I think this may have some bearing on the demise of the I-6. My wife's 04 WJ was the last year the I-6 was used and there is some hints of the I-6 demise in the TJs starting in 06.
formatting link
Green Weenie SUV ratings
Apr 03, 2005
3 Replies
The poor mileage in the TJ, IMHO, has more to do with the areodynamics (or lack thereof) of the TJ, not the engine. Put the 3.7L V6 in the TJ and I bet a 3.73 ring and pinion set that the fuel economy won't improve, all other things being equal.
I had an opprotunity to drive a Liberty last week as a rental, 2wd, with the
3.7L engine. Actually not a particularly bad engine, it had more pickup than I expected, even in the low end. I think it will be adequate for the TJ. However, it was noisy and vibrated worse than the 4.0L in my TJ. And, I really disliked the way the Liberty rode...the front end would bottom out going over lane-wide bumps, and was very squirrely at highway speeds, more so than my (sniff) no-longer-owned XJ. And, though it seemed to have enough room I felt cramped...I'm 6'4", 260lb and my other car is an '02 Superduty.It's both factors, isn't it ? The BMW X5 has a larger frontal area and a larger 4.4 litre engine. But, it is also higher compression. The I6 has a low compression engine to give it torque, not fuel economy. As you point out, however, the real difference is due to the frontal area -the engine difference can only be good for a few mpg.
Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
for
4.0L
I agree.
A brick flies like a brick, no matter how your throw it!
Barry
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required