AF: Wrangler’s stunning advance in fuel economy | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wrangler’s stunning advance in fuel economy

Discussion in 'Mopar News' started by Dave Z, May 14, 2018.

  1. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,628
    Likes:
    20,005
    The Wrangler has long been criticized for its low gas mileage — though, when it had competitors such as the FJ Cruiser, they had roughly the same mileage. It seems it’s hard to make a go-anywhere 4×4 that can stand up to the worst trails, remain stable on the highway, and pass all the safety tests.

    [​IMG]

    Jeep has figured out a way, though, to eclipse its former competitors and its own numbers. The Wrangler JK was rated at 17 city, 21 highway — a good advance over past ratings. The 2018 went up to 17 city, 25 highway, which was even better (with a manual transmission).

    The 2-liter turbo mild-hybrid Wrangler hit the ball out of the park: it’s rated at 23 mpg city, 25 highway. Since most drivers, even of Wranglers, spend far more time in the city cycle, that six-mpg gain is substantial indeed. While buyers may have to pony for higher octane fuel, they won’t be lacking power; the electric motor’s peak torque comes when it’s just starting up, and those who have tested the hybrid Wrangler have said it is, if anything, more responsive than the V6.

    Now, it seems, you can have your all-weather, all-surface, road-or-no-road Wrangler — without taking out a second loan for fuel.

    Read the whole post here.
     
    Hemidakota, Don W, Orsalak and 2 others like this.
  2. hotmach

    hotmach Not an insider !

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes:
    761
    . . . and how will this translate to RAM ?
    Will the premium they charge us for it be value ?
     
    suzq044 and aldo90731 like this.
  3. MPE426HEMI

    MPE426HEMI Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes:
    4,260
    I’m all for better fuel economy, but not if it causes lethargy. I’m not really interested in past practices of giving up power for it. Glad to see this engine combo appear for Wrangler. And I hope it helps sell more. This engine choice would be plenty for me for my needs and probably most pavement runners. I’d like to know, however, how the Wrangler faithful will see a 4cyl, even with a turbo. I mean the people who really use them for what they are meant to do. Would they rather stick with the V6 or would it be Jeep blasphemy? Just wondering.
     
    UN4GTBL, VoiceOfReason and aldo90731 like this.
  4. aldo90731

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    9,801
    Likes:
    20,163
    Despite the lackluster fuel efficiency of off-road vehicles, off-roaders welcome greater range when venturing to the trails. So improved fuel economy will benefit Wrangler buyers well beyond the city cycle.
     
  5. wilbur

    wilbur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes:
    1,215
    All the past reviews of the 4 cyl eTorque Wrangler were vere positive and some said the preferred the low end torque to the 3.6L back to back...

    Wil
     
  6. LordHobbit

    LordHobbit Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes:
    273
    Not to mention the low-end torque, necessary for many trails and absolute for rock crawling. The mild hybrid will only help there too.
     
  7. Zagnut27

    Zagnut27 Jeepaholic

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,180
    Likes:
    9,959
    I imagine they would like the diesel the most. But the 4 is supposed to have a lot of torque so that'll be appreciated. The biggest concerns will most likely be reliability and durability out on the trails IMO.
     
    VoiceOfReason and MPE426HEMI like this.
  8. aldo90731

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    9,801
    Likes:
    20,163
    My guess is it will depend on (a) how much money FCA plans to charge for the technology, (b) how well the final execution works, and (c) how well it stands on the trail.

    In past, consumers have resisted “paying more money” to “save money” in fuel. This has been an issue with most hybrid variants of mainstream models. The savings from increased fuel efficiency did not offset the additional cost of buying the hybrid powertrain.

    Ironically, I see off-roaders as the main opportunity group for this technology, by giving them the added range and torque they want on the trail. That is, as long as the system performs as advertised, proves durable and relatively simple to work on.

    Unfortunately, given FCA’s recent pattern of asking for astronomical prices, adding complexity, and launching innovations riddled with glitches, I am skeptical.
     
    #8 aldo90731, May 14, 2018
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
    HotCarNut, MPE426HEMI and Zagnut27 like this.
  9. aldo90731

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    9,801
    Likes:
    20,163
    BTW, the normal price premium for a hybrid powertrain has been around $3,000.

    When Toyota launched Avalon hybrid a few years ago, it experimented with pricing:
    • Originally, Avalon hybrid carried a premium of $1,500 over an equivalent V6. At that price, consumers deemed it a bargain and hybrid doubled Avalon demand overnight.
    • Over the past few years, Toyota has been dialing up the premium; last time I checked it sat at $2,500, with a corresponding decline in demand.
    Prevailing fuel prices will be a factor. But the above suggests eTorque would need to be priced somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 over the base powerplant for it to stick. If priced at the traditional $3,000 hybrid premium or higher, eTorque will likely account for less than 10% of Wrangler sales.

    Toyota has defined hybrid technology as a fuel saving application that requires a compromise in performance. I.e., we would buy a hybrid to gain MPG with the underlying expectation that we would give up performance.

    If FCA is able to position eTorque successfully as something more: i.e., as a performance-enhancing application that delivers superior capability, AND happens to deliver greater fuel efficiency as well, it may be able to charge more for it.

    Calling it “eTorque” instead of “hybrid” is a good start.
     
    #9 aldo90731, May 14, 2018
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
    UN4GTBL and VoiceOfReason like this.
  10. svevar

    svevar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes:
    133
    I always thought Lincoln's approach to MKZ pricing was interesting, i.e., same price for V6 or hybrid I4.
     
    VoiceOfReason, Ryan and aldo90731 like this.
  11. GasAxe

    GasAxe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    10,227
    Because of my lack of familiarity with this new engine set up, I'd be wary of heat issues when doing slow rock crawling with the 4 banger hybrid. I'd first go with the tried and true Pentastar and wait and see how well the eTorque performs. For mall crawling duty, it would come down to the initial price point but I'm not a fan of using mid-grade fuel mostly because rural gas station tanks aren't cycled enough to keep the fuel from degrading.
     
  12. MPE426HEMI

    MPE426HEMI Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes:
    4,260
    Yup, all good points for sure. I think the eTorque is a great idea and compromise and I hope it’s a winner! I agree, the premium would probably be a deal breaker for me. The Ram, i’d probably more inclined to purchase it, with the Hemi that we already know is good. It will be interesting to see what sales show.
     
    VoiceOfReason likes this.
  13. WXman

    WXman Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    870
    Likes:
    1,067
    My 2012 JKU averaged 19.2 MPGs in a weekly mix of city/highway commuting (when it was stock).

    My 2018 JLU is averaging 21.7 MPGs on the same weekly commuting route.

    Both were Pentastar V6 models. I'm VERY pleased with the fuel economy on Wrangler, and have been for years, considering that a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, etc. is no where remotely close to those numbers in real world driving from my own experience. In fact, the only 4x4 I've ever owned in my life that was more fuel efficient than Wrangler is the Liberty CRD. My wife's 2018 Cherokee 2.4L doesn't even achieve better MPGs than our Wrangler.
     
  14. Tin Man 2

    Tin Man 2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes:
    1,501
    Hard to figure a Wrangler beating a 2.4 Cherokee in MPG. Is the Wrangler a manual trans?
     
    UN4GTBL, xjgary and VoiceOfReason like this.
  15. freshforged

    freshforged Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes:
    2,316
    All due to the start/stop and hybrid features. Modern autos are more efficient then manuals fwiw. Don’t think the e-torque is available with the manual.
     
    VoiceOfReason likes this.
  16. KrisW

    KrisW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes:
    4,236
    Jeep and Alfa's marketing approach to hybrids can be summarised as "HIGHER PERFORMANCE! (oh, and you get better fuel consumption too)". Nobody considers either brand if they want economy, so it's somewhat pointless to play up this aspect: The idea of "economy" would probably deter more potential buyers than it would attract.

    Just like Jeep only talked about its hybrid as a system for improved low-speed torque, it looks like Alfa's first hybrid will be a high-performance model that will actually sit at the top of the non-cloverleaf range, with 350bhp from electric supercharging and the hybrid's electric drive acting as a torque fill-in at low speed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they even called it "KERS" [Kinetic Energy Recovery System], borrowing the term used in F1 racing cars.
     
  17. aldo90731

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    9,801
    Likes:
    20,163
    Indeed. But consumers have been programmed for 20 years to think hybrid = fuel economy.

    It is going to take concerted effort from FCA to overcome this ingrained perception.
     
    UN4GTBL likes this.
  18. KrisW

    KrisW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes:
    4,236
    They're very careful not to use the h-word. The Jeep configurator has this to say when you ask for details about the 2.0 eTorque option:
    "optimizes fuel economy" is the furthest they'll go, and while the description is 100% correct about what this system is, you'd need to have some knowledge about how engines work to understand that what it is, in layman's terms, is a mild hybrid.

    But those economy benefits will still be there, and perhaps its better for customers to discover them themselves: by not focussing on the economy aspects, FCA is under-promising and over-delivering. Pleasantly surprise your customers and they'll reward you well whenever someone asks them what they think of their car.
     
  19. Zagnut27

    Zagnut27 Jeepaholic

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    5,180
    Likes:
    9,959
    They can name it anything they like, and highlight any attributes of the system that they like. Let’s just pray that the system combined with the 2.0 launches smoothly with a minimum of hiccups or issues over the next several years to build a reputation of reliability and durability.

    Please Jeep Gods, if you’re listening, let it be so. Amen.
     
    AvengerGuy, UN4GTBL, xjgary and 4 others like this.
  20. Dr. Jeep

    Dr. Jeep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    241
    Likes:
    364
    Given how many former JK owners are raving about the Pentastar / 8-speed combination, this motor has a pretty high bar set for it given that it is a $1000 option and needs premium fuel to hit these performance and economy numbers. It seems it also doesn't really have any weight savings advantage over the Pentastar, and it is far more mechanically complex. On a value basis, the premium fuel and option cost erase the fuel savings for many people and in some cases will make this engine option more expensive over the life of the vehicle.

    There are things that it will be able to do that the Pentastar can't match; if tank range is more important than fuel cost then the 4cly wins, the 4cyl has a much cleaner and higher-clearance exhaust routing than the Pentastar due to the inline design of the motor (this is actually pretty important as the Pentastar exhaust routing robs clearance on the JK and JL and generates a lot of extra heat underneath, leading to potential debris-accumulation fires when offroad), and high altitude performance of the 4cyl turbo is likely to be better than that of the Pentastar.

    That really isn't enough to pull the large majority of buyers towards the turbo. It's nice to have the option to choose it, without a doubt... but I'm personally far more interested in the numbers put up by the Pentastar when they add the BSG to it.
     
    UN4GTBL and somber like this.

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.