| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| 4WD&SU magazine gets 10-11 miles per gallon?? http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14703 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | LibertyCRD [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 4WD&SU magazine gets 10-11 miles per gallon?? |
I'm just reading through my Jan. 07 4WD&SU magazine, and there is a cool article in here about upgrading a KJ with exhaust/intake. But...they claim that they only get 10-11 mpg before the mods. And with all the mods they are up to 12.5 miles per gallon. WTF?? My Dodge 1500 with 4.7L V8 was getting that kind of mileage. Any KJ should be in the high-teens easily. My wife's 3.7L with ATs was getting 17 or so. Do you think they realize there is something wrong with their KJ?? 
|
|
| Author: | dog_party [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I saw that too.
|
|
| Author: | warblade666 [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ours only gets about 11-12 city & 17-18 hw with a best ever of 19 on a 220mile hw trip with the cruise set at 65. I have heard of others getting worse. I don't beleave most of the claims I hear of 16-17 city/ 20-24 hw. Now, if they are only getting 11-12mpg hw.... that really sucks! |
|
| Author: | ATXKJ [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They used the official Consumer Reports testing technique.............. (you remember, the one where CRD's get 11 mpg) |
|
| Author: | Cacher123 [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I'm just reading through my Jan. 07 4WD&SU magazine, and there is a cool article in here about upgrading a KJ with exhaust/intake. But...they claim that they only get 10-11 mpg before the mods. And with all the mods they are up to 12.5 miles per gallon. WTF??
If you read on, you'll see I believe that the KJ they tested was lifted and already had oversize tires installed, hence the lower MPGs. |
|
| Author: | LibertyCRD [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, I see that. But will a 2.5" lift and 31s drop your mileage 6 miles per gallon?? 
Oh well...I just thought that was odd. I've been around a LOT of V6 4x4s in my life, and I have NEVER seen one that averaged 11-12 miles per gallon. That is insane. If I ever owned a V6 that was that hard on fuel, I'd sell it in a heartbeat and get a V8. What's the point in having V8 fuel economy with V6 power? I still think there is something wrong with that KJ...either that or the elevation is causing the computer to send more fuel to the engine. I just wish they wouldn't publish stuff like that because it makes the 3.7L look like a gas pig. And it's not a gas pig at all. It's actually equal or slightly better on fuel than it's competition. |
|
| Author: | DarbyWalters [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They probably didn't adjust the miles traveled by the wheel size either...mpg is so subjective in limited "tests" like that...they are not really scientific about thier methods. |
|
| Author: | Tokyojoe [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It is all a pack of lies produced by KJ haters to demote the purchase of future Libertys. Conspiracy theory, I say, conspiracy. I DO get 16-19 mpg. I have the bigger tires and the 2.5" lift. I have the Skink Sliders and the All J Superskid II. Renegade roof lights and a basket up top (not Renegade tupperware). I know the distance to and from work (measured down to 0.01/mile) and I have driven just to and from work for a week and filled up the tank and calculated. No other driving places....just to and from work and my MPG is as I stated. It will drop once I get the steel bumpers added. |
|
| Author: | USPLibby [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think that they are using more realistic "city" testing where there is a lot of bumper to bumper traffic and long signals. Remember that if you are going zero miles and hour, you are getting zero miles per gallon. The federal mpg testing they perform on new cars don't really represent real world driving, especially if you live in a city. |
|
| Author: | dog_party [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now that I think about it, I don't think they skewed their numbers and I don't think they're trying to badmouth, or hurt the KJ by printing those numbers. I think they only use their KJ for wheeling. 10-11 is acceptable gasser MPGs while wheeling for a lot of vehicles. I haven't wheeled a gasser KJ though. What MPGs are you guys getting in the dirt/rocks? |
|
| Author: | Jeepjeepster [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
dog_party wrote: Now that I think about it, I don't think they skewed their numbers and I don't think they're trying to badmouth, or hurt the KJ by printing those numbers. I think they only use their KJ for wheeling. 10-11 is acceptable gasser MPGs while wheeling for a lot of vehicles. I haven't wheeled a gasser KJ though. What MPGs are you guys getting in the dirt/rocks?
Crawling around on rocks? I will usually use around an 1/8-1/4 of a tank in about 12miles.  All we do it idle around all day though. Its kinda hard to get good mpg when you do not go over 5mph.. 
