Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
XS11E wrote:
> "DougW" <I.only.read.usenet@invalid.address> wrote: > >> The only thing I was tempted to do was to swap out for a 95 with >> the >> rear flipper glass and 4 wheel disc brakes. That and the 5.9 V8 :) >> Every once in a while you can find them for a reasonable price. > > I've never had the urge for the 5.9, I always thought it would hurt > gas mileage. Wonder if it would and if so, how much? What's the > mileage rating below "abysmal"? > > The 4 wheel disks are nice, I'm not sure the flipper glass would be > used much. I think I've used mine about three times. But it depends on what you do I guess. > I would like the later seats, I think the '95 has the > lumbar adjustment and, if so, that would be very nice. > > However, all in all, I think my best move is to keep my '93 until it > hits 100,000 miles and that's years away since I don't drive it much > now. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
XS11E wrote:
> "DougW" <I.only.read.usenet@invalid.address> wrote: > >> The only thing I was tempted to do was to swap out for a 95 with the >> rear flipper glass and 4 wheel disc brakes. That and the 5.9 V8 :) >> Every once in a while you can find them for a reasonable price. > > I've never had the urge for the 5.9, I always thought it would hurt gas > mileage. Wonder if it would and if so, how much? What's the mileage > rating below "abysmal"? Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. Granted, the one reason one would like the 5.9 might just tend to cut mileage, but that is a leaded foot issue, not a premium gas one. > > The 4 wheel disks are nice, I'm not sure the flipper glass would be > used much. I would like the later seats, I think the '95 has the > lumbar adjustment and, if so, that would be very nice. The 4 wheel disks are nice, and the '95 doesnt necessarily have flipper glass as I have a 95 and it still has the full rear lift door. |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
XS11E wrote:
> "DougW" <I.only.read.usenet@invalid.address> wrote: > >> The only thing I was tempted to do was to swap out for a 95 with the >> rear flipper glass and 4 wheel disc brakes. That and the 5.9 V8 :) >> Every once in a while you can find them for a reasonable price. > > I've never had the urge for the 5.9, I always thought it would hurt gas > mileage. Wonder if it would and if so, how much? What's the mileage > rating below "abysmal"? Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. Granted, the one reason one would like the 5.9 might just tend to cut mileage, but that is a leaded foot issue, not a premium gas one. > > The 4 wheel disks are nice, I'm not sure the flipper glass would be > used much. I would like the later seats, I think the '95 has the > lumbar adjustment and, if so, that would be very nice. The 4 wheel disks are nice, and the '95 doesnt necessarily have flipper glass as I have a 95 and it still has the full rear lift door. |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:
> Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they > are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. But in this case the EPA says it does cut gas mileage. > but that is a leaded foot issue, Not per the EPA. Their tests are pretty fair, the mileage ratings are not what you'll normally get but they are accurate relatively speaking, in other words if they say you'll get 15mpg you probably won't but if they say one vehicle gets better mileage than another that'll probably be true for you, whatever your style of driving. -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:
> Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they > are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. But in this case the EPA says it does cut gas mileage. > but that is a leaded foot issue, Not per the EPA. Their tests are pretty fair, the mileage ratings are not what you'll normally get but they are accurate relatively speaking, in other words if they say you'll get 15mpg you probably won't but if they say one vehicle gets better mileage than another that'll probably be true for you, whatever your style of driving. -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
XS11E wrote:
> Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they >> are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. > > But in this case the EPA says it does cut gas mileage. Yeah, and I always trust everything the government tells me from irrelevant testing. There was a reason why the new epa numbers changed, but even the new ones [typically lower] are pretty much totally irrelevant for western highway style cruising where gearing and the ability to run efficiently at that cruising speed without lugging are more important. Low engine speed with enough torque and power to hold that speed without straining are pretty much the ticket for good cruising mileage. In town is a different story. > >> but that is a leaded foot issue, > > Not per the EPA. Their tests are pretty fair, the mileage ratings are > not what you'll normally get but they are accurate relatively speaking, > in other words if they say you'll get 15mpg you probably won't but if > they say one vehicle gets better mileage than another that'll probably > be true for you, whatever your style of driving. > The EPA's mileage ratings are fair only in that they are equally irrelevant for real world driving conditions. Their city ratings are too high and their highway ratings do not include realistic highway cruising with a bit of vertical elevation difference where big engines that stay in top gear cruising I-80 will get better real mileage than engines that need to shift down to hold cruising speeds of 70-80. And no, their ratings do not indicate real world mileage differences no matter how much propaganda some folks are willing to swallow from not unbiased sources on the subject. At least not unless your driving conditions are pretty darn close to their artificial ones. |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
