Sponsored

Why 1 Gallon Less Tank Capacity???

Tyrantresister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Threads
14
Messages
113
Reaction score
72
Location
The Free State
Vehicle(s)
2013 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
I generally am pleased with the JL, there are only a few things that I really don't care for (push button start being #1 and more slopped windshield being #2) but one of my biggest point of contention is the reduced fuel tank capacity. My current JK Unlimited has a very impressive 22.5 gallon fuel tank. Now, if they reduced it to 22 gal even, I wouldn't care too much, but a full gallon less? Why! If anything, I thought they were going to expand it half a gallon to 23 total gallons!

Anyone else upset about this?
Sponsored

 

wanderer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ralph
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Threads
122
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
772
Location
Carlsbad CA
Vehicle(s)
2018 jlu rubicon. Surfboard. Bare feet, moose drawn air sled, Interstellar time warp space transport fighter
Occupation
Engineering Geologist
no
 

jeppesen.io

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Threads
13
Messages
305
Reaction score
312
Location
Seattle, WA
Vehicle(s)
Miata, WR250R, JLU Rubicon
Less than a 5% reduction? Nope, don't think I'll even notice.
 

BillyHW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Threads
97
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
1,794
Location
CAN
Vehicle(s)
-
I'm annoyed with it. They probably though that it was a cheap way of reducing a few pounds of curb weight, and with the increased MPG, they are probably still coming out ahead on range.

I still want the most range possible and would have liked a bigger gas tank than the JK for sure.
 

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
1 gallon? Dude, it's 1 gallon. You should never notice that because running the tank low is bad for the fuel pump anyway. This is a total non-issue.

As far as why...I don't know but it looked to me like they moved the fuel tank to a more central area under the chassis for safety or COG improvement. Doing that required a small decrease in overall size.
 

Sponsored

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Anyone else upset about this?
Yep, mentioned it when the owner’s manual and user guide leaked a few months ago;
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...-and-user-guide-leaked.1426/page-3#post-12528

Pretty much all Overlanders and people like myself who do long treks in their Wranglers were hoping for an increase in tank size, not a reduction.

With the increase in fuel economy, the change should still mean the JLU eeks out a few more miles range, but it would've been nice to increase the range by 50-100miles instead of just a dozen or so, and unfrotunately this also impacts the diesel folks too, even though their range should get that extra 100miles range, but at a cost equal to or larger than an extended range fuel tank for far less range.
 

Armycop

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jay
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Threads
13
Messages
616
Reaction score
522
Location
Yelm, WA
Vehicle(s)
2012 JK Wrangler, 2010 Camaro SS, 2017 Passat R-Line
I generally am pleased with the JL, there are only a few things that I really don't care for (push button start being #1 and more slopped windshield being #2) but one of my biggest point of contention is the reduced fuel tank capacity. My current JK Unlimited has a very impressive 22.5 gallon fuel tank. Now, if they reduced it to 22 gal even, I wouldn't care too much, but a full gallon less? Why! If anything, I thought they were going to expand it half a gallon to 23 total gallons!

Anyone else upset about this?
22.5 minus a gallon about 18-20 miles shorter range. Wow...
 

Craigy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
52
Reaction score
32
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
GX460, '22 XR
Yeah this was a pretty big bummer.

For a serious offroad vehicle it would seem like the tank would only get bigger, not smaller.
 

Sponsored

AZCrawl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Threads
8
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
1,054
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2018 Granite Jeep JLUR
I am sure there weight and space considerations.
 

Matt The Hammer

Well-Known Member
First Name
Fake Name
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Threads
2
Messages
444
Reaction score
407
Location
Killadelphia
Vehicle(s)
JKUR and YJ
Occupation
Engineer
As the great Ox stated..

Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas High School football rules.
eagrab58.jpg


Ox is now a senior designer with Jeep and worked on the JL fuel system design.
 

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
I am sure there weight and space considerations.
Unlikely. The JLU has larger dimensions than the JKU, so it’s not just space.
It may be layout issues, but not space, as a lot of added volume opened up under there.

Also, cutting 1 gallon of gas as a weight saving is the wrong kind of reduction.

If that 8lbs was used to reach their ‘lighter Wrangler’ number then it makes their weight reduction efforts more of a joke.
 

ThirtyOne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Threads
52
Messages
5,346
Reaction score
7,979
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Website
www.jeepdoodles.com
Vehicle(s)
2021 JLU Rubicon, 2017 Chevy Tahoe
Build Thread
Link

The Great Grape Ape

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
4,122
Location
Canadian Rockies
Vehicle(s)
2015 JKU AspenX 5spd , 2015 JK Sport 6spd
Reminds me of the stories of the original jeep bid. They had a very strict weight limit. They filed down screws and removed a coat of paint to get the weight down among other things.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1940-1941-jeep2.htm
Yeah, but that’s war-time and a hard limit for things like airplane takeoff/landing payload , runway length and range calculators, the JL has no such truly hard restrictions.

I know the mantra was ‘cut weight’ but that should never have included touching the fuel tanks.

It would be like putting a 4-cylinder engine in to save weight and then actually weighing more... err.... :blush:
Sponsored

 
 



Top