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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...ar/jeep/cherokee/2014/all?engineconfig_id=8159&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

 

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)

 

Just imagine if we were able to get 46 mpg's here, wow, i would love that.

 

Exactly! Now you know why I was pushing for the diesel option here in North America!

 

Consumer Reports just rated the Renegade at 21/28 mpg. They didn't elaborate on the engine or trim setup for this in the 2015 new car magazine edition.

Take it with a grain of salt. Or as my kids say: "Meh"

 

Consumer Reports just rated the Renegade at 21/28 mpg. They didn't elaborate on the engine or trim setup for this in the 2015 new car magazine edition.
Take it with a grain of salt. Or as my kids say: "Meh"

I agree, that may be click bait, looking at the source, the EPA has not published Renegade numbers yet:

It looks like CR cherry picked just one Cherokee example, 2015 Jeep Cherokee 4WD, with similar drivetrain to the Renegade, 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic 9-spd, and used that as a starting point.

That is bad, the Renegade is a different vehicle, different aerodynamics, different weight, CR just went down another notch...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35397

 

It's probably their best guess.
Too bad that not everyone will see it as their guess or click bait, since they after all are CR.

 

Consumer Reports lost my confidence back when they rated my Dodge Omni as a "Best Buy".

 

Looks like the Renegade is EPA rated for 20-23 mpg CITY and 30-32 MPG HWY.

 

Where are you seeing EPA numbers for the renegade. They aren't on fueleconomy.gov.

20 would be pretty awful for city. That seems odd.

 

The website below, which does not claim nationality, so it could be a click-bait site (but somehow I'm thinking is canadian since it has a french version) claims:
7.6 - 10.0 l/100 km
which is about 23.5 to 31 mpg US
ok, I knew it was a jeep, is designed to at least have some offroading capability, and I am an urban driver, so if this is the case and the prices are comparable... Sorry jeep, going for the Honda HR-V... 27 city 35 highway... they might even come up with a hybrid that already exists in Japan...

http://www.guideautoweb.com/en/makes/jeep/renegade/2015/

 

The website below, which does not claim nationality, so it could be a click-bait site (but somehow I'm thinking is canadian since it has a french version) claims:
7.6 - 10.0 l/100 km
which is about 23.5 to 31 mpg US
ok, I knew it was a jeep, is designed to at least have some offroading capability, and I am an urban driver, so if this is the case and the prices are comparable... Sorry jeep, going for the Honda HR-V... 27 city 35 highway... they might even come up with a hybrid that already exists in Japan...

I agree. It's very weak fuel economy numbers. If it had a diesel and got 40 mpg, then I would reconsider.

 

Does anyone know how long it takes for the mpg testing and release of numbers? I am just wondering if we won't find out until they hit lots? Seems like a very long time because I am impatient, lol.

 

The final numbers aren't out, but I think we have a pretty good idea. I know enough to know that I wouldn't buy the Renegade since the fuel mileage isn't anywhere close to what I was looking for. I was really hoping for 40 mpg in the diesel. Come to find out, we aren't get either!

 

I have serious doubt a TH will be rated 30mpg. It is not aerodynamic, its heavier and it has a 4:11 final drive and upper 20s on the sticker is more likely. The 1.4 manual will probably squeeze around 34-35 but no more. Real world mpg for TH models will be 25-27 highway and I base that on my 2.4 Dart. I am a hypermiler and after 13K with 95% being highway miles my overall mpg is 36 and I believe its about as good as the 2.4 can average with most 2.4s averaging around 30 or less. We will know soon.

 

Here is the latest from the folks at FuelEconomy.gov. I asked them when they might be expecting the latest numbers on the Renegade and this was their response.

"Hello,

Unfortunately no. The Jeep Renegade was not included on the last batch of data that we received from the EPA so it won’t be this week. We receive our data in batches from the EPA (usually weekly) but there is no data release schedule that we can refer to so we have no way of knowing in advance what models we will receive data for until we actually receive the data. The manufacturers set the release date for the EPA estimates and data because they like to be the ones to announce their scores to the media and with new models like the Renegade, they often coordinate it with marketing and media events. For this reason, you will often find EPA estimates in the media or on the manufacturer website before you will find it posted on our website. As soon as we receive the data we will get it posted. Sorry we can’t provide you with a better answer.

Sincerely,

www.fueleconomy.gov"

 

The sticker on my Dart said 35mpg highway not 41, I think that is for the 1.4 manual. Expect upper 20s for a TH and about 33 for the 2wd 2.4.

 

I misquote the engine. Here's what the Dart is rated for: "Get up to 35 highway mpg with the 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II engine, up to 36 highway mpg with the 2.0L Tigershark engine and up to 41 highway mpg with the 1.4L MultiAir Turbo engine."