Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Detroit to L.A. by the Numbers - 2015 Jeep Renegade Trailhawk Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,126
edited February 2016 in Jeep
imageDetroit to L.A. by the Numbers - 2015 Jeep Renegade Trailhawk Long-Term Road Test

How does a 2015 Jeep Renegade Trailhawk do after nearly 2,300 miles of mountains, hills, highway and open road? It's a mixed bag, really.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • gslippygslippy Posts: 514
    Seriously, the Pentastar 3.6 and 8-speed transmission from the Charger would work better than the miserable 2.4/9A drivetrain it has now, would probably get better fuel economy, and would be a lot more fun to drive.
  • Small engines + mountains = horrible gas mileage since you're rapping them to the upper level of the tach to move the vehicle. I was averaging just 21 mpg in a Toyota Camry Hybrid on a recent business trip (it was a company car) over the same I-70 you mountain pass in Colorado this Edmunds driver drove.
  • djd352djd352 Posts: 31
    edited February 2016
    I used to commute from Colorado Springs to Denver everyday for work a while ago and I would drive up to winter park via I-25 and I-70 on the weekends. I was driving a 2013 Hyundai Accent, well known for NOT getting its EPA rating. After a while, I figured out that premium, high octane fuel was the way to go. On regular, either 85 or 87 octane, I was struggling to get 34, sometimes even only 32, but on premium, either 91 or 93 octane, I was getting 38 to 40 Mpg! While the improved economy did recoup the additional costs of premium fuel back when gas was over $3/gal., it also transformed the way the car drove. It went from struggling to maintain speed going up hill in 3rd or 4th gear, to not having to downshift at all. I have had a similar experience in numerous other cars. I really think that these new generation direct injection engines benefit from premium fuel, and while the improved fuel economy may not make up the additional cost for premium now, it really is just pennies in the bucket, not to mention how much better they drive.
  • misterfusionmisterfusion Posts: 471
    edited February 2016
    @gslippy - The 3.6 may be overkill, but I'm thinking the new 3.2 should be just fine in this car. I remember GM had sort of the opposite problem in the original Equinox/Terrain, because their optional 3.0(?) V6 was so tuned for economy that it barely outperformed the standard 4 cyl. Later they swapped the 3.0 for the regular 3.6, and everyone was finally happy.

    Sadly the 8-speed could never be used in the Renegade, since it's made for RWD and (I believe) Haldex systems only.

    So, let's see, the Renegade has: Multi-Air, 9-speeds, and a disconnecting rear diff, all in the name of fuel economy. Oh, well...maybe it all comes down to frontal area. But it makes one wonder how much worse a normal 6-speed transmission would do in this car. If nothing else, it would at least be unobtrusive to drive.
  • nagantnagant Posts: 176
    thepuff said:

    Small engines + mountains = horrible gas mileage since you're rapping them to the upper level of the tach to move the vehicle. I was averaging just 21 mpg in a Toyota Camry Hybrid on a recent business trip (it was a company car) over the same I-70 you mountain pass in Colorado this Edmunds driver drove.

    Really? ANY car + mountains = poor MPGs.
  • nagantnagant Posts: 176
    The dismal MPGs of the Jeep is the fault of using the dreadful Tigershark.
    djd352 said:

    I used to commute from Colorado Springs to Denver everyday for work a while ago and I would drive up to winter park via I-25 and I-70 on the weekends. I was driving a 2013 Hyundai Accent, well known for NOT getting its EPA rating. After a while, I figured out that premium, high octane fuel was the way to go. On regular, either 85 or 87 octane, I was struggling to get 34, sometimes even only 32, but on premium, either 91 or 93 octane, I was getting 38 to 40 Mpg! While the improved economy did recoup the additional costs of premium fuel back when gas was over $3/gal., it also transformed the way the car drove. It went from struggling to maintain speed going up hill in 3rd or 4th gear, to not having to downshift at all. I have had a similar experience in numerous other cars. I really think that these new generation direct injection engines benefit from premium fuel, and while the improved fuel economy may not make up the additional cost for premium now, it really is just pennies in the bucket, not to mention how much better they drive.

    Ummmm HUH? High performance engines designed to run on higher octane fuel will get better MPGS and performance by using the higher numbered fuel. But an engine designed to run on 87 like an Accent engine is will NOT give better performance and especially the huge increase in MPGs at altitude like you claim.
  • ctpaulctpaul Posts: 46
    curious if the Fiat version does any better (seems more aerodynamic at least). Has Edmunds tested it at all?
  • djd352djd352 Posts: 31
    @nagant... I'm fully aware, but still it is what I have experienced in the real world. In a Hyundai Accent, a Honda CRV and a Honda Crosstour (V6-4WD). Perhaps it has something to do with pinging? Modern cars will reduce power to counter pinging thereby decreasing horsepower. However, maybe the high octane fuel helps the engine make more of the provided atmosphere i.e. more power with 91 than 85 at high altitude. This helps when climbing hills, less downshifting, so better fuel economy. This is all just a theory though, and definitely needs some investigating. Any other reasons for this? I also wonder if you would have the same effect on a turbo?
Sign In or Register to comment.