Sold on 89 Octane

[TheRaven]

Ouch, yeah that's pretty high mileage compared to mine. I'd probably be driving a $25k Accord with nothing but 87 octane if I had to spend that much time on the road. Already thought my 6 hour rural commute every week was bad enough, but with the current JL prices, I'd be constantly pissed solely based on how quickly it was devalued racking up that many miles every year.

And not at all knocking your particular choice or situation, which is different for many of us. Just my own pov, and really not too dissimilar to yours about premium gas, just taken from different angles of approach I guess.

My wife daily drives it...and she would not be ok with a Honda sedan. Or any sedan for that matter. She complains whenever she has to drive my CTS Sport. SUV is a strict requirement for her.

But this discussion illustrates very well why blanket statements like "you NEED to run premium fuel in your 3.6l Wrangler" are a poor choice. Different people are different, and one solution is never sufficient for everyone.

Sponsored

 

[2nd 392]

Ouch, yeah that's pretty high mileage compared to mine. I'd probably be driving a $25k Accord with nothing but 87 octane if I had to spend that much time on the road. Already thought my 6 hour rural commute every week was bad enough, but with the current JL prices, I'd be constantly pissed solely based on how quickly it was devalued racking up that many miles every year.

I too thought a Honda was a bright idea after moving to the foothills and having an about 65 mi each direction commute. The wife can’t drive my 10-12 mpg on premium manual PU so I couldn’t use her Camry. I bought a used Prelude, it proved to be the most unreliable vehicle I have ever owned. It’s a good thing I set it up to be flat towed, because when it blew a cam seal in the foothills without cell service at 3AM a guy going the other way stopped and gave me a ride home, retrieve with PU, same with the crank timer, many issues. Between insurance, license, and maintenance it proved cheaper to drive the 10-12 mpg on premium PU. So I sold it, bought my wife a new car and used her Camry for the commute.

 

[TheRaven]

I too thought a Honda was a bright idea after moving to the foothills and having an about 65 mi each direction commute. The wife can’t drive my 10-12 mpg on premium manual PU so I couldn’t use her Camry. I bought a used Prelude, it proved to be the most unreliable vehicle I have ever owned. It’s a good thing I set it up to be flat towed, because when it blew a cam seal in the foothills without cell service at 3AM a guy going the other way stopped and gave me a ride home, retrieve with PU, same with the crank timer, many issues. Between insurance, license, and maintenance it proved cheaper to drive the 10-12 mpg on premium PU. So I sold it, bought my wife a new car and used her Camry for the commute.

Yeah Hondas have not been particularly great cars since like the mid-00s. My mom got a 2007 Accord expressly because she wanted a dead-dependable appliance that she didn't have to worry about ever. Thing was probably the worst car she's ever owned. She traded up to a Maxima after four years and it was much more reliable. A Nissan. A frikin Nissan was more reliable than that Accord.

 

[2nd 392]

Yeah Hondas have not been particularly great cars since like the mid-00s. My mom got a 2007 Accord expressly because she wanted a dead-dependable appliance that she didn't have to worry about ever. Thing was probably the worst car she's ever owned. She traded up to a Maxima (A FRIKIN NISSAN!!) after four years and it was much more reliable.

It was a 95, bought in 98/9 cam seals, crank timer, both axles, clutch, constant AC problems until the entire system was replaced, electrical gremlins a POS ….. that was fun to drive …. when not in the shop.

yeah, Nissan can shove their CVT. The FIL had a Ford Freestyle with one. They suk.

 

[Lt Dan]

I’m surprised at the quibbling over $x,xxx.xx amount of money spent on premium fuel.
I spend more than that on beer in a years time!

 

[AFD]

I too thought a Honda was a bright idea after moving to the foothills and having an about 65 mi each direction commute. The wife can’t drive my 10-12 mpg on premium manual PU so I couldn’t use her Camry. I bought a used Prelude, it proved to be the most unreliable vehicle I have ever owned. It’s a good thing I set it up to be flat towed, because when it blew a cam seal in the foothills without cell service at 3AM a guy going the other way stopped and gave me a ride home, retrieve with PU, same with the crank timer, many issues. Between insurance, license, and maintenance it proved cheaper to drive the 10-12 mpg on premium PU. So I sold it, bought my wife a new car and used her Camry for the commute.

