Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 69

Thread: my Jeep has a drinking problem

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bowling Green KY
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by irsa76 View Post
    The engines are reliable, it's the rest that gave issues.
    I think the only way to make them good on fuel is tow them around with a big block powered motor home.
    Yeah, as far as fuel economy goes, my 86 MJ Comanche (yeah not an XJ but it's the pickup truck version) only does about 17L/100km and it's considerably lighter AND 2WD.

    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    I kinda like my clutch fan so I won't be changing it but future plans include a twin throttle manifold and a cowl intake and maybe extend into a snorkel.

    I'll add extractors while I'm changing the intake.

    hoping the extra free flow will allow it to run a little leaner maybe

    Not how that works, buddy. Fuel economy goes downhill the more air you move in and out.
    Last edited by Xnke; 13-12-17 at 03:35 AM.

  2. #32
    Scaramouch seedyrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    2074
    Posts
    2,989
    Yeah, in Australia we have a long proud tradition of telling our wives that we need to spend the money on extractors(headers)/full stainless exhaust/cold air intake/turbo/6-71 etc etc etc as a means of delivering greater fuel economy.
    Itís now become an urban myth that we believe to be true

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    I kinda like my clutch fan so I won't be changing it but future plans include a twin throttle manifold and a cowl intake and maybe extend into a snorkel.

    I'll add extractors while I'm changing the intake.

    hoping the extra free flow will allow it to run a little leaner maybe
    Yeh, thats not going to work. I've been logging some fuel usage data on our TJ - 2005 2.5" lift with 32" BFG muddies and standard gearing. Stop, Start Sydney traffic - 19l/100km and Motorway use at 100km/h is around 16l/100km, appears once you sit the 4.0 over 2000rpm fuel usage goes up quite a bit.

    That said, do the numbers and its not too bad. My 2.0l NA Renaultsport uses 12l/100km around town and 9l/100km with motorway use. So the Jeeps using say 8l per 100 more overall, at $1.50 a litre. Over say a years use of 20 000km thats $2400 a year ($46 a week). Over the 13 years we've averaged around 11000km a year so halve that cost, $23 bucks a week is stuff all.

    I can live with that seeing as the Jeep owes us nothing after 13 years use and 150 000km. Cost new was 32k, probably worth $10k 13 years on. Over that time mechanical repairs have been 1x clutch, 1x water pump, 1x oil pump (replaced under warranty), a couple of batteries and maybe $5k worth of mods. Currently it needs a heater core and I'll replace radiator and assorted coolant hoses.

    You can't kill this thing, and it feels like it would do another 150 000km without issue. Source the parts the things need, from the US that suit the vehicle, instead of generic stuff locally and they seem to serve really well.
    Last edited by Daz7; 13-12-17 at 05:34 AM.

  4. #34
    Non Compos Mentos Gammaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    15,311
    Cheapest way to improve economy will be to turn it into an AU wagon on gas.
    "Where can we get hold of a Vincent Black Shadow?" "Whats that?" "A fantastic bike," I said. "The new model is something like two thousand cubic inches, developing two hundred brake-horsepower at four thousand revolutions per minute on a magnesium frame with two styrofoam seats and a total curb weight of exactly two hundred pounds."

  5. #35
    Gas Turbine enthusiast da9jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Radelaide
    Posts
    5,096
    Pretty sure that is worse than my brothers TB42 Carby patrol, which is impressive!

    Turbo diesel swap or upgrade to something with a diesel.
    Tow car/camping bus: 2011 D40 Navara ST

    Baby mobile: 2016 Nissan Qashqai

    75 Mini Clubman club racer - DCOE powah

  6. #36
    Registered User Mr Purple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,734
    All your cars seem to be very uneconomical, it might be time to look at the common factor?

    Either you've got a heavy right foot or buy shit cars. Possibly both.

    Seriously, I used to borrow a family member's wrangler of that era and that was about the fuel economy I got too. I don't think you'll be able to fix it.

  7. #37
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Purple View Post
    All your cars seem to be very uneconomical, it might be time to look at the common factor?

    Either you've got a heavy right foot or buy shit cars. Possibly both.

