- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
dude, chill. You came into this thread looking for a holy war or something.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
Engine Designed for Long Distance
- Thread starter AlabamaDan
- Start date
Quote- "different fuel economy estimates, depending on which engine and drivetrain it has"
No shit eh? The point is two fold; the smaller engine has (albeit slightly) BETTER fuel economy given everything else stays the same. The other aspect is an XJ with 5.13 gears, lifted w/ 35's is NOT getting better than a stock 2005 GC with a V6. No way. Bigger, taller, less aerodynamic, and less efficient DOES NOT equal more mpg.
And if you want to talk about someone coming into this thread "looking" for something talk to those folks who want everyone else to think they are somehow in posession of a "magic bean stalk" that they wave over the hood of their XJ and beat the factory Engineers at the game of mpg.
Want to settle this? OK. If his XJ gets 25 mpg then with his stock 21 gallon tank he should have a range of about (25 x 20 = 500) 500 miles. You sure about that? You sure you're saying his XJ has a range of 500 miles? I think not.
No shit eh? The point is two fold; the smaller engine has (albeit slightly) BETTER fuel economy given everything else stays the same. The other aspect is an XJ with 5.13 gears, lifted w/ 35's is NOT getting better than a stock 2005 GC with a V6. No way. Bigger, taller, less aerodynamic, and less efficient DOES NOT equal more mpg.
And if you want to talk about someone coming into this thread "looking" for something talk to those folks who want everyone else to think they are somehow in posession of a "magic bean stalk" that they wave over the hood of their XJ and beat the factory Engineers at the game of mpg.
Want to settle this? OK. If his XJ gets 25 mpg then with his stock 21 gallon tank he should have a range of about (25 x 20 = 500) 500 miles. You sure about that? You sure you're saying his XJ has a range of 500 miles? I think not.
GreenMachine1
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- CT
DaveNJeep, you seem to have an extreme amount of sand in ur vagina. Go clean that out. Just because the "factory engineers" spent all that time on the "game of mpg" means they got everything right? Every jeep owner knows the factory engineers made plenty of mistakes with every jeep that came off the assembly line. I don't know you and I don't know if you own a stroker but I'll listen to the well respected/educated folks who have experience on this very subject and own the very motors we are trying to calmly discuss here. Take ur negativity and sandy clam elsewhere.
FunkRider
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Whitecourt, Alberta
It is obvious everyone knows larger tires and lifts lower fuel effeciency so can we stop bitching about that part? People are just stating what result they got with what they have. Every single XJ is different. Every driving environment is different. Every Driver is different. Everyone will have different results. Maybe when your XJ was stock years ago you drove it differently than you do now that fuel is expensive and you have mods that hurt mpg.
The reason a stroker 'can' result in more mpg is because it makes for a big fat torque curve. An engine is most fuel efficient at an rpm where it makes most torque at the lowest rpm. Since strokers make more torque over a large rpm band less throttle is needed and less fuel is injected. Generally a stroker makes more power in the in the rpm range we drive in anyway. There are a many factors that can hurt mpg with a stroker like big cams and making more hp and more rpm. Things that help are reducing friction with better components and reducing pumping losses through improved engine breathing.
If you do it properly burn and coast doesn't get in the way of anyone. If you see a red light or know the light will turn red when you get there coasting or even slowing down increases the time it takes to get to that light which eats up time normally spent sitting at that light stopped. I do it in my rigs and my XJ. EVERYONE flys past to get to that red light and jams on the brakes only to sit at the red light for half a minute only for me to roll right past them when the light turns green using a small amount of throttle to bring my speed back up to 60 km/h from 40 km/h or so. It is more important in a truck since it takes so much energy (fuel) and time to start from a stop when loaded. Especially here in oil country alberta where Quad wagons and Super B trains can weight 61,300 kg and 63,000 kg Legally (which is 135,000 and close to 140,000 lbs) often much more between scales (I regularly scale 70,000 kg's in my quad wagon hauling drill cuttings from oil rigs)
When I ran highway trucks to South FL driving on US 19 in WV if you do not time the stop lights properly you will burn the brakes or possibly kill someone since some stop lights are at the bottom of hills. I was able to get 1 FULL MPG over my driving team partner's shift mpg by not actually having to stop at any red lights on US 19. That is a lot when you are getting 6mpg.
