LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Diesel Commander in Australia
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11677		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  vtdog [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Diesel Commander in Australia
The Australian ran an article about the Jeep diesel commander
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 32,00.html

They liked the car, but using their figure of 13.1L/100km it got only about 18mpg (if my math is right). The commander has a 3L diesel which I assume is the same as what is going to go in the GC in the states. If the mpg holds true for the GC, there will be very little incentive for anyone to go to diesel, especially considering the fact that the diesel will probably be an expensive option.
Author:  MAX A/C [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  interesting article
but they did not have much nice to say about the interior! Yeah, 17.6MPG seems a bit disappointing, but the journalists never drive for economy. I wonder what it would do if driven gently? Time will tell with the GC.
Author:  Jeger [ Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Remember what Consumer Reports said about the Liberty. I definantly get better than 11MPG! Lets hope they are off on this one too.
Author:  no-blue-screen [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 
With my math, I get 22.4 mpg

10.5 L = 2.7738 US GAL

100km = 62.137 Miles

62.137/2.7738 = 22.4 mpg

For the HEMI - 62.137/4.23 = 14.7mpg

IMHO, 22.4mpg is a very good for a vehicle this size.
Author:  oldnavy [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
no-blue-screen wrote:
With my math, I get 22.4 mpg

10.5 L = 2.7738 US GAL

100km = 62.137 Miles

62.137/2.7738 = 22.4 mpg

For the HEMI - 62.137/4.23 = 14.7mpg

IMHO, 22.4mpg is a very good for a vehicle this size.
Darn you beat me to it Blue Man. I bet that is a combined city/highway of 50/50 driving at 75+ mph which would probably put it in the 24 to 26 mpg highway range.

Edit : Also not broke in yet and mileage will improve. :wink:
Author:  no-blue-screen [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
oldnavy wrote:
Edit : Also not broke in yet and mileage will improve. :wink:


Very true...you have to put at least 50k on these diesel engines before your milage starts to hit it's peak.
Author:  kj lad [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
My friend's 3.0 V6 diesel commander is averaging 24 mpg.

Ian
Author:  vtdog [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
ok, i can't add, but women love me anyway
Author:  oldnavy [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
vtdog wrote:
ok, i can't add, but women love me anyway
As long as you have a pork chop tied around the neck. :P :lol: :wink:
Author:  Ranger1 [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
The article says their actual fuel consumption was 13.1 liters per 100 kilometers instead of the rated 10.5 - or about 17.955 miles per gallon real world. 18 mpg isn't too bad for a heavy vehicle.
Author:  vtdog [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ranger1 wrote:
The article says their actual fuel consumption was 13.1 liters per 100 kilometers instead of the rated 10.5 - or about 17.955 miles per gallon real world. 18 mpg isn't too bad for a heavy vehicle.


phew, saved by ranger! I did re-read the article and checked my math again for the "actual" mpg vs the listed mpg and it is just under 18, vs 22. I had my own senior moment! (getting like old navy)
Author:  oldnavy [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
vtdog wrote:
phew, saved by ranger! I did re-read the article and checked my math again for the "actual" mpg vs the listed mpg and it is just under 18, vs 22. I had my own senior moment! (getting like old navy)
I resemble that!!! :wink:
Author:  no-blue-screen [ Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Okay, I see that, but also remember that the engine wasn't broken in and milage will improve as the odo climbs. Even at 18 mpg, I still don't think it is that bad considering the Hemi gets only 14.....is that is what it was rated at...did they give actual numbers for the hemi in their tests as they did for the CRD? If they did, I am sure that 14.7 would probably be off by at least 2mpg or so.

But, we all know how reliable those test milages can be...heck....didn't CR say that our Liberty CRD only got 11mpg?
Author:  Ranger1 [ Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, it's not bad mileage, but taking the sum of the parts, i.e., lackluster, goofy styling, useless 3rd seat, and general lack of inspiration overall, it's just one more mediocre niche product. Unless you're in the market for something with 4wd, seats 5 and luggage room and want to scrape every bit of mileage you can out of it. Maybe they should offer a bare metal, no back windows, panel truck version - could be a good delivery truck for small routes. Other than that, it should be a stellar sales success.
Author:  Fouros [ Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:37 am ]
Post subject: 
that and Australian motoring journos are notoriously hard on any 4x4 that is not a toyota or nissan if you jeep on the hood you got no chance of a fair write up
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/