multicam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tanner
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
2,208
Location
going out Californee-way
Vehicle(s)
2018 4Runner, 2019 JLR
Vehicle Showcase
1
Fellow Jeep enthusiasts, over the first two years of owning my Jeep I have recorded every tank of gas put into it. The data I have recorded includes number of gallons pumped, miles driven per trip odometer "A", average fuel economy per trip odometer "A", date, and observed fuel economy per total miles actually driven divided by actual gallons put into the jeep (in other words, real hand-calculated MPG). Armed with this data I present the following for the betterment of the community.

First, the BLUF: Over 122 tanks of gas (really, 110 as I will explain below) I averaged 17.8 mpg on the first half while disabling ESS and 18.0 mpg on the second half while leaving ESS enabled as per the jeep's default. According to my math -which could be complete garbage- I saved about 10 gallons of fuel on the second half of this experiment. On average the computer was 0.4 mpg too optimistic compared to the observed, hand-calculated MPG. Now, on to some of the details.

Subject matter
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
  • Manual Transmission
  • Steel Bumper Group
  • LED Headlights
  • Painted fender flares
  • No other factory options and no aftermarket mods - the jeep remained completely stock through the entire test period
theJL.jpg


Methodology
The testing period began on 22 April 2019 when I took delivery of the jeep and ended on 14 May 2021 when I put the 122nd tank of gas in it, just over two years later. I implemented a number of control measures to decrease variables in the conduct of data collection:
  • Every tank was filled with Regular Unleaded 87 octane fuel
  • My commute typically included 46 miles of interstate highway driving and 14 miles of country roads / city street / mixed roads
  • Pure highway tanks greatly exceeded the 17.9 mpg average, but I don't take many road trips. Even though my daily commute had a good amount of highway miles there was still a lot of short range, slow driving mixed in
  • I filled every tank up until the first "click" then attempted to top it off exactly one time. This extra top-off had to have real fuel flow, not just the backpressure-restricted weak flow immediately following the first "click"
  • The last few drops of fuel would be shaken out of the fuel filler nozzle
  • Each receipt was collected from the pump and the following written on each receipt:
    • Tank X (X = 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever number tank it was)
    • Y miles (Y = miles driven on that tank from trip odometer "A")
    • Z mpg (c) (Z = mpg as reported by trip odometer "A")(The "c" in parenthesis means computer)
  • If, for some reason, I was unable to collect a receipt from the pump or the attendant inside (i.e. if I was too lazy to go inside) I would write all the above data on the previous tank's receipt plus date, gas station location, gallons of fuel pumped, and USD spent on fuel
  • Trip odometer "A" was reset before turning the Jeep on to ensure that all fuel burned post-filling counted against the next tank
  • All data was entered into an excel spreadsheet which used an equation to calculate MPG (observed) and the delta between MPG (c) and MPG (o)
  • Every effort was made to avoid "short" tanks. I would usually fill up when the indicator said 25-40 miles of range remaining but didn't worry too much about it
  • The entire testing period took place in Texas. The length of the test ensured that data was collected for both ESS and non-ESS in all weather and driving conditions
  • On tanks 1-61, ESS was disabled religiously. Part of my turning-on-the-jeep ritual was hitting the ESS button. Breaking this habit proved very difficult for the first few tanks of the 62-122 set of tanks
  • On tanks 62-122, I did my best to allow ESS to work as intended to gain the most benefit from it
  • Of the 122 tanks collected, I discarded the top 3 and bottom 3 observed MPG tanks for both ESS and non-ESS categories, resulting in 110 total tanks analyzed
Below is a sample of the data from my excel spreadsheet:
jeepmpg.JPG


Conclusions
  • Over the course of 30,435.5 miles, the difference between 17.8 mpg and 18.0 mpg is 18.99 gallons, or $54.12 with the current gas prices near me. Not worth it. Going forward I'll go back to disabling ESS like I did on tanks 1 through 61
  • ESS really isn't that annoying. The worst part about it is the climate control losing its effectiveness in the heat or cold. But again, not worth it to me, especially considering it may cause unnecessary wear on the starter
  • Don't trust the computer to tell you accurate mileage. Most of the time it was overly optimistic, and as stated in the BLUF, it was off by 0.4 mpg on average
  • 2-door Rubicon doesn't get good gas mileage
  • I reserve the right to edit the shit out of this post if I made egregious errors ;)
  • YMMV





Advertisement

 
OP
multicam

multicam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tanner
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
2,208
Location
going out Californee-way
Vehicle(s)
2018 4Runner, 2019 JLR
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #4
Cool test. Thats some serious commitment. But I thought the goal of ESS was to reduce idling emissions. I was never under the assumption it was for saving mpg’s.
Yeah I suppose that's the real goal... with the added bonus of improving MPG. But I have no way of measuring tailpipe emissions in real time. I can measure MPG all day, airy day!
 

Roky

Well-Known Member
First Name
Roky
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
4,266
Reaction score
12,171
Location
Central Florida
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLUR
Build Thread
Link
Vehicle Showcase
1
Fellow Jeep enthusiasts, over the first two years of owning my Jeep I have recorded every tank of gas put into it. The data I have recorded includes number of gallons pumped, miles driven per trip odometer "A", average fuel economy per trip odometer "A", date, and observed fuel economy per total miles actually driven divided by actual gallons put into the jeep (in other words, real hand-calculated MPG). Armed with this data I present the following for the betterment of the community.

First, the BLUF: Over 122 tanks of gas (really, 110 as I will explain below) I averaged 17.8 mpg on the first half while disabling ESS and 18.0 mpg on the second half while leaving ESS enabled as per the jeep's default. According to my math -which could be complete garbage- I saved about 10 gallons of fuel on the second half of this experiment. On average the computer was 0.4 mpg too optimistic compared to the observed, hand-calculated MPG. Now, on to some of the details.

Subject matter
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
  • Manual Transmission
  • Steel Bumper Group
  • LED Headlights
  • Painted fender flares
  • No other factory options and no aftermarket mods - the jeep remained completely stock through the entire test period
theJL.jpg


Methodology
The testing period began on 22 April 2019 when I took delivery of the jeep and ended on 14 May 2021 when I put the 122nd tank of gas in it, just over two years later. I implemented a number of control measures to decrease variables in the conduct of data collection:
  • Every tank was filled with Regular Unleaded 87 octane fuel
  • My commute typically included 46 miles of interstate highway driving and 14 miles of country roads / city street / mixed roads
  • Pure highway tanks greatly exceeded the 17.9 mpg average, but I don't take many road trips. Even though my daily commute had a good amount of highway miles there was still a lot of short range, slow driving mixed in
  • I filled every tank up until the first "click" then attempted to top it off exactly one time. This extra top-off had to have real fuel flow, not just the backpressure-restricted weak flow immediately following the first "click"
  • The last few drops of fuel would be shaken out of the fuel filler nozzle
  • Each receipt was collected from the pump and the following written on each receipt:
    • Tank X (X = 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever number tank it was)
    • Y miles (Y = miles driven on that tank from trip odometer "A")
    • Z mpg (c) (Z = mpg as reported by trip odometer "A")(The "c" in parenthesis means computer)
  • If, for some reason, I was unable to collect a receipt from the pump or the attendant inside (i.e. if I was too lazy to go inside) I would write all the above data on the previous tank's receipt plus date, gas station location, gallons of fuel pumped, and USD spent on fuel
  • Trip odometer "A" was reset before turning the Jeep on to ensure that all fuel burned post-filling counted against the next tank
  • All data was entered into an excel spreadsheet which used an equation to calculate MPG (observed) and the delta between MPG (c) and MPG (o)
  • Every effort was made to avoid "short" tanks. I would usually fill up when the indicator said 25-40 miles of range remaining but didn't worry too much about it
  • The entire testing period took place in Texas. The length of the test ensured that data was collected for both ESS and non-ESS in all weather and driving conditions
  • On tanks 1-61, ESS was disabled religiously. Part of my turning-on-the-jeep ritual was hitting the ESS button. Breaking this habit proved very difficult for the first few tanks of the 62-122 set of tanks
  • On tanks 62-122, I did my best to allow ESS to work as intended to gain the most benefit from it
  • Of the 122 tanks collected, I discarded the top 3 and bottom 3 observed MPG tanks for both ESS and non-ESS categories, resulting in 110 total tanks analyzed
Below is a sample of the data from my excel spreadsheet:
jeepmpg.JPG