The reason a stroker 'can' result in more mpg is because it makes for a big fat torque curve. An engine is most fuel efficient at an rpm where it makes most torque at the lowest rpm. Since strokers make more torque over a large rpm band less throttle is needed and less fuel is injected. Generally a stroker makes more power in the in the rpm range we drive in anyway. There are a many factors that can hurt mpg with a stroker like big cams and making more hp and more rpm. Things that help are reducing friction with better components and reducing pumping losses through improved engine breathing.
If you do it properly burn and coast doesn't get in the way of anyone. If you see a red light or know the light will turn red when you get there coasting or even slowing down increases the time it takes to get to that light which eats up time normally spent sitting at that light stopped. I do it in my rigs and my XJ. EVERYONE flys past to get to that red light and jams on the brakes only to sit at the red light for half a minute only for me to roll right past them when the light turns green using a small amount of throttle to bring my speed back up to 60 km/h from 40 km/h or so. It is more important in a truck since it takes so much energy (fuel) and time to start from a stop when loaded. Especially here in oil country alberta where Quad wagons and Super B trains can weight 61,300 kg and 63,000 kg Legally (which is 135,000 and close to 140,000 lbs) often much more between scales (I regularly scale 70,000 kg's in my quad wagon hauling drill cuttings from oil rigs)
When I ran highway trucks to South FL driving on US 19 in WV if you do not time the stop lights properly you will burn the brakes or possibly kill someone since some stop lights are at the bottom of hills. I was able to get 1 FULL MPG over my driving team partner's shift mpg by not actually having to stop at any red lights on US 19. That is a lot when you are getting 6mpg.
Vanimal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- escondido, ca
that's all great for you, but at least here, signal lights are on sensors, and when you take your sweet ass time getting up to the light, you are blocking everyone behind you, which in turn can keep them from making it into the turning lane in time to trigger the sensor so they don't have to wait until the next light, or they just don't get there in time because the arrow already turned red since the sensor didnt see anymore cars. This happens to me daily around here, and pisses me off to no end.
Also, with most lights around here, the light will not change unless someone is at the light. So if you're first in line, all you're doing is wasting everyone's time, because chances are you're going to have to come to a complete stop before the sensor changes the light anyways.
at a certain point, hypermiling starts hurting everyone elses's mileage around you, and more importantly, wasting our time. i don't know about you, but my time is worth a hell of a lot more than a few extra mpg's.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
With 30s and stock gears, I averaged 18 combined, might've been better with lower gears as I was definitely having to use more gas than with stock tires.
Sorry, but that noise you hear in the background is me not caring. Tom has been around this club and XJs for a VERY long time, and around engines and vehicles in general for probably longer than you have. I will take the experience of a respected member of this club than some guy who jumps in and attacks the experience of multiple well-respected and known members of this club.
But at what point does the increased wear on the starter and everything else outweight the benefit? Most vehicles that come with the auto-off when stopped employ an electric motor in place of the starter because they're hybrids. The electric motor can spin the engine up to speed much faster than the starter without having to dump extra fuel into the engine or creating extra wear.
No it isn't. Mine weighed 3400 lbs stock, now maybe 3800. Name one stock rig that weighs that little.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=20463&id=24172&id=24174
Read. That. One. All in the same generation of vehicle, three different engines. Going up .2 liters has no effect on mileage. Going up a full liter drops mileage by 1 mpg combined. And that's going from a 6.0 to 6.2 to 7.0 V8. Yes, it's a Corvette, but that means that each of those engines is tuned for power, not economy, yet it still gets better mileage than a stock XJ with a much smaller and less powerful engine. Yes, aerodynamics obviously play a large role, but that's why I compared all three to each other. Same aero, changing engines.
As far as the companies paying top dollar and sparing no expense to get that testing data: wrong. Note the .gov at the end. The gov't paid for and performed all that testing and I can tell you from first hand experience that they may pay top dollar, but the equipment won't necessarily be the best. And with the three Grands, Chrysler didn't strictly pursue mpgs with those engines, especially in the V8s. They likely figured that those looking for economy would stick to the V6 while those going for the V8 would want more power. Not to mention that the 4.7 V8 was fairly old at the point, having been used in the WJs while the 3.7 was new tech and yet the city mileage only dropped by 1 mpg, using the older, larger, more powerful engine. Imagine if they had designed that 4.7 around the same time as the 3.7 with the same advantages?
