JT owners post your MPG

[Jeeperjamie]

They were the stock Rubicon tires and wheels the last pic I posted.
I was SHOCKED. I expected LOWER MPG on the Rubicon tires than with the original stock Overland tires.
I figured putting the wider Rubicon tires on would lower things at least .5 mpg. They didn't.
But then I don't run as low a pressure as some do, either.
I run 36 in the Overland tires, 36-38 in the Rubicon tires (got lazy and decided to not adjust them as our temperatures swing so wildly)

Overland, not lifted, has a better configuration for MPG - HIGHER gear ratio.
I can see the Sport S and Rubicon guys complaining - you lift it, your mpg will likely drop. Put on 100 pound tire/wheel assemblies, again, you made it heavier, mpg will drop. Heavy winch and bumper - there ya go, mpg will drop.
So anyone who is running a NON-STOCK JT can't really say anything about MPG.
Any time you let more air under the vehicle or expose the front tires to wind - mpg drops. Cut off those bumper/fender fillers, you may lose up to about .2 mpg

My other thing is that you can't compare a 3.6 from 2016, 2018, whatever, to a 3.6 from 2020.
Doesn't matter how many 3.6's you've owned or driven, if they were older than 2018, they were totally different engines in some ways.
We've experienced that ourselves because my wife trades Jeeps every 2 to 2.5 years. The last three trades each one did better mpg-wise. SAME exact setup, same engine, same trim level, and yet each time we traded, she could drive further and further on a gallon of gas. It got to the point she could make it all the way to Branson, MO from home on the same tank, her trip costs kept dropping (well, not if you could the cost of the Jeep HA! But then when you trade in a 2.5 year old vehicle with only 15,000 miles on it - you get good trade-in dollars)

It's been my experience and most on here that the Max Tow gets the best MPGs stock, if your saying your achieving those numbers on 3.73 gears then I'd have a hard time believing that, just saying. You could in a Grand Cherokee, not in a JT, I don't care how fast or slow you drive or how much you baby it or grandpa drive it, it would be impossible to do or achieve unless it was down hill both ways.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

It's been my experience and most on here that the Max Tow gets the best MPGs stock, if your saying your achieving those numbers on 3.73 gears then I'd have a hard time believing that, just saying. You could in a Grand Cherokee, not in a JT, I don't care how fast or slow you drive or how much you baby it or grandpa drive it, it would be impossible to do or achieve unless it was down hill both ways.

That's funny because the Overland is sold to be the cruiser, best MPG version, thus the higher gear ratio. If you knew gear ratios, drive trains, and the connection to engine rpm, efficiency, you'd see your thinking is counter-intuitive. I can take almost any vehicle and put in higher gear ratio and up the mpg. (to a point - lower engine RPM too much and you lose)
4.10 gears are performance gears, not mpg gears. Why do you think that manufacturers put in 2.87 and 2.35 gears in cars in the 80s and 90s to get mpg up for their CAFE numbers?
You drop to 3.50, 4.10 and lower for performance, not MPG, as you wind the engine up more.
Check the ratings of Chevy trucks - towing numbers go up with lower ratios, but mpg ratings go down. Higher gear ratios get you better mpg, but lower towing numbers.
(I stand by my numbers - and my automotive and truck experience in building for power - or economy. And, I'm not the only person seeing these numbers.)
Usually the people who say "not possible" are doing so because they can't make it so want to convince others that they can't, either.
Just because you can't, doesn't mean it's not happening for others. So you, too, are calling me, perhaps others, liars. I posted a pic, so have others.
The OVERLAND is the mpg version, not the performance and towing version.
To get towing numbers and performance you MUST GIVE UP MPG.
To get MPG, you MUST GIVE UP performance!
It's quite simple. I've been repairing and building cars for decades - and my experience bears out the above - to get mpg, you lose power and performance. If you want mpg, you are going to give up your towing capability and trail driving ability.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

That's funny because the Overland is sold to be the cruiser, best MPG version, thus the higher gear ratio. If you knew gear ratios, drive trains, and the connection to engine rpm, efficiency, you'd see your thinking is counter-intuitive. I can take almost any vehicle and put in higher gear ratio and up the mpg. (to a point - lower engine RPM too much and you lose)
4.10 gears are performance gears, not mpg gears. Why do you think that manufacturers put in 2.87 and 2.35 gears in cars in the 80s and 90s to get mpg up for their CAFE numbers?
You drop to 3.50, 4.10 and lower for performance, not MPG, as you wind the engine up more.
Check the ratings of Chevy trucks - towing numbers go up with lower ratios, but mpg ratings go down. Higher gear ratios get you better mpg, but lower towing numbers.
(I stand by my numbers - and my automotive and truck experience in building for power - or economy. And, I'm not the only person seeing these numbers.)
Usually the people who say "not possible" are doing so because they can't make it so want to convince others that they can't, either.
Just because you can't, doesn't mean it's not happening for others. So you, too, are calling me, perhaps others, liars. I posted a pic, so have others.
The OVERLAND is the mpg version, not the performance and towing version.
To get towing numbers and performance you MUST GIVE UP MPG.
To get MPG, you MUST GIVE UP performance!
It's quite simple. I've been repairing and building cars for decades - and my experience bears out the above - to get mpg, you lose power and performance. If you want mpg, you are going to give up your towing capability and trail driving ability.

I'm pretty sure I could of gotten 21 to 22 out of mine stock on consistent basis but the same gears and engine performance of a overland with 3.73 gears is no different than a Sport S, except the weight on a overland is going to be slightly higher because of the 18" wheels, and all the creature comforts they put in them that's going to increase the weight of the vehicle. That in itself would make a overland get less MPGs than a Sport S, add in the fact that the front portion of the bumper that leads to the fender is also missing on the overland same as the Rubicon, that's going to affect the MPGs as well because it's not going to be as aerodynamic as the Sport S or Sport, especially one with 4.10 gearing like the Max Tow. I'm not buying your numbers, sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, there is no logic in it.

 

[Shootist]

Overland with Rubi takeoffs and getting an average 19-19.6 combined just about 2k miles on it after my last trip to the beach. Was getting 20-23 on the interstate at 65-75 but roads were really flat.

 

[kelkolb]

It's been my experience and most on here that the Max Tow gets the best MPGs stock, if your saying your achieving those numbers on 3.73 gears then I'd have a hard time believing that, just saying. You could in a Grand Cherokee, not in a JT, I don't care how fast or slow you drive or how much you baby it or grandpa drive it, it would be impossible to do or achieve unless it was down hill both ways.

You seem to be an anomaly with this. My max tow never got better than 19-19.5 stock and with my current setup I get 16-17 over a tank. I'm not hard on the pedal, it just doesn't get great mileage. FWIW, I'm also hand calculating, not going by the dash mpg. The dash always reads about 1 mpg better than the actual.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

You seem to be an anomaly with this. My max tow never got better than 19-19.5 stock and with my current setup I get 16-17 over a tank. I'm not hard on the pedal, it just doesn't get great mileage. FWIW, I'm also hand calculating, not going by the dash mpg. The dash always reads about 1 mpg better than the actual.

Well that's yours mine got 19+ on 35's, everybody's driving conditions are different but no one's driving conditions are going to put them at 25-26 mpgs, stock or not, that's just not going to happen. Others have had different experiences as well. Hand calculating the computer is pretty darn close to my hand calculations.

 

[kelkolb]

Well that's yours mine got 19+ on 35's, everybody's driving conditions are different but no one's driving conditions are going to put them at 25-26 mpgs, stock or not, that's just not going to happen. Others have had different experiences as well. Hand calculating the computer is pretty darn close to my hand calculations.

Curious, what air pressure do you run those 35's at?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I'm pretty sure I could of gotten 21 to 22 out of mine stock on consistent basis but the same gears and engine performance of a overland with 3.73 gears is no different than a Sport S, except the weight on a overland is going to be slightly higher because of the 18" wheels, and all the creature comforts they put in them that's going to increase the weight of the vehicle. That in itself would make a overland get less MPGs than a Sport S, add in the fact that the front portion of the bumper that leads to the fender is also missing on the overland same as the Rubicon, that's going to affect the MPGs as well because it's not going to be as aerodynamic as the Sport S or Sport, especially one with 4.10 gearing like the Max Tow. I'm not buying your numbers, sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, there is no logic in it.

