4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size

What kind of real world mpg are the 6 cyl.'s getting? Every mile counts as I do a lot of driving as part of my job and every penny in the tank is one less in my pocket. So far I am satisfied with the performance of the 4 cyl., even here in the mountains.

Do the 6 cyl. motors get into the 20's on mileage?

Bryan

if mileage is a factor youd better leave well enough alone. nobody buys a tj with mileage as a consideration.

? either your math is poor or the 2.4 does a whole lot better than the 2.5 did.

that would be the 7slot redneck tj lift. see

without regearing youre screwed.

lol......best i ever got in my '03 (auto/rubicon) was 14.9ish. ive run only a single tank through my '05 and got 12.

The mileage I double checked. Start with full tank. Drove about 350 miles, fill tank, divide by gallons used. Used a calculator.....

My last tank was tick over 20, but I had been 4 wheelin' up in the mountains on some logging roads and pulled my trailer cross county to the landfill, so mpg was down a tad.

Based on "seat of the pants" I would be inclined to say that the 2.4 runs a lot better than the 2.5 wranglers I have driven myself. The report HP is higher, so maybe it makes sense the 2.4 would deliver better mpg. A friend of mine and former 2.5 Wrangler owner seems feel it runs a little better.

Regearing? That might be an option.

Would I be right to believe that, at least theoretically, if I lower my gear, but match it with the correct tire size, then I may end up with basically the stock overall setting? Or is that too simple. A quick calculation would suggest to me that if I go to a 31" tire, and increase gear to 4.11, then I end up with almost the stock 3.73 gearing (well, 3.68, reasonably close).

Thanks for the tip on 7slotgrille, I will have to do some reading on their site.

Bryan

wow.....certainly better than ive ever heard of in any tj. perhaps the move from the 2.5 to the 2.4 was a smart move afterall.

exactly. raise the gear ratio with bigger tires, lower the rear ratio to balance out the overall drive ratio to regain the power/mileage you had before.

thats a pretty good article on a cheap tj lift alternative. the only thing i would add to it is to either relocate your track bar about 3/4" after the lift, or get adjustables. as soon as i find a lift that triangulates front and rear (so that i can throw my track bars away) ill be lifting my '05. until then ill ride stock. i dont like trackbars. while youre on 7 drop by the forum or the live chat (awaiting registration code, already paid for).

I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21. I haven't checked the wife's '94 with the 4.0, but I suspect that it gets about the same. My son, OTOH, has an '02 with the 4 cyl, and his mileage sucks...around the 15 mpg. You'd think with all the advances in the last 10 years the mileage would be better, not worse..

-- Old Crow '82 Shovelhead FLTC 92" 'Pearl' '95 Jeep Wrangler YJ TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51, SPUNGER#2

this is what im used to from the tj 4 cylinder. never owned one, but know a lot of guys who do and their mileage is usually as bad as mine.

I think 4 cyl. mileage varies a good bit with location and driving style. A friend of mine had an early to mid 90's 4 cyl. wrangler and swears that he got 28 mpg regularly. I cannot either confirm or deny that, but another friend with a 95 says that he has got upper 20's on occasion, but usually gets 18-20 or so with his 4 cyl. The 2.4 is rated at 147 horses with 165 lb./ft. of torque if memory serves. The 2.5 was about 120 or something , wasn't it? I am not sure. That might account for the improved mpg. Of course, most of my driving is rural WV roads, no traffic lights, very little stop and go. But no problems keeping up with traffic and runs on the interstate fine (speed limit here is 70). I do have to downshift on those steep interstate hills, but I had to do that with the V-8 Silverado I traded in on the Wrangler, so that is not something new. The 2.4 does not accelerate like the V-8 of course, but at cruising speeds it does just fine. The 6-speed is probably also due as much credit as the 2.4 motor. I would tend to believe that if I were somewhere with flat land, more or less, it would do much better. That theory will be tested this summer when I take the Wrangler to Ohio on family visit. It will be interesting to see what that does to the mileage.

Bryan

"Old Crow" wrote

Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger

2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?

I was wondering since JEEP dropped the 2.5 l4 for a 2.4 l4. Who's making this engine??? I've heard of alot of cars now using a 2.4 l4, turning out to be a popular choice...

k_902

Just a thought guys, I have heard of differences like that before and I think the type of air filter might have had a bearing somehow. Some have a foam piece and some don't.

Just curious if your mileage differences might have to do with the air filters?

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

ElAlumbrado wrote:

I am absolutely certain. Even used a calculator. Used the trip odometer. Stock tire size, so it should be correct. Miles divided by gallons used.

But I am running the 2.4 liter engine.

Anyone else running a 2.4? What king of mpg are they reporting?

Bryan

I remember that posting a bit back Mike - ran out to the TJ (4.0) and checked - alas no foam piece... still the crappy 15mpg though :))

I can't speak for others, but my 4-banger won't go much faster than 55 (well, I have managed to scrape my way up to 70 from time-to-time, but the Jeep ain't happy about it).

The 2.4 in my '04 TJ got a best 24mpg, but mostly is between

21mpg and 23mpg. Weather and temperatures seem to be a key to mpg's on my 2.4. Cold weather drops the mileage and warmer weather increases it. The wife and two dogs riding along also drops the power curve....ha..ha. But, I'm happy with my 2.4 after getting use to it. It's not fast, but then I'm old and slow. 2.4 has been very dependable for me. Tom T