Jeep Renegade Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Only has the 2WD version, but the fuel economy figures appear to be posted on the EPA's website now. This may be on another thread, but this is the first I had seen it myself.

Combined: 25mpg
Highway: 31 mpg
City: 22mpg

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36037
Thanks for finding this.

Very Disappointing, that is the same as the Cherokee, that weighs 500 pounds more:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/35389.shtml

How will they keep their promise, all models (Trailhawk) will get 30mpg plus?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for finding this.

Very Disappointing, that is the same as the Cherokee, that weighs 500 pounds more:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/35389.shtml

How will they keep their promise, all models (Trailhawk) will get 30mpg plus?
Was thinking the exact thing about the Trailhawk. But also curious about the 4WD Latitude and Limited versions as well. Jeep has been very vocal that all of their models with be north of 30mpg on the highway. Hard to see that promise holding.

That said, in the same link, there is a tab for the the specs of the vehicle. The specs say this is not the turbo version, so perhaps this is the 2WD automatic (which I just checked is definitely an option even with the Sport version). The specs tab looks kind of incomplete so this may be much to do about nothing. I'm still hopeful the 1.4L Turbo/manual transmission tops 33mpg. We'll see, I suppose.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
No big news here, as expected worse than the competition
For some people the probably more fun to drive dynamics and the offroading capabilities will be worth it, not for me!

Attached an EPA comparison
That's not an apples to apples comparison - the EPA estimate for the 1.4 L is not out yet which compares better with the vehicles you choose. The estimate reported from the EPA today is for the 2.4 L.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
That's not an apples to apples comparison - the EPA estimate for the 1.4 L is not out yet which compares better with the vehicles you choose. The estimate reported from the EPA today is for the 2.4 L.
the 1.4L comes with a manual transmission, the 2.4L 9 speed auto is what was published

the 4 vehicles in the comparsion snap shot I uploaded are all automatic (or CVT, which is also automatic-shifting)

I thought this was more realistic than comparing manuals with automatics
 

· Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Not surprising to me at all. The Renegade is probably the least aerodynamically-efficient C-SUV on the market, which greatly affects highway fuel economy. It is a very squared-off box, after all. Around town, the fuel economy is obviously being negatively affected by the larger displacement engine and weight of the vehicle compared to the segment competitors like the Countryman S (28 combined in 2WD/auto guise) and Juke (30, also in 2WD/auto guise).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I have to say I am stunned. 22/31 for a 2wd Renegade? Weighing about 3200 lbs? With almost identical wheel size/gear ratios/engine/trans as Chrysler 200 but weighing several hundred pounds less? I know aerodynamics, but city should not be affected much at all but it is less than the 200. Should exceed or at least match the 200 on City and what a huge drop on Hwy from 36 to 31. You would think those 9 gears and top 4 overdrive ratios would keep it in the optimal gear for fuel econ.

If I wanted 2WD on a Jeep, the 2015 Cherokee gets 21/28 with a V6 and start/stop and a lot more usable space. Certainly making me think upsizing to that or waiting for the AWD CX-3, to at least compare to. Mazda will likely blow this out of the water MPG wise. I don't need the Renegade TH level of 4WD, I just wanted some all weather chops in a small SUV with solid MPG. And I was so pysched to buy a Renegade at the Chicago Auto Show last week. Time for me to reconsider the "Gotta have it" factor.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
While the Juke in the above comparison can actually be favorably compared to the Renegade, the HR-V & Trax are both cars with about 50 less horsepower, and they will both be extremely slow.... we are talking 10-12 seconds 0-60 times.

The Juke is a bit quicker than the Renegade, but it also lighter and much smaller in both back seat space and trunk space. The interior is basically like a 2+2 sports coupe.

So if you are looking to get a vehicle that is both fun to drive and has some decent space for 4 adults and some trunk space, the Renegade is the only one on that list that qualifies.