XS11E wrote:
> Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Big engines do not automagically cut mileage... frequently they >> are less lightly loaded and can cruise better. > > But in this case the EPA says it does cut gas mileage. Yeah, and I always trust everything the government tells me from irrelevant testing. There was a reason why the new epa numbers changed, but even the new ones [typically lower] are pretty much totally irrelevant for western highway style cruising where gearing and the ability to run efficiently at that cruising speed without lugging are more important. Low engine speed with enough torque and power to hold that speed without straining are pretty much the ticket for good cruising mileage. In town is a different story. > >> but that is a leaded foot issue, > > Not per the EPA. Their tests are pretty fair, the mileage ratings are > not what you'll normally get but they are accurate relatively speaking, > in other words if they say you'll get 15mpg you probably won't but if > they say one vehicle gets better mileage than another that'll probably > be true for you, whatever your style of driving. > The EPA's mileage ratings are fair only in that they are equally irrelevant for real world driving conditions. Their city ratings are too high and their highway ratings do not include realistic highway cruising with a bit of vertical elevation difference where big engines that stay in top gear cruising I-80 will get better real mileage than engines that need to shift down to hold cruising speeds of 70-80. And no, their ratings do not indicate real world mileage differences no matter how much propaganda some folks are willing to swallow from not unbiased sources on the subject. At least not unless your driving conditions are pretty darn close to their artificial ones. |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:11:31 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote: >"DougW" <I.only.read.usenet@invalid.address> wrote: > >> The only thing I was tempted to do was to swap out for a 95 with the >> rear flipper glass and 4 wheel disc brakes. That and the 5.9 V8 :) >> Every once in a while you can find them for a reasonable price. > >I've never had the urge for the 5.9, I always thought it would hurt gas >mileage. Wonder if it would and if so, how much? What's the mileage >rating below "abysmal"? > >The 4 wheel disks are nice, I'm not sure the flipper glass would be >used much. I would like the later seats, I think the '95 has the >lumbar adjustment and, if so, that would be very nice. > >However, all in all, I think my best move is to keep my '93 until it >hits 100,000 miles and that's years away since I don't drive it much >now. i have a friend here in SE Michigan that bought a '98 ZJ w/ the 5.9 and the AWD xfer case he got around 14 MPG w/ almost exclusively freeway driving and it required premium gas. he drove it to around 180k miles and only had to replace the timing chain. that jeep launched hard ... but not as hard as the SRT8 he upgraded to last year. but neither one of them ever saw a mile off-road reboot --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071203-0, 12/03/2007 Tested on: 12/3/2007 10:14:20 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:11:31 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote: >"DougW" <I.only.read.usenet@invalid.address> wrote: > >> The only thing I was tempted to do was to swap out for a 95 with the >> rear flipper glass and 4 wheel disc brakes. That and the 5.9 V8 :) >> Every once in a while you can find them for a reasonable price. > >I've never had the urge for the 5.9, I always thought it would hurt gas >mileage. Wonder if it would and if so, how much? What's the mileage >rating below "abysmal"? > >The 4 wheel disks are nice, I'm not sure the flipper glass would be >used much. I would like the later seats, I think the '95 has the >lumbar adjustment and, if so, that would be very nice. > >However, all in all, I think my best move is to keep my '93 until it >hits 100,000 miles and that's years away since I don't drive it much >now. i have a friend here in SE Michigan that bought a '98 ZJ w/ the 5.9 and the AWD xfer case he got around 14 MPG w/ almost exclusively freeway driving and it required premium gas. he drove it to around 180k miles and only had to replace the timing chain. that jeep launched hard ... but not as hard as the SRT8 he upgraded to last year. but neither one of them ever saw a mile off-road reboot --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071203-0, 12/03/2007 Tested on: 12/3/2007 10:14:20 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
Re: Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
reboot <reboot@nothere.com> wrote:
> he got around 14 MPG w/ almost exclusively freeway driving and it > required premium gas. That's a killer for me, it's a very big increase in the cost of running the critter. I noticed the 4.7 V8 has a high performance version that requires premium and I'd sure be avoiding that model. I'd like the extra performance but I'm too cheap to pay for it. ;-) > that jeep launched hard ... but not as hard as the SRT8 he > upgraded to last year. but neither one of them ever saw a mile > off-road Makes sense to me, the SRT8 is WAY too expensive for me to ever think of taking it off road unless I can borrow your friend's SRT8! <G> -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands