Are they as bad on fuel as people say they are, ! would they be as bad as a 4.0 litreFalcon or commodore !
vtecintegra,
Apr 2, 1:29am
Grand Cherokee!
Yes it'll be thirsty, the US figures are 14/16/19 mpg (city/combined/highway) which is 16.8/14.7/12.4 l/100km for the 2wd
trouser,
Apr 2, 2:34am
yip, they are horrible.
skyline_guy_r34,
Apr 2, 2:52am
I was looking at one of these to use for towing. Backed away when heard about fuel consumption and problems that can creep up on them.
Ended up buying a 99 ford falcon with 4.0L engine. Currently getting under 12L per 100km around town. Highway driving see's me around 8.5L per 100km. this is non towing figures. But still better than normal figures of jeep grand cherokee.
morrisman1,
Apr 2, 3:22am
Ive heard some people say they arent thirsty but I think they are speaking more comparatively and their previous vehicle was a hummer.
theres no way that a low tech SUV like a cherokee could be easy on the wallet, Unless you have some specific need for that vehicle I would suggest you look for something else.
If you need an SUV 9 times out of 10 a diesel will be cheaper to run but unless you specifically need the towing capacity of traction of one then go for a larger car eg commadore, falcon, etc.
looking at that figure for urban consumption thats getting close to $40 of fuel to drive 100km around town. Id use about $100 of gas a week at that rate!
franc123,
Sep 20, 2:08am
In most conditions, much worse. I was driving a 4.0L auto Cherokee the other day and the live trip readout was 14/100km at 100kph on a flat road!The big Aussies are economical cars for their size, in most cases they aren't beaten by most of the 2.5-3.5L V6 FWD crowd, and in fact ahead of many 4cyl mid size cars and most people mover type vehicles.If you don't need 4x4 don't get one, its that simple.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.