mileage

Derek Mc · **Posted:** Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:41 am

OK here is a reality check
Our KJ Auto CRD is doing around 24mpg with about 5500 miles under her wheels.
I myself run a 97 BMW 750i Sport a V12 with 5.4 litres and average 21mpg over the exact same type of commuting (we work three miles apart and commute 15 miles each way to work)
I am a little dissapointed as both weigh about the same and one is supposed to be thirsty LMAO :twisted:

Our Euro CRD 5 cyl Mercedes diesel engined Grand Cherokee did 30mpg average on the same drive.

groucho · **Posted:** Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:05 pm

I got 21.5 on an 03 Dodge Cummins dually on the Interstate if held below 80 mph. It weighed about 7800 lbs with my tools in it.

The CRD should be most efficient at about 1800 rpm. Wherever the torque peaks. Unfortunately, there is no manual transmission which would allow proper shifting by rpm.

I think the boys from Toledo are somewhat engineering-challenged when compared with the boys from Bavaria. Then too, there is the price considerable differential, although it may be less in your location. Also, the V-12 is interesting. What the diesel manufacturers ignore on the auto side is that Volvo, for instance, is attacking the EPA regs and the mileage issue with more cylinders, with as much as a V-16 being considered for their large, heavy-duty engines. Fuel management for a diesel is far more efficient in smaller cylinders.

The 07 GC with the 3.0 liter Mercedes diesel for the US was pegged at 24 mpg highway in the press release, which is disgusting.

My 06 CRD with 2500 miles on odometer gets 25.8 on Interstate running 65 to 90 mph. I get 20 about town. And, I push on the throttle vigorously.

Your short commute may be a factor even though the CRD water temp goes up quickly. A run that short in a cast iron block diesel would be very uneconomical. There is alot of aluminum under the CRD but I don't know about the block. My old Cummins needed about 15 minutes of operation before it was warmed enough to gas on it. I think 24 mpg is probably pretty good for a short run. Depends on how fast you drive. Also, I understand they get less mileage if driven on the wrong side of the highway. Do the Pommies make the Scots drive on the wrong side of the road? The poor folk in OZ have to do it.

My first Scot in the American tree came here in 1832, settling in Claibourne county, TN. Not the "Heelands", but high enough. Course, he may well have been a Pommie in disguise.

The CRD is not an "economy" vehicle, except in purchase price. I don't think $22k here would buy much Bavarian metal.

How much is diesel there? I know it is much higher than here. I think you have higher quality diesel than we.

Derek Mc · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:19 pm

Sorry for the lenghty delay on answering Groucho,
Diesel in the UK is currently around $1.90 per litre (US Gallon is 3.8 litres) so a gallon is $7.25, it is not significantly higher quality it just "Feels" it LMAO

I had the need to take both Jeep and BMW on a run of around 180 miles in the last few weeks and at a constant 75/80 mph over about 90% of the distance the BMW V12 was actually doing 29mpg the jeep a paltry 25mpg (UK gallon 4.54 litre) this was not really unexpected but pleasant to demonstrate to my wife :wink:

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

24 mpg is about right with 5500 miles on it. Mine didn't do much better until it hit 10-12K miles. At 20K its doing even better when running correctly. But 24 mpg was average highway mileage until some miles accumulated.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:51 pm

groucho wrote:

The 07 GC with the 3.0 liter Mercedes diesel for the US was pegged at 24 mpg highway in the press release, which is disgusting.

My 06 CRD with 2500 miles on odometer gets 25.8 on Interstate running 65 to 90 mph. I get 20 about town. And, I push on the throttle vigorously.

Ok the 3.0 MB in the GC is rated 24 combined not highway, I believe it is rated 21/24/28 -- City/Combined/Highway, I posted the actual offical ratings on another thread here somewhere, with reports of 30 mpg being exceeded by magazine testers.

Sorry to hear your CRD is such a fuel hog, I have no problem getting 32 to 33 mpg (US) cruising 68 to 72 mph, however due to aerodynamic's above 75 mph the mpg drop is amazing. Where the areodynamic's on the BMW 750i Sport a V12 is fantastic and does not even compare to the Liberty CRD which is shaped like a cement block. Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter. :roll:

Groucho if you would cut out those passing burst to 90 mph you might find your CRD could get 30 to 33 mpg man. :roll:

Taz · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:06 pm

oldnavy wrote:

Quote:

Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter.

I would say its like comparing a jet fighter to a brick.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:17 pm

Taz wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

Quote:

Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter.

I would say its like comparing a jet fighter to a brick.

