My goal is to get 25+ mpg from my 99 XJ with 30 x 9.5 R15 ATs - Page 39 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Cherokee & Comanche Forums > XJ Cherokee Technical Forum > My goal is to get 25+ mpg from my 99 XJ with 30 x 9.5 R15 ATs

Introducing MONSTALINER™ UV Permanent DIY Roll On Bed LineSteering and more from Ruffstuff!The Original 3/8" Ruffstuff Diff Cover!

Reply
Unread 08-27-2013, 09:00 PM   #571
Newtons3
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 722
They are and you are right about that.

Newtons3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 04:49 AM   #572
JSahara00
Member
2000 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: mass
Posts: 230
Last year I called every store within about 50 miles. Some in NH and some in VT. Most had no idea what I was even talking about and the one who did said he wouldn't do my 35.
.
__________________
00 TJ, OME shocks, all currie control arm, OME steering damper, Brown dog MML, VIAIR OBA with 2 quick disconnects at the doors, jks quick discos, Kolak exhaust, 30 spline D30 w/ ARB and 4:56, 8.8 w/ super 88 and ARB, home made F/R bumpers and tire carrier,OME zj front springs and OME Lj rear springs, CB w/ firestick, DIY highline fenders/hood, 35 pro comp mud terrains, cragar soft 8s .. .

95 XJ 4.0 4x4 Auto, V8 ZJ steering linkage
JSahara00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:01 AM   #573
mschi772
Web Wheeler
 
mschi772's Avatar
1997 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Racine, WI
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997xj View Post
Any info on brand of gas as it relates to mpg? I've never done enough monitoring to tell much, and usually just get shell or chevron. The few tanks of off brand or big box store gas I've gotten have given me worse mileage than the "good" name brands but what about between the "good" brands? I'd imagine its about the same. Anyone know for sure?
The problem with this even if it DID matter is that the gas you get at any given station is not necessarily the same brand as that station. That whole business with people trying to boycott BP gas after the gulf spill was a total waste because of this. The stations are ultimately owned (I think of it more as a sponsorship, really) by their respective companies, but they buy gas from each other all the time.

The only thing I can think of that you'd even have a small amount of control over is to avoid dramatically unpopular stations because gas has a limited shelf life, and stations that don't get a lot of business won't be pumping fresh gas as often.
mschi772 is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 12:51 PM   #574
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Longview, WA
Posts: 3,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSahara00 View Post
Last year I called every store within about 50 miles. Some in NH and some in VT. Most had no idea what I was even talking about and the one who did said he wouldn't do my 35.
.
Huh. I live in a small town with 5 tires stores, and two of them have a siping machine. I never heard of a tire size limit.

I wonder if siping is more common in the Northwest?
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 02:05 PM   #575
RacerX
Registered User
1989 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Snohomish, Washington
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3 View Post
Pound for pound, I think my Buick is as effiicient as a Prius.

My dad said that regarding my full size Buick Park Ave vs my mom's Prius. He's driven both on road trips.

My Park Ave averages 34.65 mpg at 70 mph (averaging two road trips together). The Prius averages 50 mpg. But if you consider how much larger and heavier my full size Park Ave is, they have comparable efficiency. Pretty freakin awesome for a 97 full size luxury car.
L O L ing....

WTF I thought these new 'Hybrids' were supposed to get super high mileage???
Someone is lying, false advertising, or they just think we are to retarded to figure out we are being lied to!

Way back in the early-mid 1990's the Geo Metro got actual 50 MPG highway (my friend had one)

Now a true gasoline-electric SHOULD get significantly better mileage, because the generator can run a fairly constant speed, (esp. diesel-electric like many med. to large ships. Also no fuel used idling, coasting, etc. and LED lights are super-efficient.

Seems like fuel-efficiency hasn't really improved since 1995, in production cars
__________________
4-wheeling is about going where others can't won't or don't think it's safe.
Freedom. Exploring the wilderness, or nature, whatever... - NOT paying to go on someone's roller-coaster ride, or go-cart track!
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
RacerX is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 03:02 PM   #576
Charley3
Web Wheeler
1999 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Longview, WA
Posts: 3,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacerX View Post
L O L ing....

WTF I thought these new 'Hybrids' were supposed to get super high mileage???
Someone is lying, false advertising, or they just think we are to retarded to figure out we are being lied to!

