Fuelly Economy

[simpleJL]

Here's my fuel log for the past 20k miles, in case you are curious.

Sponsored

 

[hutchman]

Here's my fuel log for the past 20k miles, in case you are curious.

Good info thanks. That's an impressive mileage total! I only used Fuelly as that's what I use, but any program/spreadsheet for following all fields used is good info.

Thanks again.

 

[Kaliks&Bones]

I'm happy for you.....really I am. However, NONE of the dash fuel economy indicators in ANY vehicle I have ever owned have been accurate. They have all indicated higher fuel economy than I got TANK TO TANK. Is that clear? I have no interest in what your dash says nor anyone else's either.

That's why I asked for Fuelly results.

You seem like a fun guy.

 

[hutchman]

You seem like a fun guy.

I've got a short fuse for a lot of the crap on this site...

 

[RussJeep1]

Folks, please post engine/trans/model, along with any mods. This data isn't ever useful without all of the above.

or, may I add, what octane you're filling your rig with.

I have a transport vehicle take my rig to the highest altitude so I ride down and get great gas mileage.

Oh--the thin oxygen at high altitudes affecting these stats adversely?....oxygen cylinders in the cargo area for the engine.

Its a shame when I'm rear ended, looks a bit like this:

 

[obwahn]

You are correct, there are a lot of fuel economy threads. But they are all full of people quoting their dash indication, which means little to me.

There is also an issue of reading comprehension also.....I specifically asked for information from those with a fuelly account. Now I appreciate you and others who have responded with your hand calcs, but would really like to see some averages over the life of your Jeep. That's why I asked for Fuelly averages.

I'm hoping this isn't a dumb suggestion, but what about just looking here: http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018

 

[Stingrey]

Weird trend appearing on Fuelly for the JL.
Looks like the 6 is performing better than the Turbo.
Those Turbo owners must be driving as though their Wranglers are race cars.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

[MarkY3130]

Weird trend appearing on Fuelly for the JL.
Looks like the 6 is performing better than the Turbo.
Those Turbo owners must be driving as though their Wranglers are race cars.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

That is interesting! And premium fuel adding insult to injury.

I’m a little bitter it wasn’t an option with the 6 speed. Just a little though. Really wanted the diesel. No way I’d drive an automatic just to get a different motor.

 

[WXman]

Weird trend appearing on Fuelly for the JL.
Looks like the 6 is performing better than the Turbo.
Those Turbo owners must be driving as though their Wranglers are race cars.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

That's not weird at all if you've been following these tiny engines over the last several years. Ford's "EcoBoost" family of engines is notorious for not meeting MPG expectations. You can't take a tiny engine, stuff as much air as you can into it so it'll make decent power, and expect that it's not going to also require a lot of fuel to keep the AFR where the ECU is happy.

That's one of the big reasons a few of us have been warning potential buyers NOT to pick the 2.0L if saving money is their reason.

 

[ormandj]

Weird trend appearing on Fuelly for the JL.
Looks like the 6 is performing better than the Turbo.
Those Turbo owners must be driving as though their Wranglers are race cars.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

6x 2L Rubicons vs. 45 3.6L Rubicons. Also, the unlimited/non-unlimited split isn't well defined in model selections. The data is near useless from a statistical viewpoint. There's "37 Jeep Wrangler JLUs have provided 86 thousand miles of real world fuel economy & MPG data." but if you go to drill down, 1 gas, 2 L4 gas, and 9 V6 gas. What? It's just bad data at this point.

 

[ormandj]

That's not weird at all if you've been following these tiny engines over the last several years. Ford's "EcoBoost" family of engines is notorious for not meeting MPG expectations. You can't take a tiny engine, stuff as much air as you can into it so it'll make decent power, and expect that it's not going to also require a lot of fuel to keep the AFR where the ECU is happy.

That's one of the big reasons a few of us have been warning potential buyers NOT to pick the 2.0L if saving money is their reason.

I've owned EcoBoost trucks, gearing is the killer there. I had a max tow package truck, it was 16-18mpg at best on the highway (3.5 EcoBoost, CC, 4x4). Max Tow gearing. Same truck without max tow was low 20s, me driving the exact same way. It's really important to keep the engine in an efficient range for fuel economy. My trucks were pre-10speed, I'm sure with the 10 speed auto things have gotten a lot better w/ the F150.

 

[brow]

Just wondering what fuel economy some of you are getting over all on Fuelly? Not really interested in what your Lie-O-Meter says, just real numbers.

Here is my stock JLU on Fuelly: http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler_jl/2018/brow/783030

 

[Kpunk'n]

My Fuelly average with 7240 miles is 18.3

 

[Litfuse]

I've got a short fuse for a lot of the crap on this site...

Man, you ain’t kidding.

Sponsored