Yeah, just used an Accord as a quick example of "cheap basic car as an appliance". Never actually owned a Honda in my life. Think a Toyota would probably be fine or even a Nissan. Had zero problems driving my Mitsu Evo for over 12 years for my same commute and the same driving a used Saturn SL2 for many years prior that I picked up used for less than a few thousand bucks.

And agree with @TheRaven that not everything is one-size-fits-all. Just cause it's something that I'd do or something that you'd do, certainly doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone. And also agree with @Lt Dan . I've wasted more than that on good beers, gambling, pointless hobbies in a year, when I could have bought cheaper drinks, picked safer bets, invested in some exciting mutual funds with that same money instead. It all depends on what you value, want to spend your money on instead or your inclination to spend or not spend more than you need on something that might be considered wasteful or unnecessary. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Lt Dan]

“Pointless hobbies for the win”. Lol

 

[2nd 392]

Yeah, just used an Accord as a quick example of "cheap basic car as an appliance". Never actually owned a Honda in my life. Think a Toyota would probably be fine or even a Nissan. Had zero problems driving my Mitsu Evo for over 12 years for my same commute and the same driving a used Saturn SL2 for many years prior that I picked up used for less than a few thousand bucks.

And agree with @TheRaven that not everything is one-size-fits-all. Just cause it's something that I'd do or something that you'd do, certainly doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone. And also agree with @Lt Dan . I've wasted more than that on good beers, gambling, pointless hobbies in a year, when I could have bought cheaper drinks, picked safer bets, invested in some exciting mutual funds with that same money instead. It all depends on what you value, want to spend your money on instead or your inclination to spend or not spend more than you need on something that might be considered wasteful or unnecessary. Different strokes for different folks.

Hmmm- spend on pointless hobbies - does the aforementioned $2500 muffler fall in that category ?
on beer, I buy good real Beer, no light crap.

 

[YBABRAT]

Final update... I used up a full tank of pure 93 and gave it a go with play time and trying to max MPG.

Conclusion....

Gearing! Unless you have electric, turbo diesel, or a 392, gearing is wishy washy with trim levels and options.

I probably have one of the heaviest 2 door JL models without a diesel and a XR package. So my 4.10 gearing is not as good as what my findings have shown in the steep hilly mountains. Not much flat road in my neck of the woods for 30 miles.

If I were to say as a sweet spot for a 2 door 2 person only, mountain trail carver JL a 4.80ish gear would be better for both stock and any wheel upgrades up to 35s.

If you have a 4 door... 5.10 to 5.80 depending on weight requirements.

Now that I have made that as a base point to start with...

Detonation is easiest to find with a 3.50ish stock gear, hot weather, big wheels and tires, loaded down running regular gas (87 octane). Some optioned with 4.10 and higher ratio, may not notice but the ECU will hide it by detuning, until it cannot go any further.

Pure 93 gas was the easiest to clean out and start with a base to work with. After all not everyone's tank gas is going to be filled with the same, I am removing as much as I can on what gas to buy other than what I see as for what the engine craves under my engines operational conditions.

V6 3.6L VVT non-eboost with ZL8 tranny, 4.10 gearing non flat land daily driver mostly on hwy between 50MPH to 75MPH.

Between 2000 RPM to 2500 RPM it seems fuel efficiency is best in cruising. If RPM settles below 2000 RPM engine looses efficiency. I tried to get the best MPG by keeping at posted speeds, and got lower results... which seems contrary to what most expect and have understood as saving fuel.

I admit having my foot in it for fun became the down fall of my engines 23.6 MPG. But it oddly was the same as my (stay at posted MPH) test of 21.4 MPG.

