For sure. If you live in a state that exempts Diesel emissions, you could get away with a lot, and still be super efficient. Simpler, quieter even and way more enjoyable
The R2.8 still maintains some of the diesel sound, but only a very few people can tell what a diesel even sounds like anyway. Only 2 or 3 people have noticed it's a diesel. Most likely just think it's just another tired old Jeep engine on it's last breathes. The R2.8 emissions or lack there of, really gives it a leg up IMO to the new offerings we see from OEMs. I think the new small diesels are probably built for higher HP than the 2.8L. Even in countries without emissions requirements, it's putting out 160hp, so it's designed for that. For a TJ or JK that 300+ ft lbs is perfectly utilitarian, which can't be said for most of the OEM offerings.
I do like modern diesels and early 2000s they are very similar tech used today, without the emissions, but the emissions, lets you get away with some crazy performance too and meet EPA requirements. And the new tech is great for keeping the coal rolling under control and unless you're racing it's something I never want coming from any of my diesels. My old tractors don't do it (like 1970s era) my 2003 Dodge 2500 does give a puff if I go from no throttle to heavy throttle, but it's barely even noticeable.
I like the R2.8 over some other diesels, because it's got more displacement than some of the other small diesels out there, it's modern, which is good and bad, but IMO a little on the better side. I've heard from some people that the R2.8 isn't built as strong as many diesels out there and with a bit tougher access to aftermarket components, I would be hesitant (if even possible) to certainly go over 200 hp/400 ft lbs without doing bottom end work. After looking at the dynos, it wouldn't help me how I like to drive, because the big power and torque numbers are really far up the RPM scale, which is where I prefer to not drive. Did I mention I'd kill my 280k mi AX-15 too?
On the displacement stuff, I like the 2.8 over the TDIs (though I love these engines), even with the quick responding turbo, you still find yourself without the turbo occasionally. In trucks and tractors, those larger engines are really nice in that they've really got some balls even without the turbo and on the older stuff the turbo kicking in isn't as much contrast in power as I've noticed with a lot of smaller displacement diesels. Your smaller diesels just don't quite have it until the turbo kicks in and it's night and day. And you're not really getting an economy loss to the added displacement in a diesel. If you're accelerating up to speed with more weight, then yeah you're using more fuel to do more work, but the rest of the time it's mostly using just as much fuel as needed to get the work done that is required to keep you moving and to meet EPA regs.
One issue I may have, but just don't know the designs, is that I think some modern diesels are actually lowering their efficiency some inherently, by going with like smallish compression ratios, since EGR and some other emissions because high efficiency combustion leads to NOx and SOx. I have also read that many modern diesels, have increased some valve train forces for smoother power bands and anytime you must overcome more force, you're doing more work. I am ignorant of that part of the design too, but I do know mid 20s and very likely 30s MPG wouldn't be difficult in a Jeep if that was your only goal, which is not thought of nor designed to be very economical with your fuel.
Personally, getting low 20s mpg and having all the bells and whistles for off-roading and not even thinking of hyper-miling is amazing. But it isn't going to save you money unless, you really like a TJ type vehicle and you're fed up with the powerplant and feeding it and messing with fuel cans and looking at buying like a fully loaded JLU or Gladiator.
seriously
up front and the reigns running through the windshield frame! That's oldschool. 