Sponsored

Terrible 2.0 gas mileage?

R2restore

New Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis
Vehicle(s)
XC-60
I have a stock 19’ JLUR plus steel bumpers. A little over 1000 miles. In St Louis, the weather has been 20’s to low 30’s with the exception of a handful of days north of 50. I definitely think the colder temps adversely effects the battery. With temps in the 20 to 30 range my MPG is close to 17. When it warms closer to 50 my MPG jumps to 21-22. This is 50:50 mix highway/city running 91 octane.
This should be no surprise to anyone. Battery performance has an optimal temperature range. Below 40 degrees seems to be out of that range.
Sponsored

 

Toddtrain

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
18
Reaction score
8
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Ocean Blue
Live in MD
Just over 2000 miles on it
Run 87 octane
get over 20 MPG all day. Backroads and highways.
 

hai5rockin

Active Member
First Name
Hai
Joined
Oct 25, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
39
Reaction score
14
Location
Des Moines, IA
Vehicle(s)
Patriot, MOAB 19
low 15mpg on a really cold day/week. 16-17mpg on a warmer days/weeks. This is in Iowa. Saw huge drop once I go 70mph on highway and average around 15mpg.
 

FUHL

Well-Known Member
First Name
Robert
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Threads
16
Messages
830
Reaction score
1,802
Location
Sandpoint Idaho
Website
cmott426.wixsite.com
Vehicle(s)
2013 F-150 Ecoboost 2018 2-door Rubicon 2013 Range Rover Evoque
Occupation
CAD Drafter/Engineer
Vehicle Showcase
1
I have a stock 19’ JLUR plus steel bumpers. A little over 1000 miles. In St Louis, the weather has been 20’s to low 30’s with the exception of a handful of days north of 50. I definitely think the colder temps adversely effects the battery. With temps in the 20 to 30 range my MPG is close to 17. When it warms closer to 50 my MPG jumps to 21-22. This is 50:50 mix highway/city running 91 octane.
This should be no surprise to anyone. Battery performance has an optimal temperature range. Below 40 degrees seems to be out of that range.
That is why the battery is heated/cooled to keep it at optimal temp.

Poor gas mileage in colder weather is due to winter grade fuel and colder temps require richer fuel mixture
 

viper88

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Threads
44
Messages
5,510
Reaction score
5,588
Location
IL
Vehicle(s)
'19 JLR 2.0T (past), '22 JLR 3.6 (present)
low 15mpg on a really cold day/week. 16-17mpg on a warmer days/weeks. This is in Iowa. Saw huge drop once I go 70mph on highway and average around 15mpg.
Iowa is like Illinois, both in the corn belt, lots of ethanol. I wonder how much the winter blends of gas and ethanol has to do with the low mpg? Overall your MPG seem low? Did you bring it in to see if anything was wrong?

My old TJ would get 14-15mpg on winter blend gas. My MPG would jump up to 17-18 on summer blend gas. My '15 JK loss about 1-2 MPG on winter blend also.
 

Sponsored

Rubi2876

Active Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
31
Reaction score
23
Location
Dallas Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 Unlimited Rubicon
I'm getting about 17-18 city on a stock JLUR with not much highway. I live close to work in an urban environment so not sure if its the start stop that's doing it and I have a lead foot. I've gotten 20 a couple of times when I did highway trips.
 

NAT-CP

Well-Known Member
First Name
C J
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sport S
Vehicle Showcase
1
I recently bought a 2018 JLU Sport S with the 2.0. i am getting 21 ish for city and about 25 on highway (with no/light traffic). I would definitely get it checked out.
 

WXman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Threads
61
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
3,076
Location
Central Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
2018 Wrangler Unlimited
Occupation
Meteorology and Transportation
I just saw a test of the all new Chevy Silverado where the 5.3L V8 got significantly better fuel economy than the 2.7L Turbo engine in a highway MPG review.

Regardless of brand, across the board, this is what we've been seeing since 2011 when Ford became the first company to start dropping these tiny engines into 4x4s. It takes a certain amount of air and fuel to make a certain amount of power. You will never save money by buying a smaller engine. It doesn't work that way.

If you want a tiny turbo engine for some other reason, fine, but no one should ever buy one on the assumption that you're going to save money. They actually cost quite a bit more money in a few different ways.
 

ormandj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Threads
31
Messages
547
Reaction score
420
Location
San Antonio, TX USA
Vehicle(s)
2024 JLUR X 4xe
I just saw a test of the all new Chevy Silverado where the 5.3L V8 got significantly better fuel economy than the 2.7L Turbo engine in a highway MPG review.

Regardless of brand, across the board, this is what we've been seeing since 2011 when Ford became the first company to start dropping these tiny engines into 4x4s. It takes a certain amount of air and fuel to make a certain amount of power. You will never save money by buying a smaller engine. It doesn't work that way.

If you want a tiny turbo engine for some other reason, fine, but no one should ever buy one on the assumption that you're going to save money. They actually cost quite a bit more money in a few different ways.
And he's back! Air/fuel does matter regarding power, but smaller engines have other efficiency advantages (lower friction losses, for example). There is almost certainly a break-even point on the money-side of the equation with these, it just may be quite a ways out with the premium fuel and the surcharge for the option. I think it can be well-argued that if you don't care about the additional power, the fuel efficiency increase may not pay off if you're keeping the Jeep for a shorter period of time.