I lived in Oceanside and the lights weren't nearly as bad as you're describing, unless Escondido and O'Side are that much different...in my experience, most lights seem to be on both a timer and sensor. They'll change for the cross street, but no traffic seen on either will default to whichever street gets more traffic.
FunkRider
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Whitecourt, Alberta
Do you think we live in the stone age? We have sensors too. Very few 2 lane intersections are controlled by lights here. Most all 4 lane intersections here are controlled by a stop light. No point in going slow towards a stop sign. No one is 'stuck' behind me.They all race to the red light to trigger the sensor. Main road red lights stay green unless someone on a cross st trips the sensor. No one waits for anything here in their jacked up 1 ton's with brotard wheels... Alberta is Texas with snow.
Vanimal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- escondido, ca
Then that makes coasting up to lights even worse.
Vanimal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- escondido, ca
i hardly ever drive in oside, but it's pretty bad here since it's fairly congested. Oside seems to have more lanes on the major roads as well, which helps a lot. the biggest issue is getting in the left hand turn lane, i have to deal with this several times a day since there's one turning onto my street. there's an island in the center that jogs to the left to make room for the turn lane. when people take their sweet ass time coasting up to the light, i always miss the turn arrow. it's just absolutely frustrating when i could have made the light with time to spare if the jerkoff in front of me didnt start coasting at 5-10mph as soon as the light turned red.
pretty much everywhere i've lived around here has been like this.
FunkRider
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Whitecourt, Alberta
Elaborate. I have never delayed a set of lights here or anywhere else by coasting to them so I guess things are setup different in California than I remember.
Vanimal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- escondido, ca
read the above post, that explains it pretty well.
Milford Cubicle II
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Out there.
In the argument between stroker vs stock and gas mileage, there's one thing that (hopefully) nobody can argue. More displacement equals an equally large increase in the amount of fuel required in order to achieve stoich... correct? That means that at any given time, regardless of the fact that you're putting less load on the engine, you're still using more fuel than the equivalent load and RPM on a stock 4.0.
On the other hand, is a modified 4.0 making more power than stock. Since it has a smaller displacement, it is going to use less fuel at any given load or RPM to achieve a stoichiometric air/fuel charge. Yet it is still going to have more power in order to reduce engine load at any given RPM - therefore increasing mileage.
What I'm willing to account for however, is the fact that you may not be able to make enough power with only 4 liters (at least not with the budget/resources that most of us are constrained to) to reduce engine load enough to have a substantial effect on gas mileage. I'm just pointing out the fact that there's a reason that economy cars don't have larger engines.
Yes, I'm sure. Via scangauge. I'm not driving around all week in 3rd gear to prove something I already know :laugh3:
Don't forget that while yes, the XJ doesn't have great aerodynamics, it has a very small frontal surface area. People don't give them enough credit sometimes. Also - the XJ heavy and underpowered?? Are you kidding me?? That couldn't possibly be further from the truth!
On the other hand, is a modified 4.0 making more power than stock. Since it has a smaller displacement, it is going to use less fuel at any given load or RPM to achieve a stoichiometric air/fuel charge. Yet it is still going to have more power in order to reduce engine load at any given RPM - therefore increasing mileage.
What I'm willing to account for however, is the fact that you may not be able to make enough power with only 4 liters (at least not with the budget/resources that most of us are constrained to) to reduce engine load enough to have a substantial effect on gas mileage. I'm just pointing out the fact that there's a reason that economy cars don't have larger engines.
Yes, I'm sure. Via scangauge. I'm not driving around all week in 3rd gear to prove something I already know :laugh3:
Don't forget that while yes, the XJ doesn't have great aerodynamics, it has a very small frontal surface area. People don't give them enough credit sometimes. Also - the XJ heavy and underpowered?? Are you kidding me?? That couldn't possibly be further from the truth!
- Location
- Hammertown, USA
Except that you're not correct. I've owned 5 cherokees in the last 10 years, all with a minimum of 35" tires. Currently I have 3, 2 have strokers. One is setup for absolute maximum power and probably makes 3 mpg. The other is just a run of the mill budget stroker, and with 8" of lift, 37" tires (5.13 gears) and an exo cage gets 17 mpg on the highway.
