Better RPMs for gas mileage? - Page 4 - 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 Wrangler Forums > TJ Wrangler Technical Forum > Better RPMs for gas mileage?

TJ 5.25" Speaker Adapters - NalinMFGTJ, YJ & LJ Drop Down Tail Gate Conversion KitLJ Suspension Systems from Clayton Off Road

Reply
Unread 03-30-2010, 01:16 PM   #46
sxysouthtx
Registered User
1993 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Baton Rouge, Horrible LA
Posts: 859
Yeah, 5th bogs me down pretty bad unless I'm doing about 70 or 75. Kind of makes sense now. What do you think that 3.07's, 5 speed , 4.0 ,and running 31's will get me?

__________________
Not much motion in the ocean, but I'm the captain.
sxysouthtx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 01:18 PM   #47
Imped
Web Wheeler
 
Imped's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 19,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxysouthtx View Post
Yeah, 5th bogs me down pretty bad unless I'm doing about 70 or 75. Kind of makes sense now. What do you think that 3.07's, 5 speed and running 31's will get me?
I used to run the same setup--you have the NV3550 by the way. I couldn't do better than 14-15mpg and 5th was pointless. I got better mileage in 4th on the highway due to less engine load. And believe me, 5th gear isn't doing you well at 70+ either. At those speeds, you need more RPM's than that. With 4.88's and 35's I now get considerably better mileage and the jeep is MUCH more lively.
__________________
OlllllllO
Float Test Build
IndyORV
Imped is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 01:20 PM   #48
sxysouthtx
Registered User
1993 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Baton Rouge, Horrible LA
Posts: 859
I figured that was around what I was getting. If there wasn't any other reason to regear this would be it. Thanks for the help.
__________________
Not much motion in the ocean, but I'm the captain.
sxysouthtx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 01:24 PM   #49
JrJmisn
Registered User
2005 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lake Erie
Posts: 284
I have 3.07's and 31's and I get 14MPG at the best and 12.5 mpg normal without really taking too much consideration to taking it easy on the pedal. ...Typical normal driving. I did realize I had a habit of shifting early (at low RPMS) so I have been more aware of shifting at higher RPMs lately...Ill see if that makes a difference.
JrJmisn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 01:51 PM   #50
dualtjs
Registered User
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
I used to run the same setup--you have the NV3550 by the way. I couldn't do better than 14-15mpg and 5th was pointless. I got better mileage in 4th on the highway due to less engine load. And believe me, 5th gear isn't doing you well at 70+ either. At those speeds, you need more RPM's than that. With 4.88's and 35's I now get considerably better mileage and the jeep is MUCH more lively.
How much body armor, etc were you carrying as added weight over a stock TJ?
dualtjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:01 PM   #51
Imped
Web Wheeler
 
Imped's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 19,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualtjs View Post
How much body armor, etc were you carrying as added weight over a stock TJ?
Jeep was pretty light. Stock belly skid, gas tank skid. Just rocker guards. It's a little heavier now--Rokmen gas tank skid and belly skid. But no back seat. So basically, negligible. 3.07's are just too high. 3.73 gears would have been perfect. If I remember right, I was at about 1800 RPM's @ 65mph with 3.07's and 31's in 5th. Downshift to 4th and I was at a much nicer 2250 RPM or so. To compare, I'm now at 2500 RPM @ 65mph in 5th gear.
__________________
OlllllllO
Float Test Build
IndyORV
Imped is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:04 PM   #52
ChrisTJCO
Registered User
1997 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Denver
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrJmisn View Post
I have 3.07's and 31's and I get 14MPG at the best and 12.5 mpg normal without really taking too much consideration to taking it easy on the pedal. ...Typical normal driving. I did realize I had a habit of shifting early (at low RPMS) so I have been more aware of shifting at higher RPMs lately...Ill see if that makes a difference.
I'm surprised your mileage was so awful. I have 3.07, manual, 4.0L, with 30.6" (245/75/16s) tires and I'm getting 18 average. I do drive on the highway quite a bit, but still...
ChrisTJCO is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:22 PM   #53
dualtjs
Registered User
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
Jeep was pretty light. Stock belly skid, gas tank skid. Just rocker guards. It's a little heavier now--Rokmen gas tank skid and belly skid. But no back seat. So basically, negligible. 3.07's are just too high. 3.73 gears would have been perfect. If I remember right, I was at about 1800 RPM's @ 65mph with 3.07's and 31's in 5th. Downshift to 4th and I was at a much nicer 2250 RPM or so. To compare, I'm now at 2500 RPM @ 65mph in 5th gear.
I'm amazed at the variation in results. I'm not deluded enough to think that all TJ's will perform the same, but some people get 20+ mpg with 31's and 3.07's and others can't break 15 mpg with the same set up. Could the spark plug rail make that kind of difference (it's the only change that I know of, that might have an impact)?