Way back in the early-mid 1990's the Geo Metro got actual 50 MPG highway (my friend had one)

Now a true gasoline-electric SHOULD get significantly better mileage, because the generator can run a fairly constant speed, (esp. diesel-electric like many med. to large ships. Also no fuel used idling, coasting, etc. and LED lights are super-efficient.

Seems like fuel-efficiency hasn't really improved since 1995, in production cars
1995 to 2000 cars were more efficient (pound for pound) than modern gas cars because their engine and tranny computer controls were perfected and they only had one cat. The best late 90s cars (with a few cheap economods) are about as efficient (pound for pound) as modern hybrids.

Starting in 2001 they have two cats. How many cats do cars have now? 3? 5?

The additional cats ruin fuel economy. Also, I suspect that car makers are corrupt and don't really want to improve gas mileage because they own stock in oil companies, and oil companies own stock in car manufacturers.

===

This is why I prefer to buy used GM cars from 95-00, Ford 98-00, Jeep or Chrylser 98-00. Those are their best years for a good combination of gas mileage and power. Other brands of cars have their own best years range, each with a different starting year, always with 00 as last great year. In 01 they got a second cat and weren't as good.

That is why my Buick is a 97 and my XJ a 99. My sister owns a 98 Ford Explorer. My brother-in-law owns a 99 Ford Ranger.
__________________
Warning: Sometimes I edit a post a few times to get it how I want it.
Charley3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 03:17 PM   #577
ninjakid
Senior Member
 
ninjakid's Avatar
1987 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 972
Was browsing the internet and came across this.
http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?t=941439



A air dam from a blazer or jimmy is the right size for 96 and under at least (not sure about the later ones with the different bumper) and with some tweaks it'd blend right in I bet.
Extending the air dam has been something I've been wanting to do and this seems pretty easy provided you can find one.
ninjakid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:29 PM   #578
Newtons3
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3 View Post
Huh. I live in a small town with 5 tires stores, and two of them have a siping machine. I never heard of a tire size limit.

I wonder if siping is more common in the Northwest?
There is no tire size limit. They just don't want to fool with that much tread. Kind of like when they don't want to balance anything 33" or larger.
Newtons3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:37 PM   #579
Newtons3
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3 View Post
1995 to 2000 cars were more efficient (pound for pound) than modern gas cars because their engine and tranny computer controls were perfected and they only had one cat. Cars back then were about as efficient (pound for pound) as modern hybrids.

Starting in 2001 they have two cats. How many cats do cars have now? 3? 5?

The additional cats ruin fuel economy. Also, I suspect that car makers are corrupt and don't really want to improve gas mileage because they own stock in oil companies, and oil companies own stock in car manufacturers.

===

This is why I prefer to buy used GM cars from 95-00, Ford 98-00, Jeep or Chrylser 98-00. Those are their best years for a good combination of gas mileage and power. Other brands of cars have their own best years range, each with a different starting year, always with 00 as last great year. In 01 they got a second cat and weren't as good.

That is why my Buick is a 97 and my XJ a 99. My sister owns a 98 Ford Explorer. My brother-in-law owns a 99 Ford Ranger.
Yep. This has been the subject of much talk. The late 80's early 90's CRX-HF and Civic DX both got 45-55 MPG. My carbureted '83 Toyota got 31-33 MPG. We owned several vehicles that got 40-50. The emissions laws required less scrubbing and promoted better economy. Remember, though, a lot of these vehicles were really down on power. The new combustion chamber designs and DI yield great power but I too am disappointed in the economy. I would think that with the composite materials and potentially lighter chassis we would see 70 mpg or better. I mean, what good is a Smart - really? I don't mind the tiny platform but it is a performance turd and only gets 40 mpg? Not much of an achievement if you ask me.
Newtons3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:40 PM   #580
rebelbowtie
Frameless and Shameless
 
rebelbowtie's Avatar
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Daphne, AL
Posts: 2,118
My 2008 A4 Quattro could achieve 39mpg on a long highway sprint with its 2.0TFSI and I was impressed with the power/mpg balance on such a small engine.
__________________
He's an angel dressed in oilskins; he's a saint in the "Sou'wester,"
He's a pluck as they come, or ever can;
He's a hero born and bred, but it hasn't swelled his head,
For he's just the U.S. Government's hired man.
rebelbowtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:50 PM   #581
bobthecatkiller
Registered User
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: binghamton, newyork
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley3

1995 to 2000 cars were more efficient (pound for pound) than modern gas cars because their engine and tranny computer controls were perfected and they only had one cat. Cars back then were about as efficient (pound for pound) as modern hybrids.

