- First Name
- OldFart
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2018
- Threads
- 7
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 1,192
- Location
- Texas, ya'll
- Vehicle(s)
- XJ (sold), WJ (sold), Ram 1500 QC 4x4 (sold 2018.06.07), Wrangler JL Sport 2-door (ordered 2018.06.08)
- Occupation
- Retired engineer (NASA, aerospace, DoD); ex-Navy
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
Yeah, there is concern that a problem with that engine option being responsible for the fire that destroyed a few JLs waiting to be shipped. I believe that there have been two fires so far. Whether it is the engine itself or that battery with the electric motor gimmick or just the software that controls it, we don't know and it is unlikely that FCA will ever make it public what the real problem was if they do fix it.
From a fuel economy standard, I just don't see it making sense though. From what I've heard, you're only getting 2 mpg better fuel economy with the new engine, so let's say 8-10% better gas mileage. Best price for 91+ octane fuel locally is $2.88 per gallon and the best price for 87 octane is $2.43. So, for fuel that is 18.5% more expensive, I would only get 8-10% better fuel economy. Nawh, doesn't make sense to me. And when you combine that with having to pay more for that engine, it makes even less sense.
Configuring a JL Sport like I want it ends up with an MSRP of $31,925. If I did the same configuration on it with the new engine, I would end up at $34,925. So, $3K extra due to being forced to pay for an automatic transmission that I most definitely don't want plus the additional cost of the new engine.
Let's assume that you get 20 mpg with the normal engine and 22 mpg with the new engine -- a 10% increase in fuel economy. Let's also assume the fuel prices that I listed above and 15,000 miles each year of driving.
With the normal engine, you are using 750 gallons per year for a cost of $1822.50.
With the new engine, you are using 681.81 gallons per year for a cost of $1963.67.
But, let's assume that you could run the new engine on 87 octane and it still got the same fuel economy.
That would means that you would still be using 681.81 gallons, but the cost was $1656.82, a saving of $165.68 per year.
So, after a bit over 6 years (around 90,535 miles), you would have finally broken even.
I seriously doubt that it will get the same fuel economy with 87 octane that it gets with 91+ octane since if it did, the manufacturer would most likely specify it as a 87 octane engine.
This isn't likely to change the mine of any of the electric fan-boys out there, but it might just give those who are doing research before deciding upon an engine a bit more information so that they don't automatically assume that they will save money with this new engine. If you want to save money, get yourself a manual transmission and do some research on the "hypermiling" techniques that are used by those folks. Some of those guys get a bit too aggressive at it in my opinion, but putting a car in neutral and turning off the engine can still be relatively safe in certain situations when you have a long downhill run with minimal curves in the road.
Sponsored
