AM
Senior Member
 
zoner99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 210
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post

Now I'm starting to feel like I'm being rude here and I don't want to but I'm just a little exasperated with having to explain everything. Here is a core concept of turbocharging: They are not intended to be producing significant boost all the time. The best bearings in the world ain't gonna last if the turbo is spooling close to 300,000 RPM non-stop driving all the way across the country. You wouldn't want it to if it could.

See above, bearings can't take it, manifold vacuum that occurs when not under boost usually is needed by brake booster, hvac controls, and sometimes other miscellaneous actuators and components.

You tend to keep saying things over and over, as if repetition was proof. Ideally, you would be able to provide more explanation when questioned. Some sort of logical comment, perhaps a link or a reference.
For example you say the 'bearings can't take it'. Why can't they?
zoner99 is offline  
post #30 of 37 Old 01-24-2018, 07:16 AM
Super Moderator
 
Tyler-98-W68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 530
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
I hadn't seen the exact figures for the 2.0 turbo's torque, I am pleasantly surprised to hear of it making such good torque at 3000 RPM. It must be tremendously tuned for low end and relying entirely on the turbo to hold up everything past 3500. Nothing wrong with that. You guys may make a convert of me yet!



Well... at 2000 lbs, still probably the naturally aspirated one since it is much less complex and fewer components, and 2000 lbs is well within its comfortable range. At 4000 pounds, I'm not so sure..



Thats the question I brought up originally, which engine will work "harder" to keep a heavy trailer at highway speed? But you must not have a 2.4 now, or maybe you haven't towed with it. I have towed a few dozen miles with mine at an estimated 6000-6500 lbs GCVW and it was no problem, still got over 20 MPG (flat ground around here) but it was pulling a 2000 lb fiberglass boat loaded with fuel, coolers of beer, tools, beach gear, then five people (including me) in the cabin with our other snacks and supplies. Worked like a charm. No high screaming RPMS.

Would the 2.0 Turbo do better in that scenario? Maybe... I'm still skeptical (but thanks all for the good info). I would have to try both and see for myself I think.
a 3500lb boat towed with my 2012 FDII only 120kms, yes massively over weight for the vehicle (thankfully tongue weight was only around 200lbs) Basically sat around 4000rpm's give or take 500rpms or so for the 120kms I towed it, I don't recall the mileage but it was probably around 12mpg or so. 171hp and 165tq doesn't do much for towing at all.



I"ve towed this exact boat with m 2016 Cherokee Trailhawk V6 and its night and day difference almost don't even know its behind the vehicle (and my Cherokee has a 4500l tow rating)

Say what you want but a NA 2.4L isn't going to tow any amount of weight easily


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2012 Red FDII Jeep Compass Limited
235/75/15 Wranger Territory AT
WK2 Headlight Swap
Magnaflow Muffler

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Full Interior LED's + Front/Rear Signal & Backup LEDS

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tyler-98-W68 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Compass Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome