My Jeep Compass Forum banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
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.


zoner99 said:
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.


zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
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.

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.

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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?

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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.

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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.

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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.

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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.

arudlang;1131 38 said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
zoner99 said:
"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...

zoner99 said:
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?


zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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?...

zoner99 said:
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.


zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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.

zoner99 said:
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.

 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
530 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
Aha! More have entered the fray! Isn't this fun? =D

Tyler-98-W68 said:
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
530 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
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!

Tyler-98-W68 said:
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..

Tyler-98-W68 said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
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?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
530 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
zoner99 said:
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?
I think the real problem you are referring to is a group of people are having a discussion online and none of them know what background knowledge the others do or don't have, and they start making assumptions about what the others know.

That is a real problem, but the entire onerous is not on me or any one person to do all the explaining and linking and so on. If I had to explain EVERYTHING to you guys, first off you wouldn't necessarily believe me because I'm just some random guy on the internet who obviously can't know everything, secondly I just don't have the time it would take if we have to go all the way down to explaining how bearings work and why they fail and so on. At that point you are subjecting me to the raw end of Brandolini's Law and its no fun anymore. Sorry, here's a link to that if you aren't familiar with Brandolini: (fixed URL to google search to avoid forum censor) https://www.google.com/search?q=brandolini%27s+law&oq=brandolini


@Tyler-98-W68 what transmission does that red compass have? 4000 RPMs seems too high for just pulling 3500 pounds but if its the CVT then you were crazy to even attempt it in the first place. Also I'm sure having to turn those mud swamper tires did not help in the slightest. I don't know why pulling that load was so high RPMs and so poor gas mileage for you. It would seem the second gens do much better based on my experience with our boat. For both of us though, its only anecdotal evidence, I should point out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I've been driving the 2019 Cherokee FWD for almost a week and here are my 2 cents comparison between the 2nd Gen Compass and the Cherokee.

1. For some reason this base Cherokee comes with HID headlights and LED tail lamps. They are nice. Not sure if this was standard equipment or a weird a-la-cart option the dealer ordered in a base front drive Cherokee but it is certainly better equipment than standard halogen on the Limited Compass.

2. The Cherokee feels more snug on the inside even if it is bigger on the outside. It has less cargo space than the Compass in the back too. (54.9 for the Cherokee vs. 59.8 on the Compass)

3. The Cherokee seating position is higher. With the seat all the way down to the floor, you sit on a perch just higher than the dash panel. This is especially nice when going through a bank ATM. The side window is a lot lower than the Compass.

4. NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) The two are are relatively equal when it comes to noise but the Cherokee is better dampened when it comes to rough roads. The jolt doesn't come through the cabin as much. Somehow the same engine and transmission doesn't feel as harsh either.

5. Personally, I think the Compass looks better than the new re-vised Cherokee and there are less Compass in a sea of Cherokee. At least in my area.

6. The center console of the Compass is useless for storage. It's too small and too oddly shape to fit anything. I ended up putting my RFID parking lot and security keys in the cup holder most of the time. There's also a sunglasses holder in the Cherokee roof liner. It's a very handy storage to have.

What's upsetting me is that you can get a 2019 V6 4WD Cherokee Latitude for the same price as the Compass Limited. I would give up all the toys, the leather seating, smaller view screen and push button start for a V6 any day.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
763 Posts
Thanks JJ. Informative post. I had a Cherokee briefly as a loaner months before I bought my Compass, and I definitely agree about the NVH. My Compass really has a bounce on a rough road like the one I live on. The mud and ruts have now frozen into a primitive form of asphalt so ya better have a lid on your coffee mug! Comparing before I bought my Compass, I really couldn't see a difference in the cargo space and your post bears that out. I even think the Renegade had a tad more cargo space, and I liked that nifty cargo space down below.

There's no place to stash anything in my Compass' front seat area, so I flip the rear seat divider down and use those cup holders. I'm thinking about some sort of organizer to sit on that divider.

What's the Cherokee V6 like on fuel economy? My Compass really impresses me: 31MPG overall so far, and it was higher before winter arrived, plus I've got snow tires on -- they really increased my fuel consumption.

I'm curious. Does the Cherokee make the grinding noise our Compasses make in the 30-50MPG range?
And how about oil consumption? Our Compasses seem to use a lot. Is the Cherokee is any better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
I had a Cherokee (Liberty) for many years before having a 2nd gen Compass and my conclusion is that the Compass is a Fiat Toro that looks like a Jeep on the outside. The interior is just an exact copy of the Fiat Toro. The Dashboard is exactly the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
I. The interior is just an exact copy of the Fiat Toro. The Dashboard is exactly the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it? Just googled fiat toro interior and it doesn't look like anything like Compass. Dashboard is also not same. Location of speed and rev gauges are not the same. And aside from those gauges, cherokee and compass also have the same dashboard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Is it? Just googled fiat toro interior and it doesn't look like anything like Compass. Dashboard is also not same. Location of speed and rev gauges are not the same. And aside from those gauges, cherokee and compass also have the same dashboard.


Oh, let me tell you, I was in front of the dashboard of the Fiat Toro and also the owner of it was also impressed seeing the two dashboards and all gauges design were exactly the same. Also the steering wheel, many other details...
This is a Fiat Toro from Brazil the one I saw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
I've been driving the 2019 Cherokee FWD for almost a week and here are my 2 cents comparison between the 2nd Gen Compass and the Cherokee.

1. For some reason this base Cherokee comes with HID headlights and LED tail lamps. They are nice. Not sure if this was standard equipment or a weird a-la-cart option the dealer ordered in a base front drive Cherokee but it is certainly better equipment than standard halogen on the Limited Compass.

2. The Cherokee feels more snug on the inside even if it is bigger on the outside. It has less cargo space than the Compass in the back too. (54.9 for the Cherokee vs. 59.8 on the Compass)

3. The Cherokee seating position is higher. With the seat all the way down to the floor, you sit on a perch just higher than the dash panel. This is especially nice when going through a bank ATM. The side window is a lot lower than the Compass.

4. NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) The two are are relatively equal when it comes to noise but the Cherokee is better dampened when it comes to rough roads. The jolt doesn't come through the cabin as much. Somehow the same engine and transmission doesn't feel as harsh either.

5. Personally, I think the Compass looks better than the new re-vised Cherokee and there are less Compass in a sea of Cherokee. At least in my area.

6. The center console of the Compass is useless for storage. It's too small and too oddly shape to fit anything. I ended up putting my RFID parking lot and security keys in the cup holder most of the time. There's also a sunglasses holder in the Cherokee roof liner. It's a very handy storage to have.

What's upsetting me is that you can get a 2019 V6 4WD Cherokee Latitude for the same price as the Compass Limited. I would give up all the toys, the leather seating, smaller view screen and push button start for a V6 any day.

Funny reading this and made a thread about the differences, I would only get the Cherokee if they were a decent price with the V6. Since the Compass and Cherokee are relatively the same I opted for the Compass and saved alot of money. You cant touch a V6 Cherokee around here for less than 30k and thats because there's $5000 worth of rebates right now


https://www.myjeepcompass.com/forums/2nd-gen-jeep-compass-forum-general-discussion/41883-2018-jeep-compass-vs-2019-jeep-cherokee.html
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top