EDIT: Could it be the AX15 vs NV3550?
dualtjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:29 PM   #54
Imped
Web Wheeler
 
Imped's Avatar
2004 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 19,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualtjs View Post
I'm amazed at the variation in results. I'm not deluded enough to think that all TJ's will perform the same, but some people get 20+ mpg with 31's and 3.07's and others can't break 15 mpg with the same set up. Could the spark plug rail make that kind of difference (it's the only change that I know of, that might have an impact)?
I doubt that makes any difference. I could probably do a little better knowing what I know now. I drive differently than I used to. But regardless, it was a terrible combination. The jeep always felt like it was starving. Shifts were massively tall. I felt like I was always under 2k RPM. Now, it's effortless. The Jeep never starves and can cruise with plenty of power @ 35mph in 4th gear.
__________________
OlllllllO
Float Test Build
IndyORV
Imped is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:30 PM   #55
Unlimited04
This post/info=my opinion
 
Unlimited04's Avatar
2004 LJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 23,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualtjs View Post
I'm amazed at the variation in results. I'm not deluded enough to think that all TJ's will perform the same, but some people get 20+ mpg with 31's and 3.07's and others can't break 15 mpg with the same set up. Could the spark plug rail make that kind of difference (it's the only change that I know of, that might have an impact)?

EDIT: Could it be the AX15 vs NV3550?
i would think the driving style, state of disrepair and tread pattern would make the most significant difference. mud tires vs street tires, dirty air filter, clogged O2 sensors, clogged cats, bad plugs, heavy foot, amount of city/highway driving, hypermiling, etc.
Unlimited04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 02:43 PM   #56
Jeepit85
Registered User
1985 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 338
Stock 2006 Rubicon, 6 speed. Just bought it with 6800 miles on it. Best tank so far has been 15.3 mpg. I think my CJ7 does better than that.
__________________
85 CJ7, Howell TBI, Twin Stick, 4:10's, 35" Pitbull Rockers, Clifford 6=8, Detroits, Matkins Level II, BDS 4", Summers Brothers. Skynyrd rocks.
06 Rubicon
06 Lance Camper
02 Dodge Cummins
06 VW Jetta TDI
Jeepit85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 03:22 PM   #57
dualtjs
Registered User
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlimited04 View Post
i would think the driving style, state of disrepair and tread pattern would make the most significant difference. mud tires vs street tires, dirty air filter, clogged O2 sensors, clogged cats, bad plugs, heavy foot, amount of city/highway driving, hypermiling, etc.
Thought I saw a pattern (well as much of a pattern as you can see in 4 total cases), where the 97-98 TJ's had better mpg with the 3.07/31 combo, than the 03-05 TJ's. Not enough to be meaningful, just enough to think there may be a pattern evolving.
dualtjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 05:02 PM   #58
Terrible2
Registered User
2005 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 869
I wouldnt think that years would make a difference, maybe you didnt take into account transmissions
Terrible2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 06:00 PM   #59
dualtjs
Registered User
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,281
I'm not sure how you would take into account tranny's unless you could set up a large controlled test to see what impact they would have (probably need road and dyno, to really assess), but I did pose the question (look at post #53).
dualtjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gas mileage
Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





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.