There’s been no indication nor confirmation from anywhere I’ve seen that the 8 speed in the JL is a dual-clutch design. In fact, all signs point to it being the same old 8 speed ZF automatic we’ve seen in plenty of other cars. While ZF does make a dual-clutch 8 speed, it’s pretty new and currently only used in the Porsche Panamera.
That equation is given the same tire diameter, right? The 33's need to be factored in. The 3.45 set up includes smaller diameter tires.
like @DanW said, this does not factor in larger tires so 19% is far from accurate.
It is hard to say, I would think it would be fairly close, within 1 MPG either way. There are just too many factors that are to be considered. The tire selection itself can make 1-2 mpg difference, as can the gear you are driving in. I know it sounds counter intuitive but lower RPM does not always equal better MPG. When I had one of my lifted TJ's I got better gas mileage on the interstate in 4th than I did in 5th. I assume because even though the engine RPM's were higher the motor was not "working" as hard in 4th.
Fuel consumption is not just linearly related to engine RPM. For an Otto Cycle (gasoline 4-stroke) engine, the lowest brake specific fuel consumption-BSFC-(i.e. highest thermodynamic efficiency) typically occurs near full throttle at a low/mid RPM. This is because Otto engines must throttle the air intake (unlike diesels, which have no throttle), so low throttle conditions aren't very efficient because a lot of energy is wasted in the throttle losses. Higher RPMs aren't as efficient because parasitic friction losses scale with engine RPM. Taller gearing increases efficiency because it increases the throttle setting and decreases the RPM required to cruise at a certain speed.
Well, Jrbrannan, I can give you some real world experience on my factory stock 1998 2 dr Sahara, that I bought new in 1998. I drove it every day to work, 50 miles roundtrip. I also 4 wheeled it every where in the Colorado Rocky's from Durango to the Roosevelt State forest in N. CO. There wasn't a single place the Rubi's went that I could not and I have a lot of time on the trails. Finally sold it at 156,000 miles to a someone who was making a present of it to his 16 yr old son. Over the life of the vehicle, if you keep them as long as I do, mpg makes a significant monetary difference.
It is not meant as a flippant statement. A Wrangler is not a Prius, it is okay gas mileage but my point is get what you want, if you have to ask the question about if you should get the Rubicon or Sport based on the MPG then you should go with the Sport. Both are great in their own rights, and I would not judge anyone for any type of car they drive but I just think it is silly to let the determining factor on if you get a Rubicon down to a possible 1 MPG difference. Based on your example of 156,000 miles the difference of 1 MPG is $1200, nothing to sneeze at but over 20 years you are actually only looking at $5 a month, certainly should not be a deal breaker in buying what you really want.
Actually no one gets rich when they buy a JEEP (Just Empty Every Pocket)- almost every financial advisory would discourage you from buying a brand new car. Toyota Tacoma and Wrangler would probably be the exception based on the retained value over the years. But with that said I think most people who talk about building wealth would say pay cash for a vehicle that does not exceed 10-15% of your annual salary. I very much doubt many people here are in that situation.
Most rich people would say finance your vehicle at ~2.5%, and invest your free cash flow into equities (assuming your investment horizon is more than a decade or so). For whatever reason, vehicle loans are just about the cheapest credit you can get (with good credit scores, obviously).
Nope, I retired with no debt. Still don't have any. Don't believe in it.
I have yet to find any "good" debt since the real estate boom in California during the late 70's early 80's.
