Small cars with small engines get good mileage. You may learn with
your four wheel drive vehicle weighting in at about thirty five hundred
pounds that the six and four cylinder get the same mileage as the
equation is how much energy must be used to move that weight at highway
speeds. With the exception with larger tires you won't be able to
maintain traffic speeds, therefore: use less gasoline.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bryan wrote:
>
> What kind of real world mpg are the 6 cyl.'s getting?
> Every mile counts as I do a lot of driving as part of my job and every penny
> in the tank is one less in my pocket.
> So far I am satisfied with the performance of the 4 cyl., even here in the
> mountains.
>
> Do the 6 cyl. motors get into the 20's on mileage?
>
> Bryan

 

Small cars with small engines get good mileage. You may learn with
your four wheel drive vehicle weighting in at about thirty five hundred
pounds that the six and four cylinder get the same mileage as the
equation is how much energy must be used to move that weight at highway
speeds. With the exception with larger tires you won't be able to
maintain traffic speeds, therefore: use less gasoline.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Bryan wrote:
>
> What kind of real world mpg are the 6 cyl.'s getting?
> Every mile counts as I do a lot of driving as part of my job and every penny
> in the tank is one less in my pocket.
> So far I am satisfied with the performance of the 4 cyl., even here in the
> mountains.
>
> Do the 6 cyl. motors get into the 20's on mileage?
>
> Bryan

 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0700, "Nathan W. Collier"
<MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:

>"Bryan" <frametype@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7Np2e.2343$hg.1668@news01.roc.ny...
>
>> I do not want to kill my
>
>if mileage is a factor youd better leave well enough alone. nobody buys a
>tj with mileage as a consideration.
>
>
>> 23mpg so far, but it is not broken in yet, hoping for more
>
>? either your math is poor or the 2.4 does a whole lot better than the 2.5
>did.
>

I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I
haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it
gets about the same.
My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
sucks...around the 15 mpg.
You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage
would be better, not worse..

--
Old Crow
'82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl'
'95 Jeep Wrangler YJ
TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2

 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0700, "Nathan W. Collier"
<MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:

>"Bryan" <frametype@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7Np2e.2343$hg.1668@news01.roc.ny...
>
>> I do not want to kill my
>
>if mileage is a factor youd better leave well enough alone. nobody buys a
>tj with mileage as a consideration.
>
>
>> 23mpg so far, but it is not broken in yet, hoping for more
>
>? either your math is poor or the 2.4 does a whole lot better than the 2.5
>did.
>

I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I
haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it
gets about the same.
My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
sucks...around the 15 mpg.
You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage
would be better, not worse..

--
Old Crow
'82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl'
'95 Jeep Wrangler YJ
TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2

 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0700, "Nathan W. Collier"
<MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:

>"Bryan" <frametype@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7Np2e.2343$hg.1668@news01.roc.ny...
>
>> I do not want to kill my
>
>if mileage is a factor youd better leave well enough alone. nobody buys a
>tj with mileage as a consideration.
>
>
>> 23mpg so far, but it is not broken in yet, hoping for more
>
>? either your math is poor or the 2.4 does a whole lot better than the 2.5
>did.
>

I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I
haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it
gets about the same.
My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
sucks...around the 15 mpg.
You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage
would be better, not worse..

--
Old Crow
'82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl'
'95 Jeep Wrangler YJ
TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2

 

"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:412l41hushmlhhisaqpe85lsprn3kld2vf@4ax.com...
> My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
> sucks...around the 15 mpg.

this is what im used to from the tj 4 cylinder. never owned one, but know a
lot of guys who do and their mileage is usually as bad as mine.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:412l41hushmlhhisaqpe85lsprn3kld2vf@4ax.com...
> My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
> sucks...around the 15 mpg.

this is what im used to from the tj 4 cylinder. never owned one, but know a
lot of guys who do and their mileage is usually as bad as mine.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:412l41hushmlhhisaqpe85lsprn3kld2vf@4ax.com...
> My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
> sucks...around the 15 mpg.

this is what im used to from the tj 4 cylinder. never owned one, but know a
lot of guys who do and their mileage is usually as bad as mine.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

I think 4 cyl. mileage varies a good bit with location and driving style. A
friend of mine had an early to mid 90's 4 cyl. wrangler and swears that he
got 28 mpg regularly.
I cannot either confirm or deny that, but another friend with a 95 says that
he has got upper 20's on occasion, but usually gets 18-20 or so with his 4
cyl.
The 2.4 is rated at 147 horses with 165 lb./ft. of torque if memory serves.
The 2.5 was about 120 or something , wasn't it? I am not sure. That might
account for the improved mpg.
Of course, most of my driving is rural WV roads, no traffic lights, very
little stop and go. But no problems keeping up with traffic and runs on the
interstate fine (speed limit here is 70). I do have to downshift on those
steep interstate hills, but I had to do that with the V-8 Silverado I traded
in on the Wrangler, so that is not something new. The 2.4 does not
accelerate like the V-8 of course, but at cruising speeds it does just fine.
The 6-speed is probably also due as much credit as the 2.4 motor.
I would tend to believe that if I were somewhere with flat land, more or
less, it would do much better. That theory will be tested this summer when I
take the Wrangler to Ohio on family visit. It will be interesting to see
what that does to the mileage.

Bryan


"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:412l41hushmlhhisaqpe85lsprn3kld2vf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0700, "Nathan W. Collier"
> <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I
> haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it
> gets about the same.
> My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
> sucks...around the 15 mpg.
> You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage
> would be better, not worse..
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl'
> '95 Jeep Wrangler YJ
> TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2

 

I think 4 cyl. mileage varies a good bit with location and driving style. A
friend of mine had an early to mid 90's 4 cyl. wrangler and swears that he
got 28 mpg regularly.
I cannot either confirm or deny that, but another friend with a 95 says that
he has got upper 20's on occasion, but usually gets 18-20 or so with his 4
cyl.
The 2.4 is rated at 147 horses with 165 lb./ft. of torque if memory serves.
The 2.5 was about 120 or something , wasn't it? I am not sure. That might
account for the improved mpg.
Of course, most of my driving is rural WV roads, no traffic lights, very
little stop and go. But no problems keeping up with traffic and runs on the
interstate fine (speed limit here is 70). I do have to downshift on those
steep interstate hills, but I had to do that with the V-8 Silverado I traded
in on the Wrangler, so that is not something new. The 2.4 does not
accelerate like the V-8 of course, but at cruising speeds it does just fine.
The 6-speed is probably also due as much credit as the 2.4 motor.
I would tend to believe that if I were somewhere with flat land, more or
less, it would do much better. That theory will be tested this summer when I
take the Wrangler to Ohio on family visit. It will be interesting to see
what that does to the mileage.

Bryan


"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:412l41hushmlhhisaqpe85lsprn3kld2vf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0700, "Nathan W. Collier"
> <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I
> haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it
> gets about the same.
> My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage
> sucks...around the 15 mpg.
> You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage
> would be better, not worse..
>
> --
> Old Crow
> '82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl'
> '95 Jeep Wrangler YJ
> TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2