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
|
Hi - I run a '99 4.7L v8 GC here in the UK. Had it from new - bulletproof (my 3rd Jeep). 112, 000 miles on the clock. Had it converted to run on Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) at 35,000 miles. I get 23 mpg on petrol & 18 mpg on LPG - LPG is half petrol price in UK - so well worth using. Just had the lpg injection kit serviced & retuned & it seems to be performing better than ever - so mpg looks like it will increase with LPG. Any LPG supply in the USA? If so, is there a real price advantage. Most people who run on lpg here in uk say the running cost is 60% that of petrol - taking into account the lower price, but also lower mpg
|
|
|
Replying to: nigbo (Nov 16, 2007 7:41 am) Do you get a lot of "pressure release" venting in your system. With temperatures around 115F here in the summer, I would imagine there would be some loss.
|
|
|
Replying to: reholmes (Nov 16, 2007 8:16 am)  35°C (95 °F) installation concessions stopped here in uk for conversion to lpg, likewise muted that the exemption from the contentious London congestion charge (£8 / day) is to stop also for lpg vehicles. so much for the alleged 'green credentials' of the politicans (spit !) |
|
|
Hi, just adding my data to the conversation. My mileage has gone up from new of 24.0 mixed (mostly highway commuting) to sometimes 26.5. I have one fill-up at 27.3, and am sitting on apparently another that will be 27mpg. It is truly improving, and you can feel the engine/transmission loosening up and continuing to settle in. Similar, but different than my ‘05 Passat TDI did (sold at 42k miles….). Looking now at my spreadsheet; the lowest I have is about 23.13 and just one other less than 24mpg; my overall average thus far is 25.08. (NOTE: I have checked the GC’s trip meter with a GPS unit just a week ago and it’s excellent: trip meter says 5.0 miles, GPS = 4.98 so very little diff). I have about 8200 miles total at this point. Again, my mileage is mostly commuting on I-5/local hwys at 55-75mph with some slow-n-go’s and a lot drafting (by necessity). Open highway will be slightly less. VERY IMPORTANT: be sure to closely check and understand the accuracy of your Trip Computer MPG reading. Mine reads 1.9 low (average, over 12 readings...). Thus, when it says around 24.0 (common for my driving..) I'm really at about 25.9. I love the vehicle, I'm glad I bought it. I I was able to get it for about $7700 off of the MSRP - thus putting it within 'striking' distance of the '08 Highlander and the new Saturn crossover price-wise. This is my 2nd diesel recently (had an '05 VW Passat TDI; 43 mpg same driving!). I intend to make all future purchases be diesel. |
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 1:49 am) $2.95 and E85 $2.15. Would be interested in your state & diesel prices since the midwest really jacks them up the past few winters. I have a few posts above as I eventually did buy a 4.7L to get the better towing vs the V6, going against my initial thoughts to not have a V8 but finding out it only got 5% worse mpg than the V6 with 30% more torque. I also looked at the same Highlander, Outlook (& Veracruz). With 1200 mi I still am getting 15mpg town (incl a few warmups idling, remote start is very nice) and 20mpg 70mpg freeway but did notice going into the wind that dropped to 18mpg for a Thanksgiving trip. Sounds like you are more familiar with a diesel than me: I still remember in the 80s guys at work here in MN going out 2-3 times per day to run them for 20 mins on the few days we get where the high is -5F. Hopefully things have improved in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 1:49 am) Diesels are more efficient than gas for pulling very heavy loads while operating almost continually for than 200K. This efficiency does not translate for the average auto driver. Remember, European nations have subsidized diesel and penalized gas to the detriment of Europeans who drive much shorter distances and who drive less frequently. This is social policy and not better economic insight. Mass transit is heavily subsidized in Europe to the economic detriment of individual drivers to support powerful labor unions representing mass transit workers. |
|
|