Starting in 2001 they have two cats. How many cats do cars have now? 3? 5?

The additional cats ruin fuel economy. Also, I suspect that car makers are corrupt and don't really want to improve gas mileage because they own stock in oil companies, and oil companies own stock in car manufacturers.

===

This is why I prefer to buy used GM cars from 95-00, Ford 98-00, Jeep or Chrylser 98-00. Those are their best years for a good combination of gas mileage and power. Other brands of cars have their own best years range, each with a different starting year, always with 00 as last great year. In 01 they got a second cat and weren't as good.

That is why my Buick is a 97 and my XJ a 99. My sister owns a 98 Ford Explorer. My brother-in-law owns a 99 Ford Ranger.
First of all my 2000 xj has 3 cats (cail emissions) and gets the same amount of mpg as a cherokee without the pre cats. So I'm not so sure more cats significantly decreases mpgs, although I guess this may depend on the vehicle.
For the most of what you said I totally agree. I'd never buy a newer vehicle, I plan on taking my xj to the grave with me. Even if I have to convert it to something other then gas when/if we eventually run out.
__________________
officer: What where you doing down by the river?
me: awww ahhhh awwww exploring?
officer: mudding?
me: yaaaaa.
bobthecatkiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 05:55 PM   #582
Newtons3
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobthecatkiller View Post
First of all my 2000 xj has 3 cats (cail emissions) and gets the same amount of mpg as a cherokee without the pre cats. So I'm not so sure more cats significantly decreases mpgs, although I guess this may depend on the vehicle.
For the most of what you said I totally agree. I'd never buy a newer vehicle, I plan on taking my xj to the grave with me. Even if I have to convert it to something other then gas when/if we eventually run out.
You get 21-22 with a 2000? Please elaborate. My '06 Wrangler 4.0 with three cats can make good power OR it can get decent mileage. But not both (evidently). My 95 Cherokees (OBD-I) both got 21-22 mpg and ran like scalded apes. My 97 (OBD-II) does well but only ever achieved about 19 with literally the exact setup, including tires, as the last 95.
Newtons3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 06:00 PM   #583
rebelbowtie
Frameless and Shameless
 
rebelbowtie's Avatar
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Daphne, AL
Posts: 2,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtons3

You get 21-22 with a 2000? Please elaborate. My '06 Wrangler 4.0 with three cats can make good power OR it can get decent mileage. But not both (evidently). My 95 Cherokees (OBD-I) both got 21-22 mpg and ran like scalded apes. My 97 (OBD-II) does well but only ever achieved about 19 with literally the exact setup, including tires, as the last 95.
I do but my 2000 is a 2.5L
__________________
He's an angel dressed in oilskins; he's a saint in the "Sou'wester,"
He's a pluck as they come, or ever can;
He's a hero born and bred, but it hasn't swelled his head,
For he's just the U.S. Government's hired man.
rebelbowtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 06:01 PM   #584
Newtons3
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Posts: 722
Gotcha. My son's 2.5 did well too. I'm still interested in a functional three-cat 4.0 that will pull that off.
Newtons3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-28-2013, 06:40 PM   #585
bobthecatkiller
Registered User
2000 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: binghamton, newyork
Posts: 859
I get 21-22 mpg hwy yes.
Verified by hand and ultra gauge.
It's not that hard, you act as if the extra pre cats are sooooo bad....
I highly doubt you get 21 city, any thing over 18 (and that's pushing it) city in a stock xj with the i6 is getting a little unrealistic..
I admit I hate the pre cats, I really really do, but as far as I can tell there is not much difference with or without, in terms of mpg.
In fact according to http://www.fueleconomy.gov there's not any difference either. .
__________________
officer: What where you doing down by the river?
me: awww ahhhh awwww exploring?
officer: mudding?
me: yaaaaa.
bobthecatkiller is offline   Reply With Quote




Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.