any of you 2.5 guys getting 35mpgs?

[Pete M]

clearly you're doing something wrong. :yes:

 

http://greenville.craigslist.org/cto/1618577176.html

 

1988 jeep commanche truck, 4 speed, 4 cyl, 35 miles per gallon, lina bed, alum wheels, truck runs and drives great, only 107k original miles......first 2500 get its

 

 

Is he drafting big rigs to get that number? :dunno:

[jimoshel]

Or being pushed by them

[mnkyboy]

maybe he tows it behind his Prius :thumbsup:

 

i was lucky to get half that with mine,now i have the 33s I'm putting down big block numbers :ack: i need gears bad :wall:

[jpnjim]

This may seem as strange to some here as it did to me when I heard it......

 

but I recently heard, that sometimes....

 

 

people on Craigslist lie :eek:

 

:D

[socal1200r]

LOL...that's a good one...his odometer must be in DIRE need of calibration! I usually get half that mpg, for city/highway combo driving.

[jteckmann]

I'm patting myself on the back if I get 25mpg out of a tank, which happens occasionally. I used to think my millage was a little better, until I finally got a GPS to check my speed, and realized my speedo/odo were about 5% off.

 

Sad thing is, there are probably a lot of people not familiar with MJ's who will see the ad and believe it. Seeing a lightweight 2WD 4-banger compact truck, those numbers sound plausible. Especially with all the stories you hear about +30mpg Rangers. Heck, even after owning one for a few years and understanding it, I'm still kinda surprised the 2.5 isn't more fuel efficient than it is.

[jpnjim]

Heck, even after owning one for a few years and understanding it, I'm still kinda surprised the 2.5 isn't more fuel efficient than it is.

 

XJ/MJ's were the most aerodynamic Jeeps made when they were introduced,

but all that meant was they were the most aerodynamic barn doors available. :yes:

 

 

They also put AMC 2.5L's in bigger/heavier, but more aerodynamic looking Dakota's,

 

Makes me wonder if they got the same MPG, slightly better, slightly worse, or ? :dunno:

[-600JeepMJ]

:dunno: could he only be driving down hill? :rotfl2:

[aemsee]

He probably forgot to mention the homemade hydrogen generator he installed. Those should boost mileage by 4 or 5 hundred percent :D

[jteckmann]

XJ/MJ's were the most aerodynamic Jeeps made when they were introduced,

but all that meant was they were the most aerodynamic barn doors available. :yes:

 

 

They also put AMC 2.5L's in bigger/heavier, but more aerodynamic looking Dakota's,

 

Makes me wonder if they got the same MPG, slightly better, slightly worse, or ? :dunno:

 

Good question. I know the EPA ratings don't always translate to the real world, but I checked fueleconomy.gov and the 2.5 Comanche's & Dakota's both received the same rating - 18/23mpg. Makes sense to me - I'd think the increased size/weight of the Dakota would cancel out most aerodynamic improvements. Be interesting to hear from a Dakota owner what type of real-world results they get.

 

Yeah, driving the equivalent of a toaster on wheels, I'm not expecting my MJ to defy the laws of physics or anything :D. However, those 80's-era Rangers were pretty squarish themselves - and the 2WD 4-bangers got ratings in the 23/27 range. And when I hear guys talk about getting +30 with a light foot and highway miles, I tend to believe them.

 

I don't know anything about those Ford engine/powertrain set-ups or what it's like to drive them, though. I'm sure it's all about gearing and the engine's power curve. The AMC 2.5 is a torquey little beast for it's size, and the Jeeps were meant to use it - the tradeoff for that capability is going to show up at the pump. 8)

[jimoshel]

This may seem as strange to some here as it did to me when I heard it......

 

but I recently heard, that sometimes....

 

 

people on Craigslist lie :eek:

 

:D

I don't think they ALL do. Maybe only half. The other half is just ignorant.

[Automan2164]

I don't think they ALL do. Maybe only half. The other half is just ignorant.

 

:agree:

 

Rob L.

[socal1200r]

I had a Ford Ranger with the 3.0 V6/auto trans, and a Mazda B-series truck (same as Ranger) with the 3.0 V6 and 5-speed. I don't think I ever got higher than 20-22 mpg on the highway with either truck. Usually got in the high teens for mpg, for a combo of city/highway driving. It would be the unusual truck/driver that can get high 20's to low 30's for mpg out of a V6 Ranger. My dad used to have a Ranger with a 4-cyl and auto trans, I'll have to ask him if he remembers what kind of mpg he got.

[jteckmann]

I had a Ford Ranger with the 3.0 V6/auto trans, and a Mazda B-series truck (same as Ranger) with the 3.0 V6 and 5-speed. I don't think I ever got higher than 20-22 mpg on the highway with either truck. Usually got in the high teens for mpg, for a combo of city/highway driving. It would be the unusual truck/driver that can get high 20's to low 30's for mpg out of a V6 Ranger. My dad used to have a Ranger with a 4-cyl and auto trans, I'll have to ask him if he remembers what kind of mpg he got.

 

That sounds pretty good. The only Rangers I've heard being fuel misers are the stripped down econo models - 2WD, 4-bangers with a manual. And I've heard it's mainly the earlier ones - that as Ford upped the power out of the 4-banger, the millage decreased a bit.

 

Just mainly a curiosity thing for me. I like saving gas when I can - but If I really cared about 30mpg, I wouldn't be using a truck as my DD. 8)