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, 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. |
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 11:50 am) - We got the 7/70 Added care all major components for $600 on day of purchase, which I can upgrade to the max care by 3/36 for no fee. The dealer admits they cut the price by $400 over what Chrysler charges to keep us coming to their shop, but I have had pretty good luck over the past 20 years with them. Last Spring I put a full Max care 7/70 on my Chrysler 300 that had the 7/70 drivetrain already for $900 so $600 seemed fairly reasonable. It was interesting to see a Lifetime Maxcare available for the Jeep but at $1900 I did not have the cash. - Glad the cold weather starting challenges have improved, just think how gas engines were in the carb vs FI days! We don't get too many -20 overnights in S MN so I'm sure the CRDs are ok here with warmup patience. I honest do want to try the E85 eventually but that also does not work well below zero, it's tempting with one station in town selling it at $2.15, others are 2.39, I just plan to wait a couple months. Based on technical reading, I believe the switchgrass based ethanol vs corn will be a good alternatve in another 5 years. - And I agree Chrysler (and others) need to be working more options for fuel efficiency improvements. In measurements this fall the AWD Saturn Outlook did 10% better at mpg in a heavier vehicle, it just was priced WAY above the Jeep without features my wife wanted. I was happy with my old '01 JGC 4L Selectrac (shift in 4WD all the time) that got 1mpg better in 2WD mode 8 months of the year. Now Selectrac's only on the Liberty which I initially planned to buy w/V6, but it was not a good handler/rider nor quite enough interior room despite good head room. Perhaps the new 4L in the Nitro & Pacifica with MDS and Selectrac could squeek out 24mpg in the JGC and still be able to tow 5000 lb? Or perhaps people buying these deluxe SUV/CUVs don't want to think about shifting or switching in any type of AWD, keep it automatic, whats a few mpg? |
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 11:50 am) It certainly appears that you did your homework and purchased the correct vehicle for your intended purchases. I do have some questions and comments. You say you need serious power for heavy duty towing and for off roading. "The 3.8l and 4.7 engines were not options for me; no interest". Yet you also said earlier that the Hilander and Saturn were your 2nd choices, after the GC diesel. Neither of those have the towing ability or trail-ability of the GC 4.7. This is a bit confusing. What is the difference in rated towing of the Diesel GC and the 4.7 GC? The GC tow package includes a 7 pin electrical trailer connector, for towing heavy duty trailers with electric brakes? I don't believe those are available from the dealer for the Highlander or Saturn. What is the price difference of the 4WD GC diesel when compared to an identical equipped GC with the 4.7 after rebates. Are fuel additives for the diesel required on a regular basis? What do they cost? Does the diesel have a turbo? If so, is there extra expense involved such as more frequent oil changes than a gas engine? I'm asking this based on ongoing experiences with my diesel farm tractors that tend to dirty the oil quickly. And I understand that the high revving turbos units themselves like clean oil. This last question is for the poster that said it is much more expensive to process diesel than gasoline. I've heard that before and feel it must be true! I just don't understand WHY! The feel and smell of diesel, right out of the pump, seems to suggest it is much closer to crude than gas and therefore not refined as much, thus should be less costly. Any ideas! Thanks, Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 03, 2007 5:08 am) I did some checking on my own and came up with some interesting numbers from Edmunds. The Diesel does produce 376 # of torque vs 335 # for the new 4.7. This would indeed give the diesel an advantage in "Grunt". However the Diesel only produces 215 HP compared to 305 for the 4.7. For everyday driving the 4.7 is going to be a lot stronger for passing and so forth. Advantage goes to the 4.7. Some of us get better than EPA estimates, while others get worse, with what ever we drive. All we can go by is the EPA window sticker. These numbers come from identical testing that can be duplicated over and over again. The testing procedures have been re tuned to more duplicate today's driving habits. They are all lower than they used to be. For towing, the Diesel GC has the advantage at 7400# vs the 4.7 at 6500#. Nothing really earthshaking there. We have to also consider the chassis set up and the gearing. The 4.7 is no slouch. Keep in mind that in a full size Ram the 4.7 is rated to tow 9100# according to edmunds. And that is with the 235 hp and 300# torque 4.7 engine. According to Edmunds, the diesel is not sold in states that adhear to California emission guidelines. Back to fuel cost. With the EPA ratings of 14/19 gas (4.7) and 17/22 diesel . Advantage 3 mpg diesel. I realize you are getting more than that, but a lot of gas folks beat the EPA also, so let's stick to facts that can be duplicated. Warranties have been 36k/3yr, 60k/5yr and so forth. Indicating about 12K a year for the average driver. With that average driver doing a little more city than town, the numbers will look like 16mpg gas, and 19mpg diesel. Still 3mpg diesel advantage. At $3 for gas and $3.25 for diesel the gas will cost $2250 a year. Diesel will cost $2052 a year. At $4 and $4.30 the gas will cost $3000 and diesel $2715. The $200-$300 savings per year for the average driver in fuel has to be weighed against the difference in initial cost and any differences in additives, oil changes, and so forth. Example: IF the initial cost of identical equipped vehicles is $2000 more for the diesel, that $2000 sitting in a CD at 5% will grow to $3257 in 10 years. At the higher $300 diesel fuel savings a year, the average driver will save $3000 in fuel cost for that 10 year period. So in 10 years the average driver has not reached the break even point. Of course if the diesel driver put the yearly savings into Cds it would add up and actually show some savings by driving the diesel. IF the purchase price is the same for diesel and gas engines, the diesel wins, by $200-$300 a year. ! Problem with all of this is that the average driver will not keep a vehicle long enough or drive enough miles for a diesel to pay for itself if it cost more!. Some will. In your case, you need to pull more than 6500# and less than 7400#, and you drive 32k miles a year. The diesel should meet your needs and save you some money.  Kip |
|
|
Replying to: sahara111 (Dec 02, 2007 1:49 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: coolrider (Jan 14, 2008 4:39 pm) Very few drivers these days ever consider how they use their vehicles. Oh sure, they have utterances of being environmentally conscious, having concern about mileage and costs but who can honestly say that they have reduced the number of their vehicles or have decided to combine a number of stops in to one trip rather than just getting in the vehicle and going where they want when they want to? What does better mileage have to do with these decisions? Does better gas mileage justify the lack true conservation? I don't think so. When my children were small (30 years ago) I worked as many as three jobs at a time to meet our needs. My wife and I had to make tough choices about groceries, cars, vacations and travel. We understood that groceries, health care and housing came before luxuries. We had one used car-a two door Datson (now called Nissan)710 and it got about 25 miles per gallon. We grocery shopped once a week, I swapped out driving with two co-workers on two of my jobs and I walked to work (seven blocks) for my primary job. The price of gas was less but the real cost was substantially more with my gross monthly earnings at about $750.00. It is not that the gas is high now but rather that we want to use our money for non-essential things and feel oppressed when we have to make adult choices or if we are even threatened with adult choices about when and how we use vehicles. I am sorry but driving a "high mileage car" to make yourself feel superior while owning several computers, DVD players, Ipods, cell phones, multiple and or big screen and or HD TVs, having a carpeted , fully air-conditioned house with all the appliances and 2300 square feet or more is just short of delusional. If folks really want to express some altruistic or some necessary economical behavior, drop the trinkets, sell all but one car and live in a modest house. Having a vehicle that gets even double the gas mileage of another vehicle is a drop in the bucket for the "environmental" cost of your existence. I am not suggesting that it's necessary at all but get real. The best way to save fuel is just to slow down and drive less. |
|
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
