Jeep Renegade Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
One of the most advanced four-cylinder engines on the planet: the 2.4 liter Tigershark™ engine*.

Designed to take full advantage of the exclusive MultiAir technology developed with Dodge engineering partner Fiat Powertrain, the Tigershark engine features the second-generation MultiAir 2 system. This next phase in MultiAir science marks even further improvements in fuel economy and exhaust emissions without compromising performance.

In a nutshell, MultiAir replaces the traditional mechanical link between the cam lobe and the intake valve with an electro-hydraulic system, allowing more freedom in tuning the engine’s breathing for optimum efficiency under any running condition.

Manufactured in a state-of-the-art production facility in Dundee, Michigan, the Tigershark 2.4L engine is built on a high-pressure diecast aluminum block with cast-iron liners and forged steel crankshaft and connecting rods with lightweight cast aluminum pistons designed specifically for efficient operation and provides a 10.1 compression ratio. Compact design provided by an 88 mm bore and 97 mm stroke, while advanced details like diamond-hard piston pin coatings and a two-stage oil pump shave operating losses further improving efficiency. In other words, no feature to small or technology to sophisticated in consideration of providing uncompromising fuel efficiency.

MORE INFO LINK _ lots of photos of internal parts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
Please post a link to the new standards!>:D
He means it's underpowered. It's pushing 180 HP with 175 lb ft of torque, whereas other 4 cylinders are pushing closer to 220 - 240. There are also some, the one on the ford focus rs comes to mind, which does 350 HP with 350 lb-ft of torque. Most current 4 cylinders put out as much power as previous 6 cylinders and some can even give older V8s a run for their money.

However, in the sub-compact SUV/CUV category (which the Renegade is a member of) it's actually one of the more powerful engines. The Juke gets 188 HP from its 1.6 turbo 4 banger and you can bet it has more torque than the Renegade's.

I think the tigershark will be replaced with something more powerful eventually. IMHO, the problem with the 2.4 Tigershark is that torque is found in the mid to higher revs and the 9 speed transmission is optimized for fuel efficiency which means that you don't get instant oomph when you put your foot down. You'll be waiting for the tranny to hunt for gears before you get feel any acceleration. With 9 gears, it may take a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
He means it's underpowered. It's pushing 180 HP with 175 lb ft of torque, whereas other 4 cylinders are pushing closer to 220 - 240. There are also some, the one on the ford focus rs comes to mind which does 350 HP with 350 lb-ft of torque. Most current 4 cylinders put out as much power as previous 6 cylinders and some can even give older V8s a run for their money.

However, in the sub-compact SUV/CUV category (which the Renegade is a member of) it's actually one of the more powerful engines. The Juke gets 188 HP from its 1.6 turbo 4 banger and you can bet it has more torque than the Renegade's.

I think the tigershark will be replaced with something more powerful eventually. IMHO, the problem with the 2.4 Tigershark is that torque is found in the mid to higher revs and the 9 speed transmission is optimized for fuel efficiency which means that you don't get instant oomph when you put your foot down. You'll be waiting for the tranny to hunt for gears before you get feel any acceleration. With 9 gears, it may take a while.
this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
From a mechanical standpoint, this design looks to be better for the person interested in putting many miles on. No turbo to fail and none of the problems inherent with direct injection. I've had both in the past and these are some of the features (or lack of ) that drew me to the Renegade. As I've aged my interest in 'fussing' with daily drivers has diminished.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,380 Posts
Yup. In comparison the 2.0 DERV Renegade kicks out 140BHP (or 170) with 260lb ft peaking quite low down the rev range.
Pesky Italian oil burners, eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
From a mechanical standpoint, this design looks to be better for the person interested in putting many miles on. No turbo to fail and none of the problems inherent with direct injection. I've had both in the past and these are some of the features (or lack of ) that drew me to the Renegade. As I've aged my interest in 'fussing' with daily drivers has diminished.
Fits me to a "T". It will go all day long at the speed limit and it feels solid. I am so glad I do not have direct injection or a turbo. Now, about that cabin air filter that requires 30 min to change . . . .

2018 Latitude 4X2 with 2.4L and 9-speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Thank you, wvanbusk, for starting this thread and especially for the very informative link to pix. I learned some things from them and the accompanying text, not to mention the indirect links to reviews. Thanks for sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
If FCA were to offer a choice of between the 2.4L TigerShark & the 2.0L turbo DIESEL in the TrailHawk (OFFROAD) what would choose?


(o)(o)
=(_)=
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
If FCA were to offer a choice of between the 2.4L TigerShark & the 2.0L turbo DIESEL in the TrailHawk (OFFROAD) what would choose?


(o)(o)
=(_)=
If they offered the diesel in North America (specifically the US), I would've gotten the diesel when I got my 2016.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Thanks dJenkins,
I notice Canada & the US aren't keen on DIESEL, why is that?


Australia & South Africa would you go a DIESEL Renegade DesertHawk?



We DownUnder just had an election.
The would be Prime Minister said he would scrap DIESELs - he lost.


OFFROAD we LOVE our DIESELS.
More GRUNT at lower revs = better control for MUDDERS & CRAWLERS


(o)(o)
=(_)=
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
I notice Canada & the US aren't keen on DIESEL, why is that?

(o)(o)
=(_)=
The US has extremely strict emissions laws. We want diesel Jeeps, but the government says otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Thanks CRZY4x4,
the crazy thing is that here the Compass gets the 2.0L Turbo DIESEL!
Who wants to take a Compass OFFROAD?!


Obviously the DIESEL passes emission laws.
FCA, why not put one in the Renegade DesertHawk?


PLEASE FCA that's what we want.


(o)(o)
=(_)=
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
From a mechanical standpoint, this design looks to be better for the person interested in putting many miles on. No turbo to fail and none of the problems inherent with direct injection. I've had both in the past and these are some of the features (or lack of ) that drew me to the Renegade. As I've aged my interest in 'fussing' with daily drivers has diminished.
This is very true. I work in the industry and turbo failures are very frequent on just about all makes and models.

Also direct injection means the valves don't get ''washed''. A common problem with direct injection are valves stuck in carbon which eventually causes missfiring.

I was very happy when shopping for my Renegade to discover that the 2.4 was not direct injected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
If we look at the Jeep Cherokee (KL) it has the 2.2 Multijet II
JTD engine that meets the Euro 6 emission target without the use of diesel exhaust fluid injection.
FCA developed the engine to offer more torque in the low-rev range compared to the 2.0L Multijet.
Imagine that in the Rengade DesertHawk!
(o)(o)
=(_)=
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Just went from the 1.4 turbo to the 2.4. First observations? It's clear this engine has plenty of power that's mostly hidden away. But it gives me the impression that it can tow pretty well for a 4-banger. The 9-speed definitely keeps the RPMs low, therefore the power output down. But the Renegade has never been a fast car, I wasn't really expecting speed.


The manual was fun to wind up, but the rubber band effect of such a small engine in a heavy modern CUV was significant. The 1.4 was working a lot harder during day to day driving, and given the cheap construction of the turbo hoses and such (my EVAP hose connector snapped under very little stress) I feel a little more comfortable with the longterm reliability of the 2.4, if a little leary of that 9-speed.


If you actually can get the 2.4 revved up, it sounds cool! A bit like a small tractor, which doesn't sound bad for a 4WD compact SUV.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top