    Seriously, I used to borrow a family member's wrangler of that era and that was about the fuel economy I got too. I don't think you'll be able to fix it.
    I'd imagine both are factors.

    My bike however runs on the smell of an oily rag. just not practical to ride it as much as I'd like to.

  8. #38
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    so how is it that a barra 4.0 can use so much less fuel than my AMC 4.0

    what are the major factors that determine fuel use? if it's pumping 4 litres of air per revolution shouldn't it use the same ratio of fuel if its proper stoich?

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    so how is it that a barra 4.0 can use so much less fuel than my AMC 4.0

    what are the major factors that determine fuel use? if it's pumping 4 litres of air per revolution shouldn't it use the same ratio of fuel if its proper stoich?
    It's not pumping at 100% VE in 99% of driving, even if the engine can even get to 100% VE.

  10. #40
    Non Compos Mentos Gammaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    15,311
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    so how is it that a barra 4.0 can use so much less fuel than my AMC 4.0

    what are the major factors that determine fuel use? if it's pumping 4 litres of air per revolution shouldn't it use the same ratio of fuel if its proper stoich?
    It wasn't designed in the 1950s.
    "Where can we get hold of a Vincent Black Shadow?" "Whats that?" "A fantastic bike," I said. "The new model is something like two thousand cubic inches, developing two hundred brake-horsepower at four thousand revolutions per minute on a magnesium frame with two styrofoam seats and a total curb weight of exactly two hundred pounds."

  11. #41
    Registered User Mr Purple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    3,734
    Probably also the fact that it's not powering a 2 tonne tank with a coefficient of drag of 0.52.

  12. #42
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bowling Green KY
    Posts
    1,002
    Yeah, the issue isn't the displacement or the engine-put any other similar displacement, similar technology engine in that body and you're gonna get pretty well the same fuel economy.

    It takes a fixed amount of power to push that brick down the highway.

    Coeffcient of drag isn't great-0.52 mentioned above? That's worse than a 240Z at 0.47, and about equal to a 4x8 sheet of plywood turned face-on in the wind.

    Lifted. Lifts ALWAYS increase drag. More air under the body = More drag.

    Big tires. Bigger tires have higher frictional losses, and usually add to frontal area, which adds to total drag.

    Bigger tires also change final drive ratio, which you need to pretty well keep where it was if you want to keep the 4.0L AMC in the fuel economy sweet spot, which occurs roughly 1800RPM.

    It is what it is, bud. No amount of polishing or lipstick is gonna change this turdpig to anything other than a shiny, attractive turdpig. I'd still drive it.

  14. #44
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    I guess I'll start measuring smiles per gallon instead then.

    she does make me happy. just keeps me poor. stops me seeing others I guess

  15. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    I guess I'll start measuring smiles per gallon instead then.

    she does make me happy. just keeps me poor. stops me seeing others I guess
    If a mang van keeps you happy anything would.

  16. #46
    Gas Turbine enthusiast da9jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Radelaide
    Posts
    5,096
    I think a snorkel and simplified intake piping would make a small difference. Plus headers and a free flow exhaust. If you reduce pumping losses surely the fuel economy would improve. Also run the tyres at 40psi+

  17. #47
    PARRA MartyHusseinXF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    vegas
    Posts
    5,957
    Fuel economy is for the people in asian 4wds at the bottom of the hills not the Jeeps at the top.
    Parramatta Eels, 2009 Premiership rightful winners.

  18. #48
    Desert Nigga vet 180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    so how is it that a barra 4.0 can use so much less fuel than my AMC 4.0

    what are the major factors that determine fuel use? if it's pumping 4 litres of air per revolution shouldn't it use the same ratio of fuel if its proper stoich?
    The AMC is a very old design
    The Barra runs a 6 speed auto not a 4
    Higher rolling mass of bigger tires
    Less aerodynamic car
    More rolling resistance of bigger tires

    The list goes on.

    In saying all that I think a Barra with a 6 speed auto would be great off-road in an XJ as it has a real low first gear and be more economical

  19. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Katherine/NT/au
    Posts
    157
    I fixed the fuel economy in my toy jeep by sticking a second fuel tank under it.

