[dieselenthusiast]

I'm patiently awaiting for the EPA fuel economy release. Do you guys/girls think that 36 mpg is possible from the Trailhawk 2.4L Tiger Shark with 9 speed auto? The same engine in the Dart is rated for 41 mpg and 31 mpg in the Cherokee. Am I asking for too much? The fuel economy will really determine whether or not we want to take a serious look into buying the Renegade.

 

[NERenegade]

I'm patiently awaiting for the EPA fuel economy release. Do you guys/girls think that 36 mpg is possible from the Trailhawk 2.4L Tiger Shark with 9 speed auto? The same engine in the Dart is rated for 41 mpg and 31 mpg in the Cherokee. Am I asking for too much? The fuel economy will really determine whether or not we want to take a serious look into buying the Renegade.

The 1.4L engine in the Dart is rated for 28/41 mpg. The 2.4 in the Dart is rated for 23/35. I checked the Dart forum (Dodge-Dart.org) to see what people have been getting for mpgs in the 2.4. Bear in mind the Dart comes with a 6-speed tranny. It also varies due to how many miles are on the engine, driving style, etc., but some people have hit 38-40 on trips, and 34-36 average overall. The 2.4 engine Dart models weigh about 3300 lbs. I think Renegade models that are at or close to that weight should return similar numbers. Here is a link to that specific thread:

http://www.dodge-dart.org/forum/dodge-dart-2-4l-tigershark/14272-2-4l-mpg-reports-13.html

 

[dieselenthusiast]

Thanks NERenegade for clarifying. 35 mpg isn't bad. Like I said, the fuel economy is going to help drive my decision.

 

[Hivoltage]

If thats the case, pretty much seals the deal for me.

 

[bunburry]

check out fuelly. Also beware of the DART Aero, which has been optimised for max econ, it skews the ratings/discussion...

 

[NERenegade]

I meant to add that the Cherokee weighs 3811 FWD and 4044 lbs 4x4, so the 2.4 is not going to get as good mileage, particularly in the 4x4 configuration.

 

[NERenegade]

check out fuelly. Also beware of the DART Aero, which has been optimised for max econ, it skews the ratings/discussion...

True. To further refine the Dart weights, the GT is the heaviest at 3348 with the auto trans/3297 with the manual trans, and the other manual models weigh 3186 lbs.

 

[dieselenthusiast]

The 9 speed automatic will certainly help increase fuel numbers in the Renegade.

 

[bunburry]

i just wish there was a benchmark for the 9 speed. Toobad KL isnt offered with a conventional six and the nine, would give us an indication as to HOW much efficiency is gained. The RAMs with the choice of 6 or 8 show marginal gains...

 

[dieselenthusiast]

i just wish there was a benchmark for the 9 speed. Toobad KL isnt offered with a conventional six and the nine, would give us an indication as to HOW much efficiency is gained. The RAMs with the choice of 6 or 8 show marginal gains...

And now that engines and transmissions are electronically tuned, more factors are involved. There's a lot of math that goes into gears, torque convertors, and tuning. More gears are nice if you need them on the hills or to squeeze fuel efficiency from a vehicle. The Tiger Shark 2.4 is an inline 4 cylinder. The inline offers a longer stroke which means lower end torque where it's needed. Like I said, it's hard to tell what the fuel economy is going to be on the gasoline engine. I would pay $4,000 more for a diesel option to get 45 miles per gallon and a longer lasting engine.

 

[bunburry]

also remember that many of the quoted diesel figures are for european shoppers. 1 US gallon = .83 Imperial gallons.

 

[dieselenthusiast]

also remember that many of the quoted diesel figures are for european shoppers. 1 US gallon = .83 Imperial gallons.

And that's very true. The Euro Commander with the 3.0L diesel engine wasn't substantially better than it's gasoline counterpart in terms of fuel efficiency. The imperial gallons must be calculated. I'm still guessing that the diesel Renegade will average 40 mpg in US gallons, though, and maybe better.

 

[raz-0]

I'm patiently awaiting for the EPA fuel economy release. Do you guys/girls think that 36 mpg is possible from the Trailhawk 2.4L Tiger Shark with 9 speed auto? The same engine in the Dart is rated for 41 mpg and 31 mpg in the Cherokee. Am I asking for too much? The fuel economy will really determine whether or not we want to take a serious look into buying the Renegade.

No, I don't think you will get even remotely close.

First off, the 2.4L engine gets only 35 in the dart, which has a lower coefficient of drag than the renegade will, and less forntal area (part of what gets you the lower CD). So even in 2WD, it'll get worse mileage.

Second, fiat's claim is that it will get 32MPG in every trim level. So that's the probably the best you can expect for trailhawk as it is the most MPG unfriendly arrangement of the vehicle. I would be skeptical of that except that going form the dart, you are adding 3 more gears.


Third, worse rolling resistance. The dart can use low rolling resistance economy tires. AT tires are not as efficient. If I remember my rumors correctly, from the sounds of it they are trying to source what may be a renegade specific tire from falken. Allpar claims the falken wildpeak may be used on the trailhawk, so that special request may just be for sizing rather than a lower rolling resistance AT tire, but it could be they are looking for a lower rolling resistance AT tire, which would help.

Fourth, 4wd. I don't care what they disconnect, you are wither driving all four wheels, or you have some rotating mass presenting parasitic load on the drivetrain or the unpowered set of wheels. Both will eat up some MPG.