Uh, Sport S max tow has 4.10 gearing, not the 3.73 of the Overland. That's one reason the max tow Sport S has a higher towing capability. Lower gear ratio.
3.73 is only on standard, non-max tow Sport S. If there's max tow, it's the 4.10 ratio. That's why Rubicon and Sport S have higher towing and payload.
The overland has lowest not strictly due to weight, but the gear ratio of the Overland is higher.
The bit on the bumper/fenders impacts mpg only slightly. Iv'e seen reports of .2 mpg - not enough to write home about.
How long have you been a tech working on cars and trucks and how much study have you put into ratios, engine power bands (dyno testing, etc.)?
You are still saying I'm lying about the numbers - and that photo is photoshopped?
That is 3 trips- the first was 26 miles, half with cruise set at 57 mpg, the other hald with cruise set at 67 mph (well, the last 5 or 6 miles was me on the gas, about 60 mph) We live in southern Iowa, where the glaciers did not reach. Hardly flat. Coal mining territory, hills that the OTR drivers hate and trains had trouble so they had to double up on engines when loaded with coal. It ain't flat here.
Get to Des Moines, it's a bit more level, but not flat.
2nd trip was across Des Moines to a doctor, I live in SE Polk County, the doc on western edge of the county. I had to drive 10 miles at 45, then 5 or 6 in town, stop lights and all, then to the freeway, doing about 60-65 when I got away from the traffic cameras.
Third trip was also to West Des Moines. Same sort of trip as the doc, but to a store as my wife wanted to shop.
Ask her about our hills, and I dare anyone to suggest to her face I "grandpa drive" - I'd love to see her reaction LOL

 

[Jeeperjamie]

Curious, what air pressure do you run those 35's at?

I was running them at 33psi but I recently went up to 43psi, 43 seems to ride a little better to me. Didn't make much of difference as far as MPGs go.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Well that's yours mine got 19+ on 35's, everybody's driving conditions are different but no one's driving conditions are going to put them at 25-26 mpgs, stock or not, that's just not going to happen. Others have had different experiences as well. Hand calculating the computer is pretty darn close to my hand calculations.

Yup - you support my rule that when people argue about MPG saying in effect "you lie, you can't do that" it really means THEY can't do it so you can't either.

I've more experience with trucks and towing and cars and gear ratios than a few folks here, again, I stand by my numbers and my picture. 19 IS more common, but the last tank before this one finished in at 21 average and that covers all sorts of speed and driving.
Funny how someone will say "I can't so you can't" and even suggest a lower gear ratio would do better - when the opposite is generally true (again, unless you get so high that you tax the engine hard, then you lose mpg.)

Wonder what my college profs would think seeing some things I see.

 

[kelkolb]

Yup - you support my rule that when people argue about MPG saying in effect "you lie, you can't do that" it really means THEY can't do it so you can't either.

I've more experience with trucks and towing and cars and gear ratios than a few folks here, again, I stand by my numbers and my picture. 19 IS more common, but the last tank before this one finished in at 21 average and that covers all sorts of speed and driving.
Funny how someone will say "I can't so you can't" and even suggest a lower gear ratio would do better - when the opposite is generally true (again, unless you get so high that you tax the engine hard, then you lose mpg.)

Wonder what my college profs would think seeing some things I see.

I said that, not because I can't, but because I know of nobody else on here who gets that kind of mileage with 35's.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

Uh, Sport S max tow has 4.10 gearing, not the 3.73 of the Overland. That's one reason the max two Sport S has a higher towing capability. Lower gear ratio.
3.73 is only on standard, non-max tow Sport S. If there's max tow, it's the 4.10 ratio. That's why Rubicon and Sport S have higher towing and payload.
The overland has lowest not strictly due to weight, but the gear ratio of the Overland is higher.
The bit on the bumper/fenders impacts mpg only slightly. Iv'e seen reports of .2 mpg - not enough to write home about.
How long have you been a tech working on cars and trucks and how much study have you put into ratios, engine power bands (dyno testing, etc.)?
You are still saying I'm lying about the numbers - and that photo is photoshopped?
That is 3 trips- the first was 26 miles, half with cruise set at 57 mpg, the other hald with cruise set at 67 mph (well, the last 5 or 6 miles was me on the gas, about 60 mph) We live in southern Iowa, where the glaciers did not reach. Hardly flat. Coal mining territory, hills that the OTR drivers hate and trains had trouble so they had to double up on engines when loaded with coal. It ain't flat here.
Get to Des Moines, it's a bit more level, but not flat.
2nd trip was across Des Moines to a doctor, I leave in SE Polk County, the doc on western edge of the county. I had to drive 10 miles at 45, then 5 or 6 in town, stop lights and all, then to the freeway, doing about 60-65 when I got away from the traffic cameras.
Third trip was also to West Des Moines. Same sort of trip as the doc, but to a store as my wife wanted to shop.
Ask her about our hills, and I dare anyone to suggest to her face I "grandpa drive" - I'd love to see her reaction LOL

