JeepForum.com

JeepForum.com (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/)
-   Compass & Patriot Forum (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f98/)
-   -   How Reliable is the 2.4 engine ? (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f98/how-reliable-2-4-engine-1971018/)

Katmandu 01-07-2014 08:25 PM

How Reliable is the 2.4 engine ?
 
Are there any issues a new owner needs to be aware of ?

How bullet-proof are these things ?

aroundincircles 01-08-2014 08:37 AM

about as bullet proof as any other modern engine. The only failures I've heard of have been from either lack of maintenance, or very high mileage/age, or a computer failure since it has the vvt. but I've heard of exactly one of those. that's it.

Redpine 01-08-2014 10:07 AM

I just addressed this question in another forum. The GEMA engine was a joint effort of Hyundai, Kia, and Chrysler. To keep it simple, it was the main engine block that was jointly designed, and then each mfg. added the "rest of the engine" designed to their specs and needs. So, each mfg. final engine assembly was not identical. Their mfg. goal in Dundee Michigan was to build this engine cheap and reliable.....they hit that goal on the nose.

My professiond MOPAR Jeep mechanic friend told me that after Chrysler absolved the joint project (buying out entire rights), under Fiats new ownership they made a few improvements to an already good engine.

If you google "Jeep GEMA 2.4 engine problems" you come up with zilch. I found one engine rebuilding site that says the engine will wear out, but that catastrophic failures are rare to non existent.

For perspective, Google "Insert brand here...engine problems" and see the thousands of hits you come up with. Subaru....ouch, Honda, GM, Ford, Toyota....the same results.

The fact that you get no Google hits for the Chrysler GEMA 2.4 engine problems is astounding. Try Chrysler 2.7 engine and it's another story.

Anyway, this is a very good indication that this engine is rock solid. The only complaints deal with it being a somewhat "doggy" engine, it doesn't achieve the power that it should, and that it is a bit lacking in refinement and performance, i.e. - it's a bit noisy.

I can live with its attributes. Reliability and low ownership costs are more important to me.

Again, Google "GEMA 2.4 Engine Problems" and then "Subaru engine problems".........don't fall off your chair.

aroundincircles 01-08-2014 11:28 AM

It doesn't get the fuel economy it probably should either... at least in the applications I've seen it in. for its size and horsepower, it should be getting 20% better fuel economy.

Katmandu 01-10-2014 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroundincircles (Post 19223434)
It doesn't get the fuel economy it probably should either... at least in the applications I've seen it in. for its size and horsepower, it should be getting 20% better fuel economy.

If it was Direct Injection like most other newer gas engines nowadays, it would get 15-20% better fuel efficiency and power.

Katmandu 01-10-2014 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redpine (Post 19220970)
I just addressed this question in another forum. The GEMA engine was a joint effort of Hyundai, Kia, and Chrysler.

WHY didn't Chrysler go to the Direct Injection 2.4 like Hyundai and Kia ?

Redpine 01-11-2014 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katmandu (Post 19282138)
WHY didn't Chrysler go to the Direct Injection 2.4 like Hyundai and Kia ?

Good question. I have no idea. But, I will make a guess based on assumptions. Take it for what it's worth.

Chrysler was going through tough times in the 2000's, the period when direct injection was being implemented by some manufacturers. Many believe that Daimler and Cerebus ran Mopar into the ground. This might explain why Chrysler fell behind in technology. This, and, the GEMA engine was designed to be economical (simple) to build, yet be reliable.

Also, be aware that direct injection had/has some serious growing pains in its initial development and bringing it to market during the 2000's. Google "direct injection problems" to learn about carbon buildup on valves and expensive maintenance or repairs. While it seems that most of the problems have been addressed, if you study auto forums, a number of people still think its still a gamble regarding direct injection reliability. But, again, it seems that most of the problems have been worked out. Kia had to back off on it's gas mileage estimates and rumor has it that Ford's ecoboost is not performing as well as initially touted (my opinion only).

In the newest revision of the GEMA engine called the TigerShark, MOPAR is using something called multi air to increase fuel efficiency of this engine about 10%. It is a different technology vs. direct injection.

My guess is that Chrysler just didn't have the resources ($ and brain power) to implement direct injection in the 2000's.

NHPATRIOT 01-11-2014 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroundincircles (Post 19223434)
It doesn't get the fuel economy it probably should either... at least in the applications I've seen it in. for its size and horsepower, it should be getting 20% better fuel economy.

The 2.4L in my 2011 Patriot ( FDI 4WD )is rated at 21/26/23. However I have no problems exceeding that rating. Especially highway.