No, I did no floor it for 30 miles... I did 3 spirited attemps up long inclines that were common passing areas with high speed commuters. They both had that "you can feel the fuel being sucked out of your tank" moments.

So with that out of the way...
I am thinking the best option for fueling is 91 octane 10% ethanol for my commute. Yes it is less efficient than pure gas, but it is safe all around for summer driving. The caveat is ethanol can be contaminated easier. Not all stations are kosher.

For serious fun driving, pure 93 hands down, just because stations that sell it are more reliable on its quality.

Even though gas has been pointed at as the issue, I am falling back a bit on my opening statement on this reply. Only if jeep bumped up octane requirements to 89 and the gear ratios 15% to 20% on all available ratios. It would help many issues associated with demands placed on engines.

 

[AFD]

Just curious, but have you tried using the manual upshift/downshift mode of the automatic while going up steep hills?

Unless I really stomp on the throttle to the point of smelling the cat, the auto just wants to stay below 3k RPM and seems like it requires a noticeable increasing of throttle (or loses speed) compared to just manually downshifting a gear and keeping closer to 4k with a more even throttle input.

I have 4.10 gears with stock tires, so really not sure how much that would make a difference. Afaik, a higher gear ratio should make for quicker acceleration, but with a lower fuel economy.

 

[YBABRAT]

Yep, before I changed to better grade fuel. A small increase of MPG, but not worth learning the hilly terrain and variables to make the small increase of MPG stable. I use throttle control mostly. But, when going 70ish MPH. By the way, none of the highway has 70MPH or above posted. Seems that the torque curve gives an MPG boost around 2k to 2500 RPM.

3000 on up only is effective in passing or in my case most up hill accents. I have some areas of roller coaster like roads. With a few run away truck turn outs.

As for gearing.... that is why 15% To 20% larger gear would help in bumping down a gear instead of trying to keep 7th or 8th when chugging along below 2k RPM. It's insane to see a 4.10 geared 5,000+ lbs jeep keep 1500 RPM on Hwy use.

Power is power, an increase of gears is to allow power output to be less effected by any canceling forces at the wheel. When engine is operating at efficiency, the 500 RPM increase will use less fuel by the gearing and efficiency combined. Not having the bump in gearing will effectively ruin economy trying to keep RPMs low, out of a more efficient power band. This is what I see from an operational standpoint with my Rubicon.

Any way I have yet to make an assessment of trying to keep 8th locked out while driving the posted speed limits. If it matches with my logic, I should see a small MPG increase from my past twst result of 21.4 MPG. But realistically, the programming to tranny needs adjustment to make better use of 2100 to 2300 rpm utilization with its gears.

I think of fed limitations forced jeep to limit as much as possible efficiency of power at the cost of being environmentally friendly.

One way to combat the drive trane programming is to lower the torque curve. A bolt on option to the intake manifold or a complete custom kit to allow torque to fit the 1500RPM range the drive trane's programming.

I did that with my Honda with good results. Though it was a factory bolt on spacer to lengthen port runners. It was an oem addition to MDX and Ridgeline v6 engines to boost torque without need to change cam profiles. I could post pictures of it's simplicity and how the hidden feature of its intake manifold that could be used or made by an aftermarket performance maker.

Dodge did it with the 300 back in the day. The Ram dual quad intake. Though the length of the runners would be too long to fit in our engine bay, now these days.

 

[Windshieldfarmer]

Ouch, yeah that's pretty high mileage compared to mine. I'd probably be driving a $25k Accord with nothing but 87 octane if I had to spend that much time on the road. Already thought my 6 hour rural commute every week was bad enough, but with the current JL prices, I'd be constantly pissed solely based on how quickly it was devalued racking up that many miles every year.

And not at all knocking your particular choice or situation, which is different for many of us. Just my own pov, and really not too dissimilar to yours about premium gas, just taken from different angles of approach I guess.