At the end of the day, the majority of people who go from a 4.0 to a stroker find their economy improves. Many have posted up to this thread verifying that. All of the theory in the world is not going to disprove cold hard field facts.
Milford Cubicle II
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Out there.
How bout posting a video of me cruising along at 60 in 3rd gear and getting significantly lower MPG's than in 4th gear? Would that be enough "cold hard field facts" for ya?
- Location
- Hammertown, USA
If its a pair of two hour videos starting and stopping at the gas pump.. Sure.
Otherwise its a computer making estimates on a set of assumptions that do not accurately compute the scenario.
Thats why people call economy gauges 'liar gauges'.
I'm done with this thread. People who actually run with strokers all say the same thing. Listen to experience, or do not listen to experience, but stop spreading assumptions based on very old ideas.
Otherwise its a computer making estimates on a set of assumptions that do not accurately compute the scenario.
Thats why people call economy gauges 'liar gauges'.
I'm done with this thread. People who actually run with strokers all say the same thing. Listen to experience, or do not listen to experience, but stop spreading assumptions based on very old ideas.
Milford Cubicle II
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Out there.
:roflmao:
blubullett
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Modesto CA
Scanguage isn't an accurate way to calculate MPG's. The only accurate way is with full fill ups and GPS'd ammount of miles.
Milford Cubicle II
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Out there.
It's more accurate than trying to track it at the pumps. Unless you go to the same exact pump, facing the same direction, and put the nozzle in the exact same position every time. Not to mention, most consumer GPS units are only accurate to a several feet at best. Which may not sound like much, but considering I drive about 2 million feet per tank, a few feet here and there really add up Instead, you should verify your speedo with your GPS and calculate an odometer adjustment accordingly.
But on average, the scangauge indeed reflects what the pumps say - though the pumps certainly fluctuate more.
Sorry, but if you think you get better mileage in 3rd then you're either willfully suspending disbelief, or just plain old dumb.
I think it's hilarious though how people are coming out of the woodwork to come up with excuses to why their own "cold hard facts" somehow don't apply in my case :roflmao:
FIFY. You're welcome.
Smaller, higher performance engines are very old ideas? I think you have that backwards there bud. There's a reason technology is advancing power EFFICIENCY instead of the auto industry just making larger engines.
Instead, you should verify your speedo with your GPS and calculate an odometer adjustment accordingly.But on average, the scangauge indeed reflects what the pumps say - though the pumps certainly fluctuate more.
Sorry, but if you think you get better mileage in 3rd then you're either willfully suspending disbelief, or just plain old dumb.
I think it's hilarious though how people are coming out of the woodwork to come up with excuses to why their own "cold hard facts" somehow don't apply in my case :roflmao:
FIFY. You're welcome.
Smaller, higher performance engines are very old ideas? I think you have that backwards there bud. There's a reason technology is advancing power EFFICIENCY instead of the auto industry just making larger engines.
blubullett
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Modesto CA
It's crazy how everyone who is "coming out of the woodwork" is tell you how you are wrong. Maybe if you weren't so far "out there" you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding everyone.
I don't even think it is possible to pull up to the same pump you filled up at last time and face the other way and still get gas in your tank. Maybe the hoses are longer "out there".
I have a Mustang and used to get an average of 20mpg per tank. Now I have a procharger and get around 22. The funny thing is I have 150 more hp then stock and a target AFR of 11.8 to 1. Doesn't more hp=more fuel? Doesn't a richer AFR=more fuel? Yes it does, but now throttle opening is so much less it more then makes up for it. Plug that into your scanguage.
OP, listen to the people with experience, not the people with theory.
I don't even think it is possible to pull up to the same pump you filled up at last time and face the other way and still get gas in your tank. Maybe the hoses are longer "out there".
I have a Mustang and used to get an average of 20mpg per tank. Now I have a procharger and get around 22. The funny thing is I have 150 more hp then stock and a target AFR of 11.8 to 1. Doesn't more hp=more fuel? Doesn't a richer AFR=more fuel? Yes it does, but now throttle opening is so much less it more then makes up for it. Plug that into your scanguage.
OP, listen to the people with experience, not the people with theory.