As for the Cherokee, to get the same performance from the Cherokee, you would have to get it with the V6, and then your gas mileage would be considerably lower and your cost significantly higher. As was mentioned, there's a 500 lb penalty on the Cherokee which makes it very slow with that same 2.4L engine.

That said, if you don't care about speed and driving a slow car is ok with you, then definitely consider one of those others as they will be more economical. A better consideration than the HR-V & Trax is the Subaru Crosstrek -- it has the off road guts of the Jeep and the interior space, but is just slow.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
While the Juke in the above comparison can actually be favorably compared to the Renegade, the HR-V & Trax are both cars with about 50 less horsepower, and they will both be extremely slow.... we are talking 10-12 seconds 0-60 times.

The Juke is a bit quicker than the Renegade, but it also lighter and much smaller in both back seat space and trunk space. The interior is basically like a 2+2 sports coupe.

So if you are looking to get a vehicle that is both fun to drive and has some decent space for 4 adults and some trunk space, the Renegade is the only one on that list that qualifies.

As for the Cherokee, to get the same performance from the Cherokee, you would have to get it with the V6, and then your gas mileage would be considerably lower and your cost significantly higher. As was mentioned, there's a 500 lb penalty on the Cherokee which makes it very slow with that same 2.4L engine.

That said, if you don't care about speed and driving a slow car is ok with you, then definitely consider one of those others as they will be more economical. A better consideration than the HR-V & Trax is the Subaru Crosstrek -- it has the off road guts of the Jeep and the interior space, but is just slow.
I test drove a Juke. I am 6' tall and could not fit in the back seat, legroom or headroom.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
the listed one says that it's a E85 flex fuel vehicle.. Will they all be flex fuel??? I don't understand the need to have flex fuel engines, the fuel is super hard to find at a gas station (here in mid DFW at least) and you get realllllly bad mpg based on that fuel.. am I missing something?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
the listed one says that it's a E85 flex fuel vehicle.. Will they all be flex fuel??? I don't understand the need to have flex fuel engines, the fuel is super hard to find at a gas station (here in mid DFW at least) and you get realllllly bad mpg based on that fuel.. am I missing something?
That´s exactly the point ... over here in europe you have to look for Super (E5) Fuel ... They force us to drive E10 fuel to drive in our vehicles ... next step should be E15 but the consumer don´t even want E10 ... so all off the engines made over here are ready for that Alcohol-Gasoline crap and the fuel consumption increases up to 4-5% for every 5% Alcohol you add to "save" Gasoline because Alcohol has lower energy in it as gasoline ...

For gasoline against E10 you need about 8-9% more fuel per Gallon when driving on E10 ... that´s why you have that bad mpg ...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
From the secret EPA test files this is the "Aerodynamic Brick" 3D model used for the the Renegade fuel mileage tests:

 
  • Like
Reactions: jocoleman

· Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
It's not terrible but its also not a selling point. If MPG is one of the most important things you are looking for, then you probably would go after something other than the Renegade. Jeep knows that their consumers aren't as concerned with MPG though. I think most Jeep buyers are willing to give up a little bit of MPG for the increased capabilities.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,685 Posts
It's not terrible but its also not a selling point. If MPG is one of the most important things you are looking for, then you probably would go after something other than the Renegade. Jeep knows that their consumers aren't as concerned with MPG though. I think most Jeep buyers are willing to give up a little bit of MPG for the increased capabilities.
Lets puyt it this way.

The renegade has a slightly higher CD than the kia soul. It has slightly more horsepower. The soul does 0-60 in about 7.8sec, and the reviewers are saying the renegade is doing it about 8 seconds.

The renegade has FOUR more gears. It shouldn't be getting slightly less MPG than the soul for a 2wd configuration. Adding AWD, that figure is going to drop, and probably a decent chunk. You can rationalize it all you want, but there are a lot of AWD c segment CUVs that are hitting the renegade's 2wd numbers with awd. It's not good.

On the up side, comparing it to my wife's soul, she does about 55% highway and gets about 28mpg combined where the current EPA tests say it should be about 26mpg.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top