Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
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$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> > I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your
XJ.
>
> i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
> truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
> trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
> (in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
> mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
> certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
> power pulling around a jeep.
the same weight as a Jeep, and its ok sort of.
Just not great imo.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1e32590.0410310758.13d6fbd5@posting.google.c om...
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eCUgd.2902$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.
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
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$up1.71@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >...
> > I like diesels, but a 2.5 wouldn't nearly be powerful enough for your
XJ.
>
> i own an '04 dodge/cummins 4x4 and an '01 dodge/cummins 4x4. either
> truck weighs twice what a jeep does yet with only 5.9 liters have no
> trouble at all hauling 2 (and even nearly 3) times their own weight
> (in addition to their own weight) all over these amazing rocky
> mountains. im not sure about anything existing now but feel almost
> certain that if set up properly a 2.5 diesel would have no shortage of
> power pulling around a jeep.
the same weight as a Jeep, and its ok sort of.
Just not great imo.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1e32590.0410310758.13d6fbd5@posting.google.c om...
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:<eCUgd.2902$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.
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
>From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
>Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
>the same weight as a Jeep
i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one thats
running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate torque
in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just over
100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs and
still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
mileage.
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
I understood you; we are just debating how much is enough :-)
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
I understood you; we are just debating how much is enough :-)
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
I understood you; we are just debating how much is enough :-)
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
The torque aspect is what I love about diesels, and why I think, to the
annoyance of some, that they make great offroad engines ( apart from the
running when wet aspect ). However a 2.5 is probably only going to put out
around 140hp. The Jeep 2.8 common rail puts out 150 hp and 266 lb/ft torque.
It wouldn't take much more to produce something spectacular instead of just
about adequate ; based on those figures a 4.0 would put out 214 hp and a
whopping 380 lb/ft. That would really make a Wrangler shift.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"MontanaJeeper" <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041031132253.17863.00001700@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
> >From: "Dave Milne" jeep@_nospam_milne.info
> >Date: 10/31/2004 10:47 AM
>
> >I've driven properly set up 2.5 diesels vehicles with
> >the same weight as a Jeep
>
> i dont think i expressed what i meant clearly. im not referencing one
thats
> running properly, im referencing one thats designed to produce adequate
torque
> in stock form. my '04 produces 600 ft. lbs. of torque stock which is just
over
> 100ft. lbs. per liter from a stock engine getting 20+ mpg. i feel pretty
> certain that if built comparably, a 2.5 could easily produce 250+ ft. lbs
and
> still have plenty of room to grow while running clean and getting great
> mileage.
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Lon,
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Lon,
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >