Green Weenie SUV ratings
04-03-2005, 11:18 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Green Weenie SUV ratings
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
--
HarryS My 2¢
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
--
HarryS My 2¢
04-03-2005, 08:20 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
04-03-2005, 08:20 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
04-03-2005, 08:20 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
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.
"HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
>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
>
> --
> HarryS My 2¢
>
>
04-03-2005, 08:22 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
04-03-2005, 08:22 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
04-03-2005, 08:22 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
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
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:tbWdnR53V-MpG83fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> 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.
>
> "HarryS" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eL6dnQ9_h83dlM3fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> >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
> >
> > --
> > HarryS My 2¢
> >
> >
>
>
04-05-2005, 09:24 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> 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
> 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
04-05-2005, 09:24 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> 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
> 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
04-05-2005, 09:24 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Green Weenie SUV ratings
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> 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
> 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
