Green Weenie SUV ratings

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

HarryS - 03 Apr 2005 16:18 GMT

I think this may have some bearing on the demise of the I-6. My wife's 04
WJ was the last year the I-6 was used and there is some hints of the I-6
demise in the TJs starting in 06.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-05.htm

Signature

HarryS My 2?

Reply to this Message

Matt Macchiarolo - 04 Apr 2005 01:20 GMT

The poor mileage in the TJ, IMHO, has more to do with the areodynamics (or
lack thereof) of the TJ, not the engine. Put the 3.7L V6 in the TJ and I bet
a 3.73 ring and pinion set that the fuel economy won't improve, all other
things being equal.

I had an opprotunity to drive a Liberty last week as a rental, 2wd, with the
3.7L engine. Actually not a particularly bad engine, it had more pickup than
I expected, even in the low end. <flamesuit>I think it will be adequate for
the TJ. </flamesuit> However, it was noisy and vibrated worse than the 4.0L
in my TJ. And, I really disliked the way the Liberty rode...the front end
would bottom out going over lane-wide bumps, and was very squirrely at
highway speeds, more so than my (sniff) no-longer-owned XJ. And, though it
seemed to have enough room I felt cramped...I'm 6'4", 260lb and my other car
is an '02 Superduty.

>I think this may have some bearing on the demise of the I-6. My wife's 04
> WJ was the last year the I-6 was used and there is some hints of the I-6
> demise in the TJs starting in 06.
>
> http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-05.htm

Reply to this Message

Dave Milne - 04 Apr 2005 01:22 GMT

It's both factors, isn't it ? The BMW X5 has a larger frontal area and a
larger 4.4 litre engine. But, it is also higher compression. The I6 has a
low compression engine to give it torque, not fuel economy. As you point
out, however, the real difference is due to the frontal area -the engine
difference can only be good for a few mpg.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

> The poor mileage in the TJ, IMHO, has more to do with the areodynamics (or
> lack thereof) of the TJ, not the engine. Put the 3.7L V6 in the TJ and I bet
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> >
> > http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/suv-05.htm

Reply to this Message

B a r r y - 06 Apr 2005 02:24 GMT

> The poor mileage in the TJ, IMHO, has more to do with the areodynamics (or
> lack thereof) of the TJ, not the engine. Put the 3.7L V6 in the TJ and I bet
> a 3.73 ring and pinion set that the fuel economy won't improve, all other
> things being equal.

I agree.

A brick flies like a brick, no matter how your throw it!

Barry

Reply to this Message