For the US market, probably the best fuel economy is going to come from something like the latitude 2wd with the 1.4l engine. The longer front bumper will provide better aero, and you get the skinniest highway oriented tires from that trim level. Limited bumps up width, and trailhawk goes to AT, both of which increase rolling resistance all else being equal.

Then of course there is the real world and how you drive it.

 

[dieselenthusiast]

Thanks for elaborating, raz-0. 32 mpg, in my opinion, it's overly impressive. Assuming that 32 mpg was the actual fuel mileage rating for the Trailhawk, it's still better than the 4X4 Compass and Patriot. I guess we'll see where the price point will be. 32 mpg is doable if I can get the price down.

 

[bunburry]

Pats/Compass pull down 23 consistently. Yes the renegade is improved over both, but ten MPG better in real world, I don;t know if that's realistic...

 

[raz-0]

Pats/Compass pull down 23 consistently. Yes the renegade is improved over both, but ten MPG better in real world, I don;t know if that's realistic...

You are picking up 3-4 extra gears over the patriot with a 4x4 system that is more feul economy conscious. In general, assuming an additional 2mpg per extra gear is not an unreasonable assumption. Also, somehow they get the worst milage out of the CVT, so I wouldn't hold them up as an example of particularly good design and engineering. The 9 speed should be able to span a greater range of gear ratios than the CVT, even if a CVT could simulate more gears within the maximum and minimum range it si capable of, so greater efficiency would still be possible evene if the CVT was a more fuel efficient option.


Myself, I'd expect a 31-32mpg highway rating and a real world highway of 28-29mpg. I hope I'm being a bit pessimistic, but that is what I expect for the trailhawk. I won't bet money on it though. The patriot has a epa rating of 28 highway with the 2.4, so moving from an epa rating of 28-32 isn't really that big a move. Also, the renegade despite not being quite as large as the patriot due to length looks like it may have a larger frontal area. Which means potentially more drag and a bigger hit to highway fuel economy. But as I said, an epa of 32 and real world of 28 is what I expect, as it is in line with similarly dimensioned/shaped 2wd vehicles with similar power output, and 4 less gears, which should essentially buy back the 4wd drivetrain penalty.

I think you'll see the sport with the multi-air 1.4l engine driven for economy producing better numbers you will see quoted as the "up to"/"best in class" voiceover number while showing you trailhawk and limited trims optioned to **** and back that don't get those numbers.

 

[dieselenthusiast]

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Jeep2014.shtml


The 2.4L Cherokee Trailhawk is averaging 25 mpg (real-world)
The 2.4L Cherokee 4X4 is averaging 28 mpg (real-world)


I'm surprised there's a 3 mpg difference between the Trailhawk and non-Trailhawk. I question how accurate that is.


Just for simple math, let's say that the 2.4L Renegade Trailhawk averages 30 mpg (real-world) and the 2.4L Cherokee Trailhawk averages 25 mpg (real-world). That would be 5 mpg difference between the two, which is substantial. If the Renegade Trailhawk only averages 28 mpg real-world, then there's not much of an annual fuel savings IMO.

 

[raz-0]

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Jeep2014.shtml


The 2.4L Cherokee Trailhawk is averaging 25 mpg (real-world)
The 2.4L Cherokee 4X4 is averaging 28 mpg (real-world)


I'm surprised there's a 3 mpg difference between the Trailhawk and non-Trailhawk. I question how accurate that is.


Just for simple math, let's say that the 2.4L Renegade Trailhawk averages 30 mpg (real-world) and the 2.4L Cherokee Trailhawk averages 25 mpg (real-world). That would be 5 mpg difference between the two, which is substantial. If the Renegade Trailhawk only averages 28 mpg real-world, then there's not much of an annual fuel savings IMO.

Depends on what you are measuring. Handling and performance wise the 2.4L might be a better match to the renegade than it is to the cherokee. Then there's also the price difference, which will buy at least a couple years of gas for the renegade more than likely.

Then of course you ahve to do your personal math. I like the look of the trailhawk, but really it is 0.7" of ground clearance, different tires and wheels, and different bumpers. If I pick up 3mpg, and save me a couple of grand to put into options I'd like, the trailhawk may just not be worth it for me. Everyone has to make calls like that.

 

[Willy]

Adding gears beyond 5-6 is superfluous realistically and better dealt with through a CVT. How does one figure that the 9 speed will span a greater range of gears than a CVT which is infinitely "geared", geared being generous as its really one long shape shifter perpetually adaptable?

According to Fuelly real world KL TH's with the 2.4 are showing 20 MPG, the EPA ratings are just a treadmill test that carries very little weight.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/cher...nfig_id=8159&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

 

[ChickenBoy]

According to the german specifications:

1.4 FWD 6sp 140hp -> 39 mpg

1.4 active drive 9sp AT 170hp -> 34 mpg

1.6D FWD 6sp 120hp -> 51 mpg

2.0D active drive 6sp 140hp -> 46 mpg

2.0D active drive low 9sp AT 140hp -> 42 mpg

2.0D active drive low 9sp AT 170hp -> 40 mpg

For comparison: Cherokee 3.2 V6 is rated in Europe 23,5 mpg (in US 19 city 27 highway -> 23 mpg)