For those of you who are not road tripping but have long daily commutes, you could save a ton of money by driving a $25,000 used Tesla Model 3. Fast, incredibly reliable, and cheap to drive if utilizing home charging. Way better than an Accord or Camry for that type of use case. Equivalent to gas car getting 100 - 125 mpg. Again- ideal use case; 200 miles or less per day with home charger availability.

 

[NWJeepr]

I think of fed limitations forced jeep to limit as much as possible efficiency of power at the cost of being environmentally friendly.

Modern vehicles are tuned to produce the highest numbers possible during the EPA fuel economy tests. It's not wrong, as it provides good efficiency for a wide range of regular driving conditions for most vehicles, and potentially the lowest operating cost (fuel expense) for the consumer. Such is reality with ICEs that have non-linear torque and efficiency curves, and physically geared transmissions.

One more reason why I enjoy my 2.0. Non-flat interstate, 35" tires, 4.56's on a 5,000lb Jeep, it will grab 8th gear as low as ~48mph. There's not a lot of power there, but once you get up to 60-65 the computer will allow you to build plenty of boost to keep it in 8th for rolling sections before attempting to grab higher gears. Hard to believe 8th gear is actually usable with such a small power plant.

 

[YBABRAT]

Modern vehicles are tuned to produce the highest numbers possible during the EPA fuel economy tests. It's not wrong, as it provides good efficiency for a wide range of regular driving conditions for most vehicles, and potentially the lowest operating cost (fuel expense) for the consumer. Such is reality with ICEs that have non-linear torque and efficiency curves, and physically geared transmissions.

One more reason why I enjoy my 2.0. Non-flat interstate, 35" tires, 4.56's on a 5,000lb Jeep, it will grab 8th gear as low as ~48mph. There's not a lot of power there, but once you get up to 60-65 the computer will allow you to build plenty of boost to keep it in 8th for rolling sections before attempting to grab higher gears. Hard to believe 8th gear is actually usable with such a small power plant.

You and I are on two sides of the road.

7th and 8th gear are over drive gears. There is a lot of parasitic energy loss using them. Yes you can drive in 7th or 8th up hill, but you are wasting engine torque, which will require more fuel to compensate.

I have come to realize gearing needs to be better for how the programming wants to lean into overdrive when most trannys are set to kick out and use a standard gear.

As long as the epa bean counters want to regulate higher standards, rpm limits in cruising speeds will lower. Every gas engine I had driven cruises around 2200 RPM at 75MPH. There are some but not many that will do the same speed at 1700 RPM.

What you ignore is there are two modes to VVT v6 and how the computer tries to be environmentally sound when max power is not needed. Also 87 obtain in a afr that is rich, will burn less efficiently in a low emissions mode.

I have proven the vvt v6 kicks in around 2000RPM with its fuel efficiency. Just can't do it leaving it in overdrive under 2000 rpm, unless you are cruising and are at constant speed to make mpg seem good. With a slightly higher gear mpg should be a little better.

 

[NWJeepr]

You and I are on two sides of the road.

7th and 8th gear are over drive gears. There is a lot of parasitic energy loss using them. Yes you can drive in 7th or 8th up hill, but you are wasting engine torque, which will require more fuel to compensate.

I have come to realize gearing needs to be better for how the programming wants to lean into overdrive when most trannys are set to kick out and use a standard gear.

As long as the epa bean counters want to regulate higher standards, rpm limits in cruising speeds will lower. Every gas engine I had driven cruises around 2200 RPM at 75MPH. There are some but not many that will do the same speed at 1700 RPM.

What you ignore is there are two modes to VVT v6 and how the computer tries to be environmentally sound when max power is not needed. Also 87 obtain in a afr that is rich, will burn less efficiently in a low emissions mode.

I have proven the vvt v6 kicks in around 2000RPM with its fuel efficiency. Just can't do it leaving it in overdrive under 2000 rpm, unless you are cruising and are at constant speed to make mpg seem good. With a slightly higher gear mpg should be a little better.

Another reason for Stella to ditch the old V6. Turbos are where it's at. The torque curve planes out near max at a low RPM. No need to wind it up, but boosting does use fuel.

Sponsored