Conclusions
  • Over the course of 30,435.5 miles, the difference between 17.8 mpg and 18.0 mpg is 18.99 gallons, or $54.12 with the current gas prices near me. Not worth it. Going forward I'll go back to disabling ESS like I did on tanks 1 through 61
  • ESS really isn't that annoying. The worst part about it is the climate control losing its effectiveness in the heat or cold. But again, not worth it to me, especially considering it may cause unnecessary wear on the starter
  • Don't trust the computer to tell you accurate mileage. Most of the time it was overly optimistic, and as stated in the BLUF, it was off by 0.4 mpg on average
  • 2-door Rubicon doesn't get good gas mileage
  • I reserve the right to edit the shit out of this post if I made egregious errors ;)
  • YMMV
Awesome job brother....... wish I’d known, I could have been your data on the effects of never using ess, 😁... Its been off for 2 years, since I got the tazer.....🤣
 

JimLee

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
5,865
Location
Too damn close to Death Valley
Vehicle(s)
'19 JLU
It's the Auto Stop/Start System, it's really ASS but ESS sounded better. You can disable it with a tazer or a number of stand alone plug in devices. It shuts your engine down while you are at a stop, and restarts it when you let off the brake, if many other conditions are met.
 

MichaelAnthony

Well-Known Member
First Name
Michael
Joined
May 21, 2020
Messages
733
Reaction score
899
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Wrangler Rubicon JLUR, 97 Centurion Dually 7.3, 97 Classy Chassis Dually 7.3, 2016 Ultra Classic CVO
Vehicle Showcase
1
about your recording of mileage ..... My father religiously put a small little green note book in each vehicle (NSN 7530-00-222-3521). He recorded every time he filled a vehicle up with gas, to include price of gas where he bought it, Texaco, Mobile, Shell, the price of the gas the mileage on the vehicle and how many gallons, at 85 he still does this today. So it was something I picked up on and it comes in very handy to use. The Jeep was the first vehicle I didn't put one of those Green Little books in there, kick my self in the butt. I am glad to see some do this, every time I see my pops he always asks what kind of mileage do you get on that Jeep, how can you keep track of everything. You see we do our oil changes at 5k filter changes at 5k power steering, Diff's at 15k brake and anti freeze at 25k and tranny's at 50k, well that is now of course. It was different mileage growing up. Thanks for bringing this all back up and I am sure you are familiar with one of those notebooks, every good NCO has one.
 

Dan M.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Dan
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
239
Reaction score
506
Location
Albany NY
Vehicle(s)
2020 sport (2 door)
Awesome job!!!. Makes me feel better about hitting that button everytime I start my Jeep. I agree not worth it.
 

patternman

Well-Known Member
First Name
George
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
199
Reaction score
169
Location
Phoenix AZ
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUS, 2014 & 2001 Indian
Fellow Jeep enthusiasts, over the first two years of owning my Jeep I have recorded every tank of gas put into it. The data I have recorded includes number of gallons pumped, miles driven per trip odometer "A", average fuel economy per trip odometer "A", date, and observed fuel economy per total miles actually driven divided by actual gallons put into the jeep (in other words, real hand-calculated MPG). Armed with this data I present the following for the betterment of the community.

First, the BLUF: Over 122 tanks of gas (really, 110 as I will explain below) I averaged 17.8 mpg on the first half while disabling ESS and 18.0 mpg on the second half while leaving ESS enabled as per the jeep's default. According to my math -which could be complete garbage- I saved about 10 gallons of fuel on the second half of this experiment. On average the computer was 0.4 mpg too optimistic compared to the observed, hand-calculated MPG. Now, on to some of the details.