City and average I am right about there but on the highway I blow the rating away. 30+ MPG is not hard and my best to date is 35.8MPG which was literally all highway except for maybe 1/2 mile at most. 60-62 MPH in CC and it sips fuel.

Lost of people exceed the highway rating despite it basically being a big brick going down the road.

NHPATRIOT 01-11-2014 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katmandu (Post 19282122)
If it was Direct Injection like most other newer gas engines nowadays, it would get 15-20% better fuel efficiency and power.

Frankly I would rather they not go the DI route and pay a small MPG penalty. DI engines are notoriously hard on oil. You need to really keep up with maintenance and regular OC's with DI vehicles. For me it wouldn't be an issue as I am so anal about maintenance but for the average person it would be.

To answer your original question. I only have 24K on my 2011 w/ 2.4L but it seems to be a pretty good motor. A little under powered but overall it does the job. Haven't heard about any problems that weren't owner inflicted.

aroundincircles 01-11-2014 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHPATRIOT (Post 19320818)
The 2.4L in my 2011 Patriot ( FDI 4WD )is rated at 21/26/23. However I have no problems exceeding that rating. Especially highway.

City and average I am right about there but on the highway I blow the rating away. 30+ MPG is not hard and my best to date is 35.8MPG which was literally all highway except for maybe 1/2 mile at most. 60-62 MPH in CC and it sips fuel.

Lost of people exceed the highway rating despite it basically being a big brick going down the road.

I have a FDII and struggle to get 20mpg mixed... usually 19.5. if I do a solid highway run I can get 23....

Detox95 01-11-2014 08:11 PM

I just turned 3000 miles on my 2014 Patriot, so far I'm getting 23-26.5 mixed driving. But I drive on the Freeways around here mostly @ 70+ MPH. If I drove around
65 MPH I think my MPG would improve.

Katmandu 01-12-2014 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redpine (Post 19320666)
Good question. I have no idea. But, I will make a guess based on assumptions. Take it for what it's worth.

Chrysler was going through tough times in the 2000's, the period when direct injection was being implemented by some manufacturers. Many believe that Daimler and Cerebus ran Mopar into the ground. This might explain why Chrysler fell behind in technology. This, and, the GEMA engine was designed to be economical (simple) to build, yet be reliable.

Also, be aware that direct injection had/has some serious growing pains in its initial development and bringing it to market during the 2000's. Google "direct injection problems" to learn about carbon buildup on valves and expensive maintenance or repairs. While it seems that most of the problems have been addressed, if you study auto forums, a number of people still think its still a gamble regarding direct injection reliability. But, again, it seems that most of the problems have been worked out. Kia had to back off on it's gas mileage estimates and rumor has it that Ford's ecoboost is not performing as well as initially touted (my opinion only).

In the newest revision of the GEMA engine called the TigerShark, MOPAR is using something called multi air to increase fuel efficiency of this engine about 10%. It is a different technology vs. direct injection.

My guess is that Chrysler just didn't have the resources ($ and brain power) to implement direct injection in the 2000's.

:thumbsup: It's nice to hear from someone that actually knows what direct injection is! :thumbsup:

I think the Kia/Hyundai 2.4 would've be an awesome fit in our little Jeeps!

I've driven several different cars with direct injection and the engines are so much more responsive and fun to drive vs non-direct injection. The gasoline direct injections engines are "dieselike" in their nature. Really cool engines IMHO.

Not long ago, I had a 12 Mustang w/3.7 DOHC VVT with direct injection. What an awesome engine that is! It was getting mid-30s and 37 MPG Highway at one point! 33-34 MPG Highway was the norm. Just amazing! The 2.73 rear gear certainly helped matters.

Katmandu 01-12-2014 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redpine (Post 19320666)
Chrysler was going through tough times in the 2000's, the period when direct injection was being implemented by some manufacturers. Many believe that Daimler and Cerebus ran Mopar into the ground. This might explain why Chrysler fell behind in technology. This, and, the GEMA engine was designed to be economical (simple) to build, yet be reliable.

Speaking of this GEMA 2.4 engine, why is it so noisy ?

I've not heard very many (4) cylinder gas engines that growls so loud like this one does. Pretty odd if you ask me.

:confused: :confused:

NHPATRIOT 01-12-2014 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katmandu (Post 19336834)
:thumbsup: It's nice to hear from someone that actually knows what direct injection is! :thumbsup:.

wow!

Katmandu 01-12-2014 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHPATRIOT (Post 19339298)
wow!

That wasn't a knock on you NH. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I meant that most people and salesman do NOT know what direct injection is, how it works or the Pros/Cons of it.

There's no advertising on it other than it gives 10-15% more power/efficiency.


The time now is 08:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.