Bricks are not self propelled, but subs are. :roll:

jeep06 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Groucho, the CRD does in fact have a cast iron block, with wet liners for those interested in putting new cylinders in it some day..haha. The OEM service manual claims it weighs 595lbs. dry, not bad for a little 4-popper!!!

gsbrockman · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:54 am

Consider the low mileage a factor......yours is most likely no where near broken-in. Also consider that you don't hit lock-up w/5th gear until 58 mph or so. On a recent trip to Myrtle Beach, SC., I found my CRD happiest around 2300--2400 rpm.

Greg

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

We just finished a 1000 mile round trip in our 05 crd which had 6k miles on it. We averaged just under 25 mpg with the jeep loaded and traveling 80 to 85 mph. Not bad, in my humble opinion.

Derek Mc · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:24 pm

oldnavy wrote:

Taz wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

Quote:

Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter.

I would say its like comparing a jet fighter to a brick.

Bricks are not self propelled, but subs are. :roll:

I know what you are getting at but the Diesel is supposed to be and "Economy" engine its a four pot drawing 2.8 litres against a V12 drawing 5.4 litres. It just "feels" odd pleasant I might add, but odd.
I hope that it dpes loosen up a bit more s I do notice it feels a lot more powerful lately as it will motor on up a steep incline without dropping out of O/D where before it would drop a cog to maintain speed on cruise.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:10 pm

Derek Mc wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

Taz wrote:

oldnavy wrote:

Quote:

Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter.

I would say its like comparing a jet fighter to a brick.

Bricks are not self propelled, but subs are. :roll:

I know what you are getting at but the Diesel is supposed to be and "Economy" engine its a four pot drawing 2.8 litres against a V12 drawing 5.4 litres. It just "feels" odd pleasant I might add, but odd.
I hope that it dpes loosen up a bit more s I do notice it feels a lot more powerful lately as it will motor on up a steep incline without dropping out of O/D where before it would drop a cog to maintain speed on cruise.

Man your not doing too bad, but if you would start driving on the proper side of the road you might do a little better with the mpg thing. :wink:

All BS & teasing aside if you yanked that V12 out and stick your 2.8L CRD in that BMW, I bet it would do 45 mpg through the hills & dales. :wink:

Derek Mc · **Posted:** Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:22 pm

A 7 with the CRD, they do one in Europe with a 218HP 2.9 6 cyl that indeed as you say do 45mpg.
I'd just be happy if the KJ did the same mpg fig's as the Merc engined 02 mdl Grand Cherokee we used to own, however being patient I am sure it will loosen up some time around 2013 LMAO :wink:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:37 pm

Derek Mc wrote:

A 7 with the CRD, they do one in Europe with a 218HP 2.9 6 cyl that indeed as you say do 45mpg.
I'd just be happy if the KJ did the same mpg fig's as the Merc engined 02 mdl Grand Cherokee we used to own, however being patient I am sure it will loosen up some time around 2013 LMAO :wink:

Well I guess there is quite a bit of difference in aerodynamics of the GC and C (Liberty) also there might be some gearing differences here mucking up the mpg's.

96*F and 97% humidity outside. :shock:

KJMedic · **Posted:** Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:29 pm

We just got back from a trip to the Great Smokies. Going there ran the speed limit with the cruse set at posted speed limit 27 mpg. On the way back ran 80-85 with some burst to 100mph and got 23 mpg. over all trip 960 miles and 38 gallons of fuel. Not bad for a SUV that can tow 5000+ LBS.

[/quote]

groucho · **Posted:** Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:02 pm

oldnavy wrote:

groucho wrote:

The 07 GC with the 3.0 liter Mercedes diesel for the US was pegged at 24 mpg highway in the press release, which is disgusting.

My 06 CRD with 2500 miles on odometer gets 25.8 on Interstate running 65 to 90 mph. I get 20 about town. And, I push on the throttle vigorously.

Ok the 3.0 MB in the GC is rated 24 combined not highway, I believe it is rated 21/24/28 -- City/Combined/Highway, I posted the actual offical ratings on another thread here somewhere, with reports of 30 mpg being exceeded by magazine testers.

Sorry to hear your CRD is such a fuel hog, I have no problem getting 32 to 33 mpg (US) cruising 68 to 72 mph, however due to aerodynamic's above 75 mph the mpg drop is amazing. Where the areodynamic's on the BMW 750i Sport a V12 is fantastic and does not even compare to the Liberty CRD which is shaped like a cement block. Man that is like comparing a submarine to a jet fighter. :roll:

Groucho if you would cut out those passing burst to 90 mph you might find your CRD could get 30 to 33 mpg man. :roll:

I can't hep it! But, it is obvious that once broken in these things can get the mileage if driven properly. Also, I wasn't sure about the block. Interesting about the weight. I think the Cummins 5.9 now weighs about 1100 lbs. I'll be interested to see actual mileage reports on the new GC CRD. I simply cannot believe that they won't do well, far better than EPA estimates. EPA just changed the formulae for the EPA estimates which are giving more conservative estimates I think.

mileage

Who is online