So ad2...$1400 savings with 4cyl.... But most won't hit 100k miles for 8 yrs....That's say $150 a year. .... Or $13 per month.... That's not a big difference for most. But Good analysis. ...
Originally Posted by NHPATRIOT View Post
In city EPA testing doesn't replicate too much stop and go traffic. So in city EPA is way off for many cars.
In my previous experience with Jeep; it is easy to get close to stated highway mpg numbers and usually way off in city.
I use often automobile-catalog.com numbers to see what to expect from a new car. Their numbers are usually very conservative, don't create surprises.
Both for 2WD
MPG: 2.4 3.2
extra-urban 22.2-28.4 19.3-24.6
city 14-17.9 11.2-14.3
highway 20.4-24.8 18.6-22.7
average combined 20.5 17.1
Source: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php (3.2L)
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php (2.4 L)
For me, V6 0-60 times 7.1 secs compared to 4 cyl 0-60 time of 8.8 secs, is enough to convince on V6. I do though drive mostly on highways with little in city driving.
I would definitely see why 4 cyl would be better choice for many people as you highlighted the cost difference.
Originally Posted by chartx View Post
I actually exceed the EPA ratings pretty much always in my vehicles. Very few that I don't and in those I see pretty much spot on. I haven't ever got below EPA ratings.
My 2011 Patriot is a perfect example of me exceeding the EPA ratings. Despite it only being rated to 26 MPG highway I routinely break 30 MPG with it and have seen as high as 35.8MPG with how I drive highway( use CC and go 60 MPH ). On a trip from NH to VA and back in Sept 2013 I averaged 31 MPG for the 1600 mile+ trip.
2014 Jeep Cherokee
3.2L Pentastar V6
Active Drive I
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|