You are telling me things I know already. 4.10 gears in Rubicon, Max Tow Sport S and Max Tow regular Sport, 3.73 Gears in overland and Non Max tow sport and sport s. Are you saying your Jeep Gladiator got 25-26 mpg just so I'm understanding you correctly, if your saying that then I'm saying no way and I don't believe it. If your saying a Grand Cherokee got 25-26 then I believe that. What I'm saying is a stock Jeep Gladiator of any model isn't ever going to average 25-26 MPGs, now if you reset the computer and take your foot off the gas some while your driving it's possible to get it there for a few seconds or maybe even a minute, that's what I'm saying. I don't have to be a engineer or do studies to know that. I have owned a number of cars over the years and no way a JT ever going to get mpg numbers close to a BMW 440i, just not going to happen. Not calling you a liar though, done!

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Overland with Rubi takeoffs and getting an average 19-19.6 combined just about 2k miles on it after my last trip to the beach. Was getting 20-23 on the interstate at 65-75 but roads were really flat.

If you had a limit of 60, you'd be amazed at the mpg difference.
When we came back from Indiana last February, my wife took over driving and she was getting 23 on their freeways and highways when the speed limit was 55, then 60 up to the town I can't recall the name of but there's a stoplight ever half mile.... anyway, my point was that she was doing 23, at times better, when she was limited to 60 and at times, below. Then she hit the open road and set it to 70 and I literally watched the mpg drop like a rock. It settled to about 20 - then when she hit Iowa, it dropped more, to about 19.
That's the huge difference SPEED makes. 55-60 you literally do an easy 2 mpg better than 70. And since speed limits around our metro are 65 - but most of us do 70 when traffic is light, that may be a difference. I see a lot of folks talking mpg one sentence and then saying "cruising at 75-80" Well, DUH!!!!
I have noticed that I do about 19-20 on I80 in eastern Iowa doing 70-75 but when I hit Illinois, the ground changes and my mpg jumps up a couple. The loss of the hills on I80. I asked the Iowa DOT for the incline numbers on I80 east of Altoona and there's some pretty good grades! No wonder trucks have some trouble there.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

Yup - you support my rule that when people argue about MPG saying in effect "you lie, you can't do that" it really means THEY can't do it so you can't either.

I've more experience with trucks and towing and cars and gear ratios than a few folks here, again, I stand by my numbers and my picture. 19 IS more common, but the last tank before this one finished in at 21 average and that covers all sorts of speed and driving.
Funny how someone will say "I can't so you can't" and even suggest a lower gear ratio would do better - when the opposite is generally true (again, unless you get so high that you tax the engine hard, then you lose mpg.)

Wonder what my college profs would think seeing some things I see.

Dude if your getting 19-21 then yeah, I believe that. I said people saying they got 25-26 MPGs, I never said you couldn't achieve MPGs like that. Mine is getting 18.2-19.3 on 35's with 2.5" of lift so no I wouldn't expect to be i your range. Read what I was saying, 25-26 MPGs not 19-21, that's totally doable.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I said that, not because I can't, but because I know of nobody else on here who gets that kind of mileage with 35's.

NOT YOU - that was jeeperjamie that insists no one could possibly get my kind of mpg on an Overland.
35s - now you are talking mass - rotating mass.
There's a difference even between my Overland tires and wheels compared to my Rubicon tire/wheel take-offs. I could tell when loading and unloading them in the back of the truck. The Overland tires/wheels are lighter. I think the Rubicon 33s - stock Rubicon tires and wheels, come in at 80 pounds. I rolled my Overland tires up a ramp and into the truck with ease and the truck dropped less with them in it (I measured the drop - keeping track of changes that different springs may make)
35 - more rolling resistance, more friction, more weight/mass. It makes total sense that a JT with 35s will do less mpg than one with 33s, stock wheels and tires.

Sponsored