1.4 vs 2.4 Engine noise observation - Jeep Renegade Forum
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-11-2015, 06:40 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
1.4 vs 2.4 Engine noise observation

I just test drove the 4wd version of both engines. I thought that the 1.4 was noticeably quieter. Does that sound right?The 1.4 did have 16 inch wheels vs the 17s of the 2.4. Can you confirm if the 1.4 is quieter? Which sounds better to your ear?
gabej is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 07:36 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
My Renegade has the 2.4L however I did own until about 3 months ago a Fiat 500 Abarth with the same 1.4L turbo engine as they are now installing the Renegades. Yes, I do believe the 1.4L turbo is a less noisy engine. The reason why I selected the 2.4L was not noise driven; I wanted an engine with a timing chain. The 1.4L is belt driven and although the belt doesn't have to be replaced until 150K miles, I still perfer the chain. The combination of the multiair valve train and chain probably make the 2.4L less quiet even though the 1.4L also has the multiair valve train.
JayhawkOne, Renegade0331 and kaba like this.
joejamiejeep is offline  
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 09:03 AM
Senior Member
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejamiejeep View Post
My Renegade has the 2.4L however I did own until about 3 months ago a Fiat 500 Abarth with the same 1.4L turbo engine as they are now installing the Renegades. Yes, I do believe the 1.4L turbo is a less noisy engine. The reason why I selected the 2.4L was not noise driven; I wanted an engine with a timing chain. The 1.4L is belt driven and although the belt doesn't have to be replaced until 150K miles, I still perfer the chain. The combination of the multiair valve train and chain probably make the 2.4L less quiet even though the 1.4L also has the multiair valve train.
Don't timing belts need to be replaced every 40,000 miles? Why does the belt in the 1.4L engine last for 150,000?
The Drifter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 09:04 AM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yeah, the belt vs. chain thing is important to me, too. I'm really going back and forth on which motor to get.
gabej is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 09:08 AM
Senior Member
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabej View Post
Yeah, the belt vs. chain thing is important to me, too. I'm really going back and forth on which motor to get.
belts are weaker but in general much easier/faster to replace than the chains. It would also cost less in labor to have the belt switched out if you didn't want to do it yourself.
The Drifter is offline  
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 09:44 AM
Super Moderator
 
raz-0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: US - NJ
Posts: 3,295
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1055 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drifter View Post
Don't timing belts need to be replaced every 40,000 miles? Why does the belt in the 1.4L engine last for 150,000?
No it depends on the design of the belt. I've never run into a 40k one, most I have seen are 60k, 100k, and 120k.

Also I'd expect the exhaust note to be quieter on a turbo engine as there is a turbo in the exhaust path, which acts as a bit of a sound baffle until it is really spooled up.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
raz-0 is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 09:46 AM
Senior Member
 
flash75's Avatar
 
First Name: Clifton
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Summerfield, FL USA
Posts: 190
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Many newer cars have switched back to a timing chain. Usually they don't need replacing until the
engine needs rebuilding. The timing belt change interval on most newer cars is over 100k miles.
Some early cars had belt change intervals as low as 25-30k miles.


Clifton
flash75 is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 10:07 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
The belt on the 1.4L turbo does not have to be replaced until 10 years or 150K miles which ever comes first. Yes, some engines with timing belts require replacement before the 1.4L engine's time frame. Most engines made today also have chains as chains have proven to be much more durable and require much less maintenance. Belts were used alot in the 70's and 80's due to cost and weight measures. The times have changed however. Don't forget that the FIAT 1.4 litre FIRE engine is an extremely old design dating back to the early 70's. This fact is both good and bad. Obviously the engine has proven to be bullet proof and well made and designed. However, many small displacement engines have swapped to a chain due to the information above.

In theory, a chain should last the life of the engine and most do. Most new four cylinder engines are "interference" engines meaning that if a timing belt snaps, that extremely small period of time when the engine is turning w/o the benefit of the belt keeping everything in time can destroy the head of the engine or worse.

As far as the replacement of a belt being easier as compared to a chain, yes this is typically the case but I know in my Abarth, you literally had to remove the engine to replace the belt due to space restriction. I had no intention of keeping that car until a belt needed to be replaced. Not sure if this is true on a Renegade with the same 1.4 litre engine however.
joejamiejeep is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 11:06 AM
Senior Member
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejamiejeep View Post

In theory, a chain should last the life of the engine and most do. Most new four cylinder engines are "interference" engines meaning that if a timing belt snaps, that extremely small period of time when the engine is turning w/o the benefit of the belt keeping everything in time can destroy the head of the engine or worse.

As far as the replacement of a belt being easier as compared to a chain, yes this is typically the case but I know in my Abarth, you literally had to remove the engine to replace the belt due to space restriction. I had no intention of keeping that car until a belt needed to be replaced. Not sure if this is true on a Renegade with the same 1.4 litre engine however.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that is in any engine built within the last decade. If the timing chain or belt snaps, the valves will open as the piston is coming to the top of the combustion chamber, and the piston will smack the valves, which get bent and then pulled back and forth and then the whole head gets warped. You either have to re-machine the head and get new valves or just get a new engine, either way it's expensive if a timing chain/belt breaks while the engine is running.

As far as removing the engine to change a timing belt on an Abarth, I can totally see that - as the engine compartment is barely bigger than the engine itself on the Abarth.

In this Jeep though, the engine bay is, well I don't know, maybe three times the size of an Abarth engine bay? It's not a '63 Impala by any means but it definitely has some sort of room to work on stuff as opposed to the Abarth which has zero.
The Drifter is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old 11-12-2015, 11:42 AM
Member
 
eatworksleepdie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
1.4l turbo should be quieter than a naturally aspirated 2.4l. you have more displacement with a 2.4l than the 1.4l plus generally speaking turbo motors tend to be more quiet unless you put a more breathable exhaust on. If/when I pull the trigger on one, I'm getting the 1.4 mostly because I refuse to own an automatic and as far as I can see you can't get the 2.4 with a manual trans. Plus the 9speed auto trans is garbage. I know someone who works at a testing center, and they still have FCA issues to sort out from 2012. Bugs won't be sorted out of that trans for several years to come. if at all.
eatworksleepdie is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Renegade 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










User Tag List

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



  Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grinding/vibration/rumble Noise at ~30mph FormerTexan Problems/Issues 542 08-15-2019 10:35 PM
Wind Noise coming from driver's side/front left corner PAK325 Problems/Issues 151 09-03-2017 04:10 AM
Wind Noise - Solved codev Problems/Issues 37 09-10-2015 11:31 AM
Just an Observation... Willy Off-Topic Discussion 1 03-05-2014 04:03 PM

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 Off