Turbo on every rubicon on dealer lot

[BrntWS6]

Have to laugh at a mini cooper being classified as "fast".

Sponsored

 

[JoeBelt]

Have to laugh at a mini cooper being classified as "fast".

The wife has a turbo Countryman AWD with a 6 speed. I had a BMW 335 coupe. My BMW was faster for sure, it the mini always felt faster because its so high strung and has a close gear ratio. It handles like a go kart. It’s fast the way a VW GTI is fast - not 911 fast. Anyone who can’t admit Mini makes a drivers car for the enthusiast crowd has adequacy issues.

 

[Majestic]

Nope, not kidding. And yes I can compare using a common measuring device. I checked my economy my first few fill-ups and found the computer on the Jeep to be within a few tenths from my calculations. Driving the JLUR with the 2.0 I reset the average, then drove on both city road with traffic lights and on the Interstate, very similar to my usual driving conditions.

At the end of the test drive the JLUR had an average of 23.5 MPG with about 60ish miles on the odometer.
My JLU Sahara with the 3.6 at that point in time was telling me 21-22 MPG with around 9000 miles on the odometer. When I first got my Sahara, I was averaging 18-19 during the break in. I can only imagine how much better it would have been if I had waited for the 2.0 instead of getting the V6.

And the ESS with the BSG is far better, believe me. I didn't experience any "Stumbling" as you say with the JLUR or with the Ram Rebel I also test drove.

This is an example of “the placebo effect”.
Either way, by your calculations, driving 15k a year would theoretically only come out to about $55 a year difference in gas between the two engines. It would take you at least 18 years to break even on the $1000 turbo up charge. That’s assuming you didn’t opt for premium. That’s not justifying a 2.0L at all.

 

[Agent47]

I'm getting a little over 16 calculated. The computer gives a number 1 to 1.5 mpg high. I'm using 91 octane as well. Also the Turbo requires a spark plug change at 30,000 mile intervals

Stock Rubi with 33's

Spark plug interval is 60k. Early manuals had a misprint.

 

[nerubi]

well yeah, you don't need to be an engineer to operate an automobile. Us laymen can read a screen and can feel the difference in the ESS with the 12V starter and with the BSG.

I can even maths....

Accurate instrumentation, not something on a car screen.
Then you made my point, I can feel the ESS.

 

[OnlyOne]

My Jeep is better than your Jeep!


Wait! Oh crap. I got rid of it. Never mind.

4 doors aren’t real Jeeps!

Wait! Wrong thread. Sorry, carry on with the idiocy.

 

[BrntWS6]

The wife has a turbo Countryman AWD with a 6 speed. I had a BMW 335 coupe. My BMW was faster for sure, it the mini always felt faster because its so high strung and has a close gear ratio. It handles like a go kart. It’s fast the way a VW GTI is fast - not 911 fast. Anyone who can’t admit Mini makes a drivers car for the enthusiast crowd has adequacy issues.

To each their own. For me, 600rwhp and up or at least 125mph trap speed in 1/4 mile gets a " fast" label. Anything else is just noise.

A Wrangler is a fun vehicle, anyone who buys one for performance is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Sean L]

This is an example of “the placebo effect”.
Either way, by your calculations, driving 15k a year would theoretically only come out to about $55 a year difference in gas between the two engines. It would take you at least 18 years to break even on the $1000 turbo up charge. That’s assuming you didn’t opt for premium. That’s not justifying a 2.0L at all.

Well in all reality fuel prices will wildly fluctuate during that time anyways, and it also depends on the difference between premium and regular fuel as well. Also this particular Rubicon was at least 10K more than my Sahara so fuel savings would not be able to touch that.

My point was, a brand new Rubicon with 4.10 axles and the 2.0 engine gave me better fuel economy than my broken in Sahara with 3.45 axles and 3.6.
There was no placebo, I was simply comparing two vehicles in real world driving.

 

[Sean L]

Accurate instrumentation, not something on a car screen.
Then you made my point, I can feel the ESS.

Using the SAME instrumentation common amongst both vehicles? I do apologize for not having my own EPA testing facility to satisfy your need for laboratory accuracy. I prefer real world driving. I don't own both vehicles, I can't make each test drive have the exact same traffic conditions, I can't verifiy the calibration of the gas pump at the station to ensure You're getting the precise level of fuel each fill up.... etc etc. Real world driving.

How is it that you can't feel there's a difference between the ESS, unless you drove a lemon? I can feel the V6 restart easily, but can barely notice the 4 banger.

 

[Dogboyslim]

@Sean L . & @nerubi: I'm amused by your back and forth. Sean is giving his empirical evidence that the 2.0 is "better" for MPG & has provided his subjective opinion on the ESS. nerubi has stated that the measurement is inaccurate and that conclusions from a single empirical test is insufficient to state a difference. I agree that 1 Emprical test is not statistically significant, but FCA puts the improved mpg on the government required window sticker. I'm assuming they had more than one test measured with the on board computer. So nerubi, I agree with you that Sean's individual experiment was insufficient to draw conclusions, but when paired with the window sticker, it's really not worth arguing the point. As to the subjective opinion on ESS, everyone has their own subjective opinion, and the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the person shelling out the cash to buy one. Great entertainment value. Carry on!

Edit: Fixed the tag. Oops! Sorry about that.

 

[robplumm]

Just checked online and the dealer where I got mine has 18 on the lot, 14 of which are turbos. The remaining 4 are equipped exactly the same just different colors. Looks like the same 4 they had when I got mine.

Sounds like someone should be able to get a steal on those...

 

[Sean L]

I think you tagged the wrong Sean on this one. JFYI.

 

[Kaliks&Bones]

This thread delivers. Would read again.

 

[Dogboyslim]

I think you tagged the wrong Sean on this one. JFYI.

You are correct sir! Fixed.

 

[Sean L]

@Sean L . & @nerubi: I'm amused by your back and forth. Sean is giving his empirical evidence that the 2.0 is "better" for MPG & has provided his subjective opinion on the ESS. nerubi has stated that the measurement is inaccurate and that conclusions from a single empirical test is insufficient to state a difference. I agree that 1 Emprical test is not statistically significant, but FCA puts the improved mpg on the government required window sticker. I'm assuming they had more than one test measured with the on board computer. So nerubi, I agree with you that Sean's individual experiment was insufficient to draw conclusions, but when paired with the window sticker, it's really not worth arguing the point. As to the subjective opinion on ESS, everyone has their own subjective opinion, and the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the person shelling out the cash to buy one. Great entertainment value. Carry on!

Edit: Fixed the tag. Oops! Sorry about that.

lol, I don't know if I'd really call my test empirical. Just an observation on a test drive, compared to my current Jeep.

Sponsored