They actually cost quite a bit more money in a few different ways.
What's your list of talking points today? I'll start for you:

1) $1000 up-front
2) 91+ octane if you want to take advantage of the engine

I'd love to know where your 'quite a bit more money' comes from. Are you going to talk about reliability issues that haven't even occurred now? Or is there something else new on your list?

The reality is these smaller engines are putting out more power than the larger NA engines, and to do so as you surmised requires more fuel. When they are not being pushed, however, they are more efficient. Many of the reliability issues of smaller FI engines have been resolved over the last few decades. There's a reason they are becoming more and more common, between better emissions output, better efficiency, and more power there's not much to dislike about them.

As to the 2.7 Chevy (entirely different engine/application), C&D did the test run at 75mph, and got the results you indicate (I'm assuming that's what your referencing, since it's the only place with a test that shows what you say). C&D isn't exactly non-biased when it comes to reporting, they have their own agenda. TFL, which I also do not like for many of the same reasons, has very different results:

It's nearly impossible to do a test or two of mileage and get results that are meaningful. There are way too many variables involved in order to accurately and repeatably measure real-world mpg with a test run or two. It would take a significant number of runs to average and eventually arrive at a real-world result. Even then, it would be constrained to the testing period, location, and driver/driving style. Right now it's winter in many places, and in cool weather, with winter-blend fuel, results will be significantly different than in warm weather.

I don't like the EPA testing as it doesn't mimic real-world anymore, and all new engines are being tuned to perform best on the test cycle, which unfortunately often harms economy in real-world situations. This isn't unique to smaller displacement FI engines.

As far as I can tell from actual reported real-world economy numbers (throwing out the obvious outliers/BS) for the last year, the 2.0 is a few mpg better than the 3.6 on highway, and a little better than that in the city (probably more a function of the BSG than the 2.0, so will likely see gains here when the 3.6 gets the BSG offering, as well). It's not going to pay off the $1000 up-front very quickly with the additional fuel cost to run 91+, depending on where you live in the country. As fuel becomes more expensive, the few mpg difference will mean more. At the end of the day, you're getting more power and performance with smaller efficiency gains.

I actually agree with your assertion that you should choose the 2.0 for reasons other than fuel cost savings, as many do not keep their vehicles long enough for this to ever make financial sense. We also don't actually know what the reliability picture looks like yet - the 2.0s (or the 3.6s) may go supernova at 30k miles. My point is, making unilateral statements of 'fact' regarding the 2.0, repeatedly, throughout this forum with no actual proof to back any of it up is misleading to everyone here to learn. I don't take issue with your conclusion, simply your statements regarding the reasoning/engine.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

bbuck7777

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
166
Reaction score
164
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Vehicle(s)
Red Rubicon Unlimited Turbo
Here is the average for just short of 6 months driving. Includes living at a mile up, 4x4 in CO for 3 days and pulling a trailer with UTV. I'm getting ~20.5mpg with Costco 91 in town. 13 is pretty low.

IMG_1338.jpeg
 

Covfefe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2017
Threads
26
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
1,185
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
JLUSS
Here is the average for just short of 6 months driving. Includes living at a mile up, 4x4 in CO for 3 days and pulling a trailer with UTV. I'm getting ~20.5mpg with Costco 91 in town. 13 is pretty low.

IMG_1338.jpeg
Still better than my 16mpg 2.3 turbo mustang
 

hai5rockin

Active Member
First Name
Hai
Joined
Oct 25, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
39
Reaction score
14
Location
Des Moines, IA
Vehicle(s)
Patriot, MOAB 19
Iowa is like Illinois, both in the corn belt, lots of ethanol. I wonder how much the winter blends of gas and ethanol has to do with the low mpg? Overall your MPG seem low? Did you bring it in to see if anything was wrong?

My old TJ would get 14-15mpg on winter blend gas. My MPG would jump up to 17-18 on summer blend gas. My '15 JK loss about 1-2 MPG on winter blend also.

My vehicle is the MOAB 19. Got it in Dec and has been colder or colder than ever before as well. put on 5500 miles. Perhaps wheels play with the mileage? Or maybe even the excessive cold weather and using 4x4? So far on this week, I am getting up to 16.5 avg with the weather jumping up to the 30s thus far (checking it this morning as I came into work).

I am driving down to little rock in two weeks for a month trip. Am hoping weather will be warm enough for me to see it more accurately... Will keep you updated on that.

Your mileage on the TJ is pretty damn good I gotta say.
 

JL19

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
10
Reaction score
6
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
52 Chevy, 02 Vet, 19 JL Rubicon
I have a 19 Rubicon and just over 2,000 miles. I've been averaging just over 18 mpg in city/highway traffic on premium fuel. Speed varies depending on traffic which is typical most days in this area
 

Boatbuilder88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Threads
16
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
2,162
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle(s)
'19 Wrangler JL Sport S
Occupation
F-16 Engineer (retired)
Following this thread got me wondering about my gas mileage. I got 27.2 mpg with a lot of hypermiling on my 33 mile commute home yesterday. Route was a US highway with some lights during rush hour. If the computer is accurate, I have no complaints. (2.0L 2-door Sport)
20190222_171911.jpg
Sponsored

 
 



Top