Subject matter
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
  • Manual Transmission
  • Steel Bumper Group
  • LED Headlights
  • Painted fender flares
  • No other factory options and no aftermarket mods - the jeep remained completely stock through the entire test period
theJL.jpg


Methodology
The testing period began on 22 April 2019 when I took delivery of the jeep and ended on 14 May 2021 when I put the 122nd tank of gas in it, just over two years later. I implemented a number of control measures to decrease variables in the conduct of data collection:
  • Every tank was filled with Regular Unleaded 87 octane fuel
  • My commute typically included 46 miles of interstate highway driving and 14 miles of country roads / city street / mixed roads
  • Pure highway tanks greatly exceeded the 17.9 mpg average, but I don't take many road trips. Even though my daily commute had a good amount of highway miles there was still a lot of short range, slow driving mixed in
  • I filled every tank up until the first "click" then attempted to top it off exactly one time. This extra top-off had to have real fuel flow, not just the backpressure-restricted weak flow immediately following the first "click"
  • The last few drops of fuel would be shaken out of the fuel filler nozzle
  • Each receipt was collected from the pump and the following written on each receipt:
    • Tank X (X = 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever number tank it was)
    • Y miles (Y = miles driven on that tank from trip odometer "A")
    • Z mpg (c) (Z = mpg as reported by trip odometer "A")(The "c" in parenthesis means computer)
  • If, for some reason, I was unable to collect a receipt from the pump or the attendant inside (i.e. if I was too lazy to go inside) I would write all the above data on the previous tank's receipt plus date, gas station location, gallons of fuel pumped, and USD spent on fuel
  • Trip odometer "A" was reset before turning the Jeep on to ensure that all fuel burned post-filling counted against the next tank
  • All data was entered into an excel spreadsheet which used an equation to calculate MPG (observed) and the delta between MPG (c) and MPG (o)
  • Every effort was made to avoid "short" tanks. I would usually fill up when the indicator said 25-40 miles of range remaining but didn't worry too much about it
  • The entire testing period took place in Texas. The length of the test ensured that data was collected for both ESS and non-ESS in all weather and driving conditions
  • On tanks 1-61, ESS was disabled religiously. Part of my turning-on-the-jeep ritual was hitting the ESS button. Breaking this habit proved very difficult for the first few tanks of the 62-122 set of tanks
  • On tanks 62-122, I did my best to allow ESS to work as intended to gain the most benefit from it
  • Of the 122 tanks collected, I discarded the top 3 and bottom 3 observed MPG tanks for both ESS and non-ESS categories, resulting in 110 total tanks analyzed
Below is a sample of the data from my excel spreadsheet:
jeepmpg.JPG


Conclusions
  • Over the course of 30,435.5 miles, the difference between 17.8 mpg and 18.0 mpg is 18.99 gallons, or $54.12 with the current gas prices near me. Not worth it. Going forward I'll go back to disabling ESS like I did on tanks 1 through 61
  • ESS really isn't that annoying. The worst part about it is the climate control losing its effectiveness in the heat or cold. But again, not worth it to me, especially considering it may cause unnecessary wear on the starter
  • Don't trust the computer to tell you accurate mileage. Most of the time it was overly optimistic, and as stated in the BLUF, it was off by 0.4 mpg on average
  • 2-door Rubicon doesn't get good gas mileage
  • I reserve the right to edit the shit out of this post if I made egregious errors ;)
  • YMMV
So what happened on tank 105 I guess i missed it?
 
OP
multicam

multicam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tanner
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
2,208
Location
going out Californee-way
Vehicle(s)
2018 4Runner, 2019 JLR
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #13
So what happened on tank 105 I guess i missed it?
Oh, that was just clickbait to get you in the door! :CWL: Just kidding, that was one of my tanks during snowpocalypse. I got 13.3 mpg on that tank due to all the idling while charging various devices and basically working out of my jeep.
 

RedundanT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
581
Reaction score
681
Location
So. Il
Vehicle(s)
2020 JLUR
Fellow Jeep enthusiasts, over the first two years of owning my Jeep I have recorded every tank of gas put into it. The data I have recorded includes number of gallons pumped, miles driven per trip odometer "A", average fuel economy per trip odometer "A", date, and observed fuel economy per total miles actually driven divided by actual gallons put into the jeep (in other words, real hand-calculated MPG). Armed with this data I present the following for the betterment of the community.

