Remote Keyless EntryTransmitter?/2002Grand Cherroke
12-03-2007, 12:21 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
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)
> "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)
12-03-2007, 01:22 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> "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.
12-03-2007, 01:22 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> "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.
12-03-2007, 03:32 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
12-03-2007, 03:32 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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
12-03-2007, 08:07 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2007, 08:07 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
> 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.
12-03-2007, 10:14 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
12-03-2007, 10:14 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
12-03-2007, 10:36 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
> 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