Gents, appreciate your comments etc, but they don't work/apply to me; that's why after careful number crunching, consideration, etc I did buy the GC Diesel: -This isn't 20 yrs ago. Does anyone seriously think that diesel technology has stood still while say, gasoline tech hasn't? Do you think that it is ONLY the gasoline vs. diesel pricing (tax structure, etc) in Europe that accounts for such a big portion of new sales in like the last 10 yrs?? Remember, Euro's were driving substantial numbers of diesels over 20 yrs ago before the modern, current style of fuel taxation became so severe. Nope, it's because modern diesels as used in passenger and light-duty vehicles (ie, cars and SUVs) work so VERY well (of which, we have VERY few examples here in the US...but that's changing...) -Lifetime Warranty, lack of... You're right, it is almost for sure a stupid thing they don't give it to you (along with essentially NOT advertising the CRD option). However, for me - after reading of issues with other GC engine/transmission issues, etc (although older) - I was more than happy to place my vote or 'bet' with the German-sourced engine/tranny; especially considering this exact combo of vehicle/engine/tranny has now been sold in Europe for almost 3 yrs now (yes, driven in COLD wx!)... Also, note that I had more concerns with overall Chrysler reliability and therefore wanted more than just the powertrain coverage; thus, that means an extended warranty - have you seen what the C. dealers want for those!!! Ludicrous; therefore it was an easy choice to search for another and I in fact am buying one via my credit union where I financed the rig, at HALF price for like a 100,000 no-deduct and transferable bumper-to-bumper warranty. Case closed for me on this 'issue' - but maybe not you. -Price differential. As stated, my final cost to buy (NOT considering fuel or insurance over coming yrs...) was about $1000 to $1200 more than the Toy or Saturn (the only other 2 I was interested in...). Had the difference been $2000 or more then I was ready to spring for the Toyota (best deal via Costco program at local dealer...). In my case for these 3 rigs I would be getting extra luxuries that I didn't absolutely 'need' or would seldom use: For the Toy/Sat I was giving up some mpg, giving up really good towing and giving up any true off-roading and really only getting people-capacity-legroom in exchange. The GC gives me true towing of substantial trailers (what I need, maybe not you), I can off-road to far more places with my mt bike and photo gear, and I get much better passing power, mpg AND cruising range. So, considering how each drove - generally a close call (although the other 2 are more like min-van feeling, more body roll, lack a true passing surge, etc) - and safety equip considerations, the GC became my choice since for me I was 'getting more' for my dollar as a package (ie, everything considered). -To continue 'everything considered': my insurance quote from my USAA ins was slightly cheaper than either the Toy or Sat (by something like $100/yr) further narrowing the 'differential' a bit. Mileage, fuel cost: I drive about 32k miles/yr and have been the last few years here in WA state. During the last 2.5 yrs while I had the Passat diesel, the fuel price varied greatly; the first few months it was a bit less than unleaded, then sometimes about the same, other times just around mid to high-grade gas, and other times higher by say 20 up to 50 cents/gal (compared to regular). So, it has for me on an OVERALL average not been much different. Right now, most reg. is like 3.20 up here, and MOST stations are selling diesel at around 3.65 to 3.70 at the moment; however, I have 2 stations (right off the freeway I drive routinely) where I'm paying 3.41 to 3.47 recently, barely more than premium. As stated before, the only GC gas engine I really would have bought, and I used for comparison to the CRD, is the 5.7 hemi (for comparable towing, some low-end off-road grunt, really good passing). I have done a few calcs: assuming (my typical driving) the 5.7 would give an average over months or a year, of 19.5 mpg for 32k miles at $3.18/gal that's like 1641 gals = $5218 fuel cost (not sure the mpg would be that high but ....). For the GC CRD the numbers are 25.0 mpg (my actual running, overall average right now... and getting better..) 