- #44 of 103
-
Re: Jeep Commander: MPG - Real World Numbers [steve_]
by blkcommander
-
May 26, 2007 (8:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2006 1:40 pm)
I have a new (Leftover) Jeep Commander 2006 with about 3500 miles on it. It is equipped with a 4.7 L and has 3.73 rear gears. I drive this truck most of the time at 6.000-11,000 feet altitude in Colorado and use wimpy 85 octane fuel. I have been averaging a consistent 18 MPG and have gone as low as 16 and as high as 20. My salesman has the same truck and says he gets 14MPG? I am gentle on the throttle but I drive the speed limit + 5MPH.
|
- #45 of 103
-
Re: Jeep Commander:MPG
by tomn04
-
May 27, 2007 (4:23 pm)
-
|
|
I have a new Jeep Commander Ltd with the 4.7 and the gas mileage is sad! I got much better mileage (3 MPG) in my 2004 Durango Ltd with the Hemi. Does anybody know if the Vortex cyclone help improve the mileage?
|
- #46 of 103
-
Re: Jeep Commander:MPG [tomn04]
by steve_ HOST
-
May 27, 2007 (4:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: tomn04 (May 27, 2007 4:23 pm)
Save your money.
Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets
Check out the Fuel Economy page for ideas on how to save money on gas.
|
- #47 of 103
-
Some cheese with that?
by harvey44
-
May 29, 2007 (5:53 pm)
-
|
This board is hysterical. My COMMANDER gets crappy mileage? Hello? Did you look at the thing before you bought it? That BEAST must weigh well over two tons.
I'll put my wife's Civic up against it and blow it away by every measure except maybe towing, and cargo. Actually, I bet my wife could beat the damn thing to 0-60, winding it out in second. Probably get better mileage doin it too.
Sorry to troll, I couldn't resist.
|
- #48 of 103
-
Re: Some cheese with that? [harvey44]
by 75coug
-
May 29, 2007 (6:03 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: harvey44 (May 29, 2007 5:53 pm)
I did not expect this beast to get good mileage, but I thought that it would do better than my 1999 Durango 4x4 with the ancient 5.9 liter V8. The Durango gets 14 mpg combined city/highway, and the Commander doesn't come close to that figure.
|
- #49 of 103
-
Re: Some cheese with that? [harvey44]
by neumie2000
-
May 30, 2007 (8:38 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: harvey44 (May 29, 2007 5:53 pm)
If you read the "complaints" carefully, I believe owners are disappointed over their inability to achieve the EPA estimated mileage. I agree with you that noone should even look at a Commander if they are looking for a fuel efficient vehicle. However, if you purchase a Commander believing you can live with 19 mpg on the highway, but are only able to achieve 15-16, I can certainly understand the disappointment. Your comment that your wife's Civic compares favorably to the Commander is interesting. A Commander is purchased for cargo capacity, four wheel drive capability and towing capacity. To say that your Civic "blows it away by every measure except towing and cargo" is like saying a rifle is better than a tank because it is easier to carry. In an accident between a Commander and a Civic, which vehicle would you rather your wife was traveling in??
|
- #50 of 103
-
Re: Some cheese with that? [harvey44]
by jaguarjefft
-
May 30, 2007 (9:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: harvey44 (May 29, 2007 5:53 pm)
I'll take my 5.7L hemi against any Honda Civic straight off the line and I'll kick ass on it....but it will cost me dearly in fuel.....Harvey44, I think you missed the boat in understanding our thread here....we all know that the Commander is not going to average 19 and 16....but given the extraordinary amount of bragging Chrysler is doing on its commercials, you would think that we could at least average close to 16hwy and 13 City (since noooooooo one should or can trust the EPA's lies)....not 13 and 9 actual.... my original inquiry was to identify if I was unique with the poorer results or if it was standard. Apparently, even with a downward adjustment, the EPA had much exaggerated results and Chrysler salespersons should not be telling people that EPA estimates and vary slightly, BUT TREMENDOUSLY, when in this day and age of corporate gas company rip-offs, we are concerned about our purchases and should be told the truth. Chrysler LIED to most (not some) of us owners. |
- #51 of 103
-
Your right of course
by harvey44
-
May 30, 2007 (5:46 pm)
-
|
I didn't read very carefully. I just thought it was funny that there was an MPG forum for the commander. Comparing it to my Civic was a joke, but I do think a race would be fun.
I remember reading a article in one of the auto mags about using the commander for a trip out west. While the vehicle is supposed to be made for adventure, the writers were in the desert and had 300 miles to travel on one leg without access to gas. They had to have it towed on a flatbed for nearly 100 miles as they didn't have the range to make it.
YMMV
Harv
|
- #52 of 103
-
Re: Your right of course [harvey44]
by steve_ HOST
-
May 30, 2007 (6:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: harvey44 (May 30, 2007 5:46 pm)
260 miles between fill ups was the magic number for the one that was in the Edmunds fleet:
2006 Jeep Commander: Passing Too Much Gas
Average fuel economy was 14.1 (lots of commuting in LA traffic and lots of different drivers). link
|
- #53 of 103
-
Re: Your right of course [harvey44]
by neumie2000
-
May 31, 2007 (5:01 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: harvey44 (May 30, 2007 5:46 pm)
The point of the story (which I totally agree with) is that the gas tank in the Commander is way too small. On the hightway, I am able to get about 350 miles to the tank full, but even that is pushing it. I'm thinking Civic vs. the Hemi, no chance, but Civic vs. the 4.7 or the V6, my money is probably on the Civic. Let's face it, the Commander may not have enough fuel to finish the quarter mile!!
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs 