  20. #50
    Ellis Juan mizone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    3,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Xnke View Post
    XJ not reliable?

    That's a new one. 4.0L I6's are the L-series of America. They simply do not die unless you make a dedicated attempt to murder them.
    Quote Originally Posted by irsa76 View Post
    The engines are reliable, it's the rest that gave issues.
    Assembled in Austria my Magna Steyr - Enough said.

    How'd you go with the temperature sensor?

  21. #51
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by mizone View Post
    Assembled in Austria my Magna Steyr - Enough said.

    How'd you go with the temperature sensor?
    haven't received it yet. once it arrives I'll let you know

  22. #52
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801

  23. #53
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    eventually the van will get its turbo and I'm seriously thinking about lifting it on proper axles, obviously not a jeep but should do all the things I need it to do.

    predominantly towing audio gear, be audio gear itself, and do mad skids, and be a portable bedroom that I can take most places

  24. #54
    Registered User Captain Kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    eventually the van will get its turbo and I'm seriously thinking about lifting it on proper axles, obviously not a jeep but should do all the things I need it to do.

    predominantly towing audio gear, be audio gear itself, and do mad skids, and be a portable bedroom that I can take most places
    That looks fucking retarded.

    I love it. Do it.


    Also, this thread makes me feel better about the economy of my stupid piece of shit. 14.5L on the highway farkin. Got worse when I went from 31's to 33's. 3 tonne 6.5L diesel will do that I suppose.

  25. #55
    Desert Nigga vet 180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    eventually the van will get its turbo and I'm seriously thinking about lifting it on proper axles, obviously not a jeep but should do all the things I need it to do.

    predominantly towing audio gear, be audio gear itself, and do mad skids, and be a portable bedroom that I can take most places
    Wait so you Jeep has a drinking problem, so your solution is to make your van thirstier?

  26. #56
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    maybe, just maybe you guys could help with this,

    this week I've tried something different.

    Instead of grannying it around, keeping under 2500rpm etc.

    I've opened the throttle a bit. using enough pedal to keep the revs between 2000 and 4000 and it actually dropped from. 21-22/100 to 18.7/100 today.

    so why would it use less fuel when being driven harder? what should check next. to me I think map sensor but can u guys be helpful and drop some constructive comments please.?

  27. #57
    Registered User Stix Zadinia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in bed with some hot mexican chicks
    Posts
    9,330

  28. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    6
    I just sold my 98 TJ, six cylinder manual. The fuel consumption was an absolute killer. Can't kill the engine and transmission, but it's the rest of the car that gives you the shits
    Still have the 99 XJ Cherokee turbo diesel. Meant to be a problematic car, but with regular maintenance it hasn't given us major problems. One of very few dealer fitted seven seaters with average fuel economy just under 11l/100km around town, it's not too bad.

  29. #59
    Non Compos Mentos Gammaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    15,311
    Quote Originally Posted by klampykixx View Post
    maybe, just maybe you guys could help with this,

    this week I've tried something different.

    Instead of grannying it around, keeping under 2500rpm etc.

    I've opened the throttle a bit. using enough pedal to keep the revs between 2000 and 4000 and it actually dropped from. 21-22/100 to 18.7/100 today.

    so why would it use less fuel when being driven harder? what should check next. to me I think map sensor but can u guys be helpful and drop some constructive comments please.?
    Because you're working in a more efficient area of the engines rev range - the thing is highly unlikely to have been tuned for peak efficiency below 2500rpm.
    "Where can we get hold of a Vincent Black Shadow?" "Whats that?" "A fantastic bike," I said. "The new model is something like two thousand cubic inches, developing two hundred brake-horsepower at four thousand revolutions per minute on a magnesium frame with two styrofoam seats and a total curb weight of exactly two hundred pounds."

  30. #60
    I <3 Mang. klampykixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Gammaboy View Post
    Because you're working in a more efficient area of the engines rev range - the thing is highly unlikely to have been tuned for peak efficiency below 2500rpm.
    good point actually, peak torque is around 3k, I hadn't considered that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •