Allpar Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Automated System
Joined
·
2,769 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

1997 Jeep Cherokee 2014 Jeep Cherokee I-4power 125 hp / 150 lb-ft 184 hp / 171 lb-ft Six-cyl. power 190 / 225 271 / 239 mpg, 4 cyl 4x4 19 / 22 (uncorrected) 23 / 31 mpg, 6 cyl 4x4 17 / 21 (uncorrected) 22 / 29 Weight, lb 3,111 - 3,153 3,811 - 4,106 Allpar members Bran and Mentallica found a jeep.com “easter egg:” city and highway cycle gas mileage for the 2014 Jeep Cherokee, for both four cylinder and V6 cars. The information is still there, in the form of a pop-up when users hit the plus sign. The Jeep Cherokee four-cylinder, which produces 184 horsepower and 171 lb-ft of torque, has city mileage of 23 mpg, using the tougher 2008 EPA standard measurement cycle. In comparison, the old 1997-2001 Cherokee came in at 22 mpg on the highway, measured with looser standards. In six-cylinder territory, the..

View the original, full post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
With only 1 mpg less city/hwy for the V6, I would definitely opt for that over the I-4.

In either case technology certainly has helped mileage.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,254 Posts
With you if it works that way in real life too. Again, though, those who don't really care about acceleration or who find the four cylinder to be "more than enough" -- as I'm sure it will be for most people -- can get a much cheaper option. A thousand dollars might not seem like a lot to everyone, but it's a good amount of money, and if you don't need more power than the four... if, say, you only want something that can outrace an XJ... [ha ha, we don't really know how fast the four cyl will be, but with that nine speed, I bet it's fast enough for 80% of buyers to be happy.]
 

·
Plymouth Makes It
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Price comparison for its market segment would be nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,224 Posts
Gee, I should hope they can best the mileage of a17 year-old vehicle!
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
You would think that would be a no brainer - but looking at MPG advances in the last 17 years...there really aren't that many.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
735 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Gee, I should hope they can best the mileage of a17 year-old vehicle!
heck the fiat 500 or smart car cant beat out some cars from 80s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Gee, I should hope they can best the mileage of a17 year-old vehicle!
And they do it with cars that are safer, bigger, a lot heavier and filled to the brim with technology/ creature comforts. Hugely impressive? No but still a great accomplishment. Heck the v6 cherokee gets better city mileage than my 200. Thats impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,224 Posts
I understand a desire to do a comparison to the XJ, but we do not do this for most vehicles.

Where was the comparison of the Dart fuel economy to the last generation Dart?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Gee, I should hope they can best the mileage of a17 year-old vehicle!
It isn't just besting it, the CITY mileage of the new vehicle on the TOUGHER standard is better than the HIGHWAY mileage on the EASIER standard; with 30% more weight and 50% more HP.
 

·
Virginia Gentleman
Joined
·
14,675 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
I understand a desire to do a comparison to the XJ, but we do not do this for most vehicles.

Where was the comparison of the Dart fuel economy to the last generation Dart?
That would be an apples to oranges comparison as the original Dart had /6's and V8's compared to the current Dart with inline 4's and turbo's not to mention the drastic difference in transmissions.

I wouldn't compare the "old" Cherokee to the "New" Cherokee either. Different parameters for different times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,973 Posts
Moparian said:
And they do it with cars that are safer, bigger, a lot heavier and filled to the brim with technology/ creature comforts. Hugely impressive? No but still a great accomplishment. Heck the v6 cherokee gets better city mileage than my 200. Thats impressive.
Imagine what mileage would be if buyers could choose between mpg and safety? I feel perfectly safe in my 2001 XJ. Between my 1989 and 2001 I have driven XJ's daily for 23 years. Other than being rear ended at a light I have had no accidents. I haven't caused any accidents, I haven't flipped, rolled over, crashed, etc. I have done that without ABS, traction control, stability control, blind spot sensors, back up cameras, etc.
I am more than willing to accept my own responsibility when I am behind the wheel.

It isn't the vehicle that has been at fault. It is the driver. Yet we do nothing about the driver. Instead we hinder the mpg by demanding that automakers change their product because the driver isn't qualified to operate it.

Many here had high hopes that weight would come down some now that Chrysler isn't saddled with Daimler's way of building things. What we see instead is weight going even higher under Fiat. The KJ Liberty weighed about 700 pounds more than the XJ. Yes, it had to get heavier due to regulations but much of that 700 pounds was wasteful.
Now the KL is 1000 pounds heavier than the XJ. Seems our hope of reduced weight under Fiat was misplaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,318 Posts
CherokeeVision said:
Imagine what mileage would be if buyers could choose between mpg and safety? I feel perfectly safe in my 2001 XJ. Between my 1989 and 2001 I have driven XJ's daily for 23 years. Other than being rear ended at a light I have had no accidents. I haven't caused any accidents, I haven't flipped, rolled over, crashed, etc. I have done that without ABS, traction control, stability control, blind spot sensors, back up cameras, etc.
I am more than willing to accept my own responsibility when I am behind the wheel.

It isn't the vehicle that has been at fault. It is the driver. Yet we do nothing about the driver. Instead we hinder the mpg by demanding that automakers change their product because the driver isn't qualified to operate it.

Many here had high hopes that weight would come down some now that Chrysler isn't saddled with Daimler's way of building things. What we see instead is weight going even higher under Fiat. The KJ Liberty weighed about 700 pounds more than the XJ. Yes, it had to get heavier due to regulations but much of that 700 pounds was wasteful.
Now the KL is 1000 pounds heavier than the XJ. Seems our hope of reduced weight under Fiat was misplaced.
Yeah and when someone buys the unsafe version, and then gets plowed into by someone else and is killed or injured..... guess who will be sued. (Not the other driver)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,224 Posts
JKU12 said:
Yeah and when someone buys the unsafe version, and then gets plowed into by someone else and is killed or injured..... guess who will be sued. (Not the other driver)
Now, THAT is the root of the problem that our elected officials (from both parties) refuse to address because most of them are lawyers.

So, instead our elected officials impose nanny-accessories on all vehicles under the guise of "our protection" but robbing us of choice.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
Unless I'm an engineer that knows what each required system and part weighs, there's no way that I can claim that any additional weight added to a vehicle is wasteful.

If the top-selling vehicles in a segment come away with 4 & 5-star crash ratings - you better not be content with your vehicle in that segment coming away with anything else.

Remember "fast, cheap, reliable - pick two?" How about "efficient, safe, and cheap - pick two?"
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Gee, I should hope they can best the mileage of a17 year-old vehicle!
Well, throw up to a thousand pounds more weight on and that's fairly impressive to me...
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top