I get around 15mpg in the city with the cragars and 30" tires. Not really different than when I was stock. 17-20 on the HW depending on the speed. I noticed yesterday, the evic said I was getting 16.2mpg at 75mph(evic was reset when I got on the interstate).. I slowed down to 65mph and reset it again.. Let it average out and checked it again in about 20miles. 19mpg..  Drops quick when you go over 65.. And my evic is off alittle with the bigger tires. Add about 1-2 mpg to that.
|
|
| Author: | wendell [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My 06 has only 1,500 miles on it, we just did a road trip and got 21 highway and it's not even broken in yet. My wife checked it on her drive to work, mixed driving and she's getting 18-19. My ranger with the 4.0 sohc, supercab 4x4, 5-speed manual, 4:10 gears and 265/75 BFG's is getting 22 mixed and 24 highway. Like one poster said, a v6 better get better than 12 mpg, or might as well gotten a hemie comander and an v8 f-150 4x4. I'm happy so far with the mpg of both my v6's, ford and jeep. Once the kj gets broken in and I switch to full synthetic fluids in the drive train, I hope to get better yet. Also want to do the intake and exhaust, plus a good tune, it helped on the ranger, more power and better mpg. |
|
| Author: | Tokyojoe [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just filled up. I removed my MTR's and put my stocks back on before driving down to Rock Lizards yesterday. Reset the EVIC, and it said I got 19.2 MPG. I already had 68 miles on it with the MTR's. Driving to RL's is speed limit of 75 uphill (going from 5280 ft to about 6500 ft during the 60 mile drive and of course, downhill coming back). Overall I had 237 miles registered (off due to the MTR's) but when I filled up, I put in around 13 gallons. Did the calculations and it said I got 16.3 MPG....shows how off the EVIC is but it is going to take awhile for it to readjust to stock size tires. Same with the whole KJ. |
|
| Author: | warblade666 [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't have EVIC, I allways go by the miles & gallons. 200 miles > 14 gallons = 14.29mpg. That's combined city/highway! and YES I have had it reprogramed for the larger tires. 220mile hw trip at 65 on cruise = 12 gall = 18.3mpg |
|
| Author: | 1stJeepKJ [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm almost dead on with warblade666 14.4mpg city/highway daily driving and on highway trips to moab or wherever right around 18mpg with city stops for gas and food. |
|
| Author: | detroit_doc [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What year was the KJ in the article? I had an '02 w/ a 45RFE and an '03 w/ a 42RLE in my family at the same time. The '02 alway got considerably worse gas mileage. Ironically though, the 45RFE was a much better behaved transmission than the 42RLE. Given the choice I'd take the worse gas mileage in exchange for a trans that will unlock the convertor and kick down on the freeway. |
|
| Author: | Gris [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sounds like crap to me. I have 245/75 MTRs on mine. No gear change, not reprogrammed for the larger tires and I get 250 miles on about 17 gallons of gas. It's not great, but it's over 15 MPG. That without the reprogram meaning I actually drove closer to 280 miles than 250. |
|
| Author: | Jeepjeepster [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gris wrote: sounds like crap to me.
I have 245/75 MTRs on mine. No gear change, not reprogrammed for the larger tires and I get 250 miles on about 17 gallons of gas. It's not great, but it's over 15 MPG. That without the reprogram meaning I actually drove closer to 280 miles than 250. My 04 with the 42rle unlocks the torque before it downshifts.. I always wondered if the 45rfe did. Guess I know now..
|
|
| Author: | Gris [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jeepjeepster wrote: Gris wrote: sounds like crap to me. I have 245/75 MTRs on mine. No gear change, not reprogrammed for the larger tires and I get 250 miles on about 17 gallons of gas. It's not great, but it's over 15 MPG. That without the reprogram meaning I actually drove closer to 280 miles than 250. My 04 with the 42rle unlocks the torque before it downshifts.. I always wondered if the 45rfe did. Guess I know now.. What do you mean? you confused me 
It's sad, but I'm not sure what tranny I have. the build sheet says "DDD". It's an '02 manual. There is a reference to NV3550. Is that my Tranny code? |
|
| Author: | NS02KJ [ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gris, are you sure that you have a 2002 Libby? The manual's only came out for the 2003 year's and on. I wanted a manual, but would have had to wait until 2003. Yours probably was made in 2002 but was the early 2003 model. Remember they usually are out on the lots sometime in September and on for the next year's model. If that makes any sense. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|