Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee Real World MPG
102 messages, Last post on Jan 04, 2009 at 10:46 PM
You are in the Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
My home is about 8,500 feet in Grand Lake, Co. My 2006 5.7 can use the lowest grade of regular above 2500 feet but I go back to a mid-grade when at our home in Mississippi which is 250 feet above sea level. MPG is about the same but there are some savings being able to use the less costly fuel. My 5.7 can loaf 95% of the time so it's not very hungry. But for those times I want to go fast or pull something very heavy, it is a hoot but hungry because of the extra work. |
|
|
Replying to: transpower (Jul 23, 2006 5:03 pm) |
|
|
|
|
In the U.S. 3.07 and 3.73 are available on some models but the 5.7 4WD has the 3.73. If a person plans mostly highway cruising at high speed, then a 3.07 and a smaller engine and 2WD would make sense in producing better gas mileage. Of course, why would they want 4WD anyway with that application? However, the 3.07 would increase fuel consumption around town or in climbing because the engine would have to have more fuel than with a 3.73 to have the same power at the wheel in over coming the lower ratio. Driving applications remain important issues in determine what vehicle to own and how to drive it. If I did not need 4WD and 5.7 power for the mountains I live in, then I would not need this vehicle as equiped. Consumers need to educate themselves in these technical details to happy with all aspects of their vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: podedwards (Sep 15, 2006 6:32 am) I am unconvinced that a diesel is the way to go from past experience. I don't think the mileage will be much different in any vehicle and diesel fuel is more expensive. I have seen this before-folks wasting money going to diesel. Few of us will keep a vehicle for more than 150K (the only possible reason for one). Diesel engines do have (generally) more torque than the same size gas engine but less horse power. I have had them-noisy-dirty and not much fun to drive unless turbo-charged which brings with it lots of mechanical problems.
|
|
|
Replying to: podedwards (Oct 05, 2006 5:40 pm) Here's where I disagree: Your point of perspective is probably very different from mine. My last truck was an F-350 diesel dually. I averaged 18.25mpg running empty while all of my buddies with their gassers were running in the 12-13mpg range. My 1-ton even did better than most 1/2 tons. Now given what I have gathered from DC's attempt at putting a diesel in the Jeeps, they are not getting the mileage they should be getting. A diesel GC or Libbie should be getting over 30mpg. I think the engines are too small. Diesels benefit greatly from the addition of a chip or tuner. Gassers usually only will gain 10 or 15 HP, while a diesel engine will gain far more. The chip I had on my F-350 gave me an extra 75HP and 150ftlbs of torque. That put me at 325HP and 650ftlbs of torque, I can tell you from experience that it was more fun to drive than any gasser at that point. Infact, you can buy chips/tuners that will give you 150HP. Turbos don't necessarily bring a lot of mechanical problems. Granted, that is just something else to break on the engine, but few people I know of have had any problems. Diesels aren't as noisy as they were 10 years ago. The new Cummins in the Dodge trucks is so quiet that you can pass one on the road and never hear it. The Chevy Duramax is the same way and the Ford Powerstroke is getting there. As far as being dirty, they don't smoke anymore either - unless they are chipped. Even with my chip installed, the only time mine would smoke is when I really got into the throttle. |
|
|
|
I picked up the current issue of Consumer Guide Car and Truck Test and here it is: 18/24 EPA city/highway mpg (p. 135). So, it's not as good as I had hoped, but still better than any other mid-sized SUV.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: transpower (Oct 07, 2006 8:23 am) The approximate additional cost of getting a diesel engine in a Dodge, Ford and Chevy truck is $8,000 which includes the packages required for it. Yearly insurance costs are greater proportional to the vehicle cost as is fuel cost. Diesel is more expensive because it is now beginning to have to meet the same emissions standards as gasolene. Because of the refining process it may become even more costly than gasolene. Diesel used to cost less because trucks were given exemptions. Average car ownership in the U.S. is about 60K miles making it impossible to come out ahead with diesel if addtionl costs are considered. Bigger engines mean more fuel use and more cost. Chips have not shown to increase mileage but rather horsepower and torque. However, the more power used the poorer the mileage. I have considered modifying my Dodoge truck with a chip. However, everything I have read indicates that for a gas or diesel engine the life of the engine is reduced. If you have an independent study that shows it to be different, I'd like to see it What I have seen is that diesel engines pulling heavy loads at highway speeds are better than gas engines and I think the stats confirm that. Jeep is trying to rush a diesel engine into its vehicles because of the hysteria over gas prices just like in the 70's with other American cars. I think Jeep has great engines right now the 5.7 is one. |
|
|
|
Well, Consumer Guide does not agree with the 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee catalog. I picked it up today from a local Jeep dealer, and it says (p. 8) that the CRD engine gets an EPA rating of 19/23 mgp. I was hoping for 23/27. This is a big disappointment, so I'm going to look at the Mercury Mariner Hybrid again. I haven't crossed the JGC CRD off my shortlist, but it's no longer a sure thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: transpower (Oct 10, 2006 12:07 pm) The Mercury Mariner Hybrid is simply not even close to being in the same class as a Grand Cherokee-it only has a measly towing capacity of 1000#, under powered in all aspects and will be nearly useless off-road. If gas mileage was my main issue, I'd get a motor scooter. However, I went for the 5.7 4WD Grand Cherokee because I drive in elevations exceeding 11,000 feet,in lots of snow and ice, on BLM roads that are barely improved and I tow as much as 7000# and the gas mileage is great for the application I use it for. It is a safe, powerful, great handling and rugged vehicle that does what I need it to do. It is really important to decide what the application is before a vehicle is purchased. It produces a much higher level of satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Posewards, I love the Jeep's Quadra-Drive II four-wheel drive system--it is by far the best! I also like the towing capability. However, I really dislike the fuel economy, so I was hoping that the Diesel version would be acceptable, getting a combined 25 mpg. Boy, what a disappointment. So, what kind of fuel economy are you getting at 11000 feet, in snow and ice, and towing 7000 lbs?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
