On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:50:14 GMT, Michael White
<michael12@mindspring.com> wrote:

>me@privacy.net (me@privacy.net) wrote on Saturday 30 October 2004 03:20 pm:
>
>> Id love to own a Jeep Wrangler again but with gas prices the way they
>> are the Jeeps don't get such good mileage
>>
>> Why cant they make a Jeep using a diesel engine? Or even a hybrid
>> model?
>
>What sort of mileage are you looking for? I had a four cylinder CJ-7 with a
>four speed that got 23-24 MPG at 55 MPH. Of course, if I drove 65, I got
>about 13 MPG. The new ones are probably at least as efficient as long as
>you SLOW DOWN!

Agreed. I show a remarkable improvement in gas mileage when I keep my
2.5 L TJ just under 60 MPH.

Mark
'98 TJ
'98 XJ

 

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:50:14 GMT, Michael White
<michael12@mindspring.com> wrote:

>me@privacy.net (me@privacy.net) wrote on Saturday 30 October 2004 03:20 pm:
>
>> Id love to own a Jeep Wrangler again but with gas prices the way they
>> are the Jeeps don't get such good mileage
>>
>> Why cant they make a Jeep using a diesel engine? Or even a hybrid
>> model?
>
>What sort of mileage are you looking for? I had a four cylinder CJ-7 with a
>four speed that got 23-24 MPG at 55 MPH. Of course, if I drove 65, I got
>about 13 MPG. The new ones are probably at least as efficient as long as
>you SLOW DOWN!

Agreed. I show a remarkable improvement in gas mileage when I keep my
2.5 L TJ just under 60 MPH.

Mark
'98 TJ
'98 XJ

 

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:50:14 GMT, Michael White
<michael12@mindspring.com> wrote:

>me@privacy.net (me@privacy.net) wrote on Saturday 30 October 2004 03:20 pm:
>
>> Id love to own a Jeep Wrangler again but with gas prices the way they
>> are the Jeeps don't get such good mileage
>>
>> Why cant they make a Jeep using a diesel engine? Or even a hybrid
>> model?
>
>What sort of mileage are you looking for? I had a four cylinder CJ-7 with a
>four speed that got 23-24 MPG at 55 MPH. Of course, if I drove 65, I got
>about 13 MPG. The new ones are probably at least as efficient as long as
>you SLOW DOWN!

Agreed. I show a remarkable improvement in gas mileage when I keep my
2.5 L TJ just under 60 MPH.

Mark
'98 TJ
'98 XJ

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<eCUgd.2902$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your XJ.

i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
(in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
power pulling around a jeep.

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<eCUgd.2902$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your XJ.

i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
(in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
power pulling around a jeep.

 

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<eCUgd.2902$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your XJ.

i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
(in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
power pulling around a jeep.

 

The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> the older diesels either.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>
>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>day....
>>
>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>

 

The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> the older diesels either.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>
>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>day....
>>
>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>

 

The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> the older diesels either.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>
>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>day....
>>
>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>

 

not convinced Nate. I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
the same weight as a Jeep, and its ok sort of.
Just not great imo.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1e32590.0410310758.13d6fbd5@posting.google.c om...
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eCUgd.2902$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> > I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your
XJ.
>
> i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
> truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
> trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
> (in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
> mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
> certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
> power pulling around a jeep.