01-19-2011, 01:27 AM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Posts: 29
Libby - '02 Jeep Liberty sport
Thanks: 6
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
According to Expert Autostats, a 2002 Jeep Liberty Sport 4x2 has a curb weight of 3,507 pounds and the 4x4 version has a curb weight of 3,692 pounds.
My origianal weight was off, I'll look into further research, I got the 4600lbs. from another jeep forum, it may not be accurate, apperantly they are heavy suckers though.
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
01-19-2011, 01:30 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
EcoModding Jack
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 335
Thanks: 12
Thanked 58 Times in 40 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratrod
I deliver mail with my Jeep and notice to just sucks the fuel down. It has a 4.0 six cylinder and automatic with 3.73 gears. I am running running 225/75/15 tires and plan to use 215's. I have changed the spark plugs, air filter and use synthetic oil. Any suggestions are appreciated.
|
The aero of this vehicle is probably pretty bad, sits up high, big tires, no flow. But do you spend time on the highway, or is it mostly stop-n-go rural box hopping? Is the 4WD really needed? that adds weight.
Is it performing similiar to the published MPG figures, or much worse?
Is another vehicle an option? Would be lots of choices depending on the above answers.
|
|
|
01-19-2011, 12:12 PM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
I'm going by curb weight, which is the vehicle + a full tank of fuel, as it sits, ready to drive. Adding some of the options can add a bit of weight to that. 4wd definitely doesn't add 350 pounds though. It adds a front driveshaft (around 20 lbs tops), a front diff and axle shafts (an extra 80 pounds max on the front axle), and a transfer case (about 90 pounds). That's 170 total. Add in shift linkage and other little odds and ends, and you're still under 200.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 04:12 AM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
|
The 2WD FF axle is only a light beam. My FAW compared to another Cherokee of the same year (and same trim, options, etc), was 410-lb lighter under same weighing conditions. The RAW was about the same. This is consistent with most Cherokees going back to ca. 1990 (when equipped in the same manner, etc).
I certainly doubt the Wrangler is as heavy: less glass, less body structure, shorter wheelbase, etc.
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 04:49 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
Go to the local scale and weigh the dang thing.
|
|
|
01-20-2011, 11:34 AM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
Wranglers are deceptively heavy. They're small, but the body on frame setup weighs a lot more than a unibody. XJs are light for their size.
410lbs seems like a BIG difference on the front axle. Were there any differences in engine, tranny, etc? I can't think of what could possibly add that much weight to the front end. Thinking about work I've done on my Jeep, the front axle shafts are about 20 and 35 lbs, short and long respectively. Probably 60 or so for the front diff, and a t-case is 80 - 90, and another 15 for the front driveshaft. That's around 200 or so. If you can think of anything I'm missing in there, please let me know.
If one of the XJs was an earlier one, they were a bit lighter for various reasons. In 95, airbags were added, which adds a good bit of weight to the front end. In 96, they changed a few things internal to the engines that added some weight. The rear hatch went from fiberglass to metal in 97.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
01-27-2011, 11:18 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
Exceptional Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 166
Thanks: 27
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
|
OP I have a way for you to pick up maybe 1 or 2 MPG with your Jeep. Take the rear driveshaft out and run in 4wd. Now you've got a front wheel drive Jeep eating a little less power. I did this with my friends Rubicon after he broke his driveshaft. He was doing sales, driving 100+ miles a day. He didn't fix it for 4 months because his gas mileage went up and there was no snow coming anytime soon. We even did some offroading with the FWD wrangler, it did pretty damn good.
Comptiger, lowest curb weight on TJ was 3092 4cyl, 3229 6cyl...
Last edited by YukonCornelius; 01-27-2011 at 11:28 PM..
|
|
|
01-28-2011, 02:31 PM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
^ BAD idea. With the exception of the Rubicon, the front diff and axle shafts are noticeably weaker than the rear. If you want the same benefit, pull the front shaft and leave it in 2wd. It'll still drop the rotating weight a bit. It really can't do much, as both diffs and such are still spinning. Lockout hubs for the front would help a bit more.
As far as weight, you're right that an early base model TJ with a soft top, 4 cylinder and a 5 speed is just under 3100 pounds. However, that's with the smallest stock tires available, and no options. Most are a decent bit heavier, considering that weight doesn't even include having a stereo. Pretty much any 4 cylinder TJ you find out there (most had at least some options) will be 3300 - 3500 lbs, with the 6 cylinders around 3400 - 3700 lbs. Hard tops add weight too.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
01-28-2011, 02:45 PM
|
#29 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
It's not a bad idea. It isn't going to be that highly stressed in that application.
|
|
|
01-28-2011, 02:47 PM
|
#30 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544
RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited 90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
|
Yeah, in that application it probably wouldn't kill it. However, dropping the front shaft will have just as much mpg benefit. Plus, with the more flexible axle shafts in the d30 (as opposed to the D44 in a Rubicon), there will be noticeable torque steer. Not to mention the FWD handling deficit, particularly in a vehicle that wasn't meant to be FWD.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and you'll wear out the t-case chain faster too, due to feeding full drive power through it all the time.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:
Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
|
|
|
|