First, the BLUF: Over 122 tanks of gas (really, 110 as I will explain below) I averaged 17.8 mpg on the first half while disabling ESS and 18.0 mpg on the second half while leaving ESS enabled as per the jeep's default. According to my math -which could be complete garbage- I saved about 10 gallons of fuel on the second half of this experiment. On average the computer was 0.4 mpg too optimistic compared to the observed, hand-calculated MPG. Now, on to some of the details.

Subject matter
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
  • Manual Transmission
  • Steel Bumper Group
  • LED Headlights
  • Painted fender flares
  • No other factory options and no aftermarket mods - the jeep remained completely stock through the entire test period
theJL.jpg


Methodology
The testing period began on 22 April 2019 when I took delivery of the jeep and ended on 14 May 2021 when I put the 122nd tank of gas in it, just over two years later. I implemented a number of control measures to decrease variables in the conduct of data collection:
  • Every tank was filled with Regular Unleaded 87 octane fuel
  • My commute typically included 46 miles of interstate highway driving and 14 miles of country roads / city street / mixed roads
  • Pure highway tanks greatly exceeded the 17.9 mpg average, but I don't take many road trips. Even though my daily commute had a good amount of highway miles there was still a lot of short range, slow driving mixed in
  • I filled every tank up until the first "click" then attempted to top it off exactly one time. This extra top-off had to have real fuel flow, not just the backpressure-restricted weak flow immediately following the first "click"
  • The last few drops of fuel would be shaken out of the fuel filler nozzle
  • Each receipt was collected from the pump and the following written on each receipt:
    • Tank X (X = 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever number tank it was)
    • Y miles (Y = miles driven on that tank from trip odometer "A")
    • Z mpg (c) (Z = mpg as reported by trip odometer "A")(The "c" in parenthesis means computer)
  • If, for some reason, I was unable to collect a receipt from the pump or the attendant inside (i.e. if I was too lazy to go inside) I would write all the above data on the previous tank's receipt plus date, gas station location, gallons of fuel pumped, and USD spent on fuel
  • Trip odometer "A" was reset before turning the Jeep on to ensure that all fuel burned post-filling counted against the next tank
  • All data was entered into an excel spreadsheet which used an equation to calculate MPG (observed) and the delta between MPG (c) and MPG (o)
  • Every effort was made to avoid "short" tanks. I would usually fill up when the indicator said 25-40 miles of range remaining but didn't worry too much about it
  • The entire testing period took place in Texas. The length of the test ensured that data was collected for both ESS and non-ESS in all weather and driving conditions
  • On tanks 1-61, ESS was disabled religiously. Part of my turning-on-the-jeep ritual was hitting the ESS button. Breaking this habit proved very difficult for the first few tanks of the 62-122 set of tanks
  • On tanks 62-122, I did my best to allow ESS to work as intended to gain the most benefit from it
  • Of the 122 tanks collected, I discarded the top 3 and bottom 3 observed MPG tanks for both ESS and non-ESS categories, resulting in 110 total tanks analyzed
Below is a sample of the data from my excel spreadsheet:
jeepmpg.JPG


Conclusions
  • Over the course of 30,435.5 miles, the difference between 17.8 mpg and 18.0 mpg is 18.99 gallons, or $54.12 with the current gas prices near me. Not worth it. Going forward I'll go back to disabling ESS like I did on tanks 1 through 61
  • ESS really isn't that annoying. The worst part about it is the climate control losing its effectiveness in the heat or cold. But again, not worth it to me, especially considering it may cause unnecessary wear on the starter
  • Don't trust the computer to tell you accurate mileage. Most of the time it was overly optimistic, and as stated in the BLUF, it was off by 0.4 mpg on average
  • 2-door Rubicon doesn't get good gas mileage
  • I reserve the right to edit the shit out of this post if I made egregious errors ;)
  • YMMV
Happy your happy. I'm happy disabling it................merica.
 

Advertisement




Hothead Headliners
 



Advertisement
Top