32k miles at say $3.50/gal gives 1280 gals = about $4480. So, in roughly 1.5 yrs w/fuel&ins&diesel break-in improvement I will have 'made' up that final purchase price 'differential' (again, comparing similarly equipped vehicles like I wanted...) AND still retain all the 'extras' that it gives me over the other options. Also note that in the Limited CRD, when I was buying, it was much easier to get a BIG discount than the Ltd 5.7. The 3.8l and 4.7 engines were not options for me; no interest. Finally, if the fuel price margin narrows and/or prices go up (same margin) = advantage diesel. If say gas gets to 5.18/gal around here and diesel at 5.50/gal = that means $8500 for gas, $7040 for the CRD !! Hmmm, now what has fuel done the last 5 yrs or so....? That's right people. And if you think diesel will get totally out of control think again... this country MOVES on diesel powered trucks and that ain't changing for at least 20 but likely 30-40 yrs. Diesel pricing will one way or another be kept generally in line with other fuel pricing. -Cold Wx: can't say anything about the GC CRD yet, but... my cold-soaked VW Passat: Bend, OR (high desert, COLD snow country..). Walk out the hotel at 6 AM it's like -5 one morning, -13 another, and a bunch of plus-single digit instances: turn the key, wait maybe 6 seconds, and voila - engine running with normal diesel laced with a normal, recommended amount of winterizer diesel additive (get at WalMart, truck stops, duh...). Instant heated seats, I'm off and running. That's me, my experience, no big deal. Your MN situation may be significantly different..don't know. -Finally, criticisms of Chrysler are in essence, correct: they should have from the get-go also offered a low-cost, 2wd only 'high mileage' version of the GC CRD: 2wd only (thus eliminating the mileage-robbing inefficiency of the hard core, heavy QuadraDrive II system), a different final drive ratio and lower trim level. The mileage would be higher, the cost lower, they would sell more, they would in essence get 'free' additional advertising by putting more on the street/word-of-mouth, and they would maybe recover costs more quickly vs. the decision they made. Hope these insights are helpful to some of you out there. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 11:50 am) OK you found, a person might save $738 in fuel costs 32K by using diesel instead of gas but would not recoup the additional purchase cost until about 40K when the higher cost of operating on diesel is included. Having driven in Europe from time to time in over the last 30 years, the only change I have noticed is EU tax policy becoming universal with the extra taxes on gas engines now in all EU nations and that was bad news for everybody. Again, social policy as opposed to economics. The production of a gallon of diesel is far more costly than the production of a gallon of gas and there's nothing that will change that. Diesel pollutes more than gas even with the improvements in refining. The environmental cost of diesel has always exceeded the environmental cost of gas. What the EU has done is force a more polluting fuel source on the EU tax payer because in the EU unions are very powerful. The reality of it has been obscured by a false assumption that if it's done that way in Europe, it must be better. Not so. The cheapest form of transportation for goods and services has always been and remains transportation by diesel-electric train engines. Transportation of people on trains has never made a profit and has to be subsidized. The diesel-electric engine pulling tremendous loads over long distances is where diesel becomes economically viable. If we really do go "green" in the United States, diesel will be far too expensive to operate cars or trucks if the price is determined by a fuel's "environmental costs" and that can happen very quickly. Trucks will indeed use them for a while with the extra costs inflating everything we buy.The good news or maybe not so good news is that the EU will not be competitive with the United States because of its social policies supporting diesel. The advantage the EU has is that EU leaders have had the foresight to see it coming and go forward towards a nuclear economy to produce electricity to serve as the energy source for transportation. We, on the other hand, fell victim to the most stupid energy policy possible because of the left a.k.a. Democrats using the fear of nuclear energy as a method of them "saving us". The Republicans have been no better or perhaps worse because they knew better but were afraid to meet the challenge of explaining that nuclear energy is to produce electricity for transportation is vital. So were are going to get all the goofy stuff like solar, wind and bio-diesel for a while until the pubic understands the scam and who is raking in the loot. Energy policy and the real cost of fuel has been the greatest shell game in history. |
|
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
