BLKRUBI

I second this. The '06 Ram that I had before my JK routinely averaged 20+ MPG and I had gotten as much as 23MPG all with a 345 hp V-8......wake up Jeep!

Whatever, the last thing that I need is for Jeep to start putting Hemi's in the Wrangler, then I'd be trying to figure out how to break it to my wife that the Jeep that I waited 6 months on is going bye-bye.

jeepgreensahara

I also think the 5.7L hemi w/ mds could easily get similar if not better gas mileage than the 3.8 when driven right. Perhaps there's hope the next gen 5.7 hemi (soon to be available in the '09 ram) will make it into the JK later. It gets 4% better gas mileage than the current one, oh and has 380hp.

jeepgreensahara

I agree. Chrysler could have done better for the engine. Changing to a more efficient engine could increase gas mileage by up to 3 mpg or so easily. It shows that a change in engine can make a big difference in effiency, when you take into consideration that a JK unlimited gets about the same or better mileage than the old 4.0 in the TJ. Other things factor in obviously, like aerodynamics, etc. but the engine is what makes the most difference IMO.

Blue

I can do that in my Bronco with a 351W and 13 mpg.

Blue

I think that was a line of shit by the Crappler Corporation as part of the "concept" because they never proved or demonstrated that it could actually get that kind of mileage. You could damn well bet if that thing could get that kind of mileage it would be in production. If it could get 80 mpg . . . it would be in production . . . if it could get 50 . . . it would be in production . . . and my ass would be riding in one to and from work.

LOFTY

Hell, stop moaning, in the UK we pay £1.21 per litre, thats $2.42 per litre, and with the diesel engine, (and the only thing changed is winch bumper and Pro comp tyres, which are the same diameter as stock), i got 19.7 mpg the other day motorway driving.
And just to rub salt into the wounds, BP and Shell have had record profits for the first quarter, with BPs up 48%.

pearl-drum-man

The 3.8L may not be great, but it is certainly more fuel effiecient than the 4.0. I get about 3 MPG better economy in my JK than my TJ, despite my JK being bigger and heavier, with larger tires and heavier, stronger axles. Also, while there may be more high-tech, fuel efficient V6 engines available, they must be able to stand up to the usage that a Wrangler is designed for (off-road, etc).

Rockemsock

I don't think there's much doubt that Chrysler can make a vehicle that gets 100mpg...it's a matter of being able to reproduce it at a cost that Joe Public can afford. The Renegade concept had 2 electric motors (one for each axle) along with a Bluetec Diesel. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent 500k-1000k in R&D and production costs for that vehicle. So what! They can't mass produce it for less than 100k probably, so now what? "Hey everyone, I save $3000 every year in gas because my Renegade gets 100mpg...just think, it'll only take me 23 years to earn back the extra 70k i spent." I hardly ever get excited about concept vehicles, because they rarely represent something that will eventually be available to the public.

Blue

They could put it up against the Porche Cayenne and Lexus crowd.

Blue

Yeah but the state of Florida is bigger in area than England. Texas is bigger than France.