Doing some research and the 1.4t Renegade seems interesting since alot of the abarth parts work with it like the piggyback ecu's.
Doing some research and the 1.4t Renegade seems interesting since alot of the abarth parts work with it like the piggyback ecu's.
I also wish the local Jeep dealerships weren't so scummy.
MrChaos wrote: I would like the jeeps, but I really don't trust FCA quality. I can likely deal with it on the wrangler but it is still hard for me to want to spend money on a FCA vehicle. I know a F150 reg cab, short bed with the 2.7 and 4x4 gets the gas mileage I am looking for. I am just not sure if I need a truck. I like the idea of the wrangler just I would prefer it not be made by Jeep. A Suzuki Jimny Sierra checks all my boxes it just isn't sold here. I would like to do some moderate off-roading.
I generally feel the same way you do regarding FCA quality, but SWMBO's Wrangler has been great for the past year or so and 17k miles we have had it. Aside from a few calls to Safelite, it's been utterly reliable and trouble free, and seems reasonably well built too; no squeeks or rattles to report. I mean, it's about as simple a vehicle as you can get in 2017, so there's just less there for them to berkeley up. That's my reasoning at least.
In reply to Furious_E:
Yea my friend has had 4 jk's(2 2doors and 2 4 doors) and he has had a few issues most notably the TBCM died and they die all the time in FCA vehicles and aren't covered under warranty( though it is about a 30min fix but it has to go to the dealer to be reprogrammed and the cheapest refurbished unit is $400) it also had the clock spring and air bag sensor issues on 2 of the jeeps and the wiper rods need to be replaced cause one breaks and the driver's side wiper is the only one that works and the hardtop leaks so bad, and one of the jeeps is on it's second clutch in 120k miles. Another friend had a jk and the ECU died causing Jeep to buy it back under lemon law.
So at least second handly I don't have much faith in FCA.
MrChaos wrote: In reply to BrokenYugo: At the price point of the Colorado I would rather get a 1/2 ton since the only real difference is size.
True, but size can matter, those extra full size extended cab half tons with 140 some odd inch wheelbases are a serious pain in the ass to park in the city.
MrChaos wrote: In reply to BrokenYugo: At the price point of the Colorado I would rather get a 1/2 ton since the only real difference is size.
If you don't need to haul huge loads, the sane size of the Colorado is an advantage.
Might sound crazy, but a tuned Duramax will get this kind of mpg when driven reasonably, and will pull the world down when needed. A friend just bought a Ram ecodiesel and gets low 20's on the highway. The fact that this is a totally different engine, v-6 etc. makes me nervous.
In reply to TiggerWelder:
Find me a new ram ecodiesel or duramax for under $30k like I said in the post. The Colorado with the Duramax starts at 40 and so does the ram
Whats the starting price on an ecodiesel grand cherokee?
So the list is currently. 1. New wrangler with the 4cyl turbo. 2. Toyota Tacoma. 3. F150 with the 2.7. 4. Jeep Renegade.
jstand wrote: Whats the starting price on an ecodiesel grand cherokee?
Like $40 or $45k and the ecodiesel has been pulled from the 2017 model year anyway because of the emissions issues.
Tacoma is 19/23 for the 2.7L and 19/24 with the 3.5L auto, 17/20 manual
You can get them in SR and SR5 packages well below 30k although the 3.5L auto has the best fuel economy and it's also going to drive the price up.
I think, to get 24mpg though you need to be going downhill with a tailwind. I have the manual and I've never approached that 20mpg number any other way. She is thirsty at freeway speeds.
My uncle has a Colorado diesel and it's a nice ride - I'm 5'11" and rode very comfortably in the rear seat. I bet it rides better than the smaller jeeps do (and I'm a jeep guy).
Isn't the Renegade the one that does endo's? That's a fun trick. Edit: yes it is....but apparently the weight of the rear diff helps keep the 4x4 version on the ground. https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCEthdH7iYw?ecver=2
Color me surprised that ANY 4x4 w/ low range actually gets 22mpg combined.
Think seriously about the low range requirement. Do you really need it? Yes there are times when you really need it, but modern electronics, both engine controls and traction can help in a lot of circumstances where low range would have been essential a few years ago. What are your use cases?
thatsnowinnebago wrote: Color me surprised that ANY 4x4 w/ low range actually gets 22mpg combined.
A 2-speed transfer case doesn't introduce a lot of power loss, it just happens that the 4x4s that come with them tend to be very offroad-focused and as such tend to throw aerodynamics under the bus in the name of offroad capability.
Either that or they're American jumbo-pickups which are just too huge and heavy to be efficient 
My father was shopping with similar requirements and picked up a new Subaru Forester. IIRC, that one does have a low range, although I haven't looked at it too closely.
Why doesnt a Forester seem like the answer to his needs here? They get the mpg, their AWD systems are great, and you can still buy them with a manual transmission. Or a slightly used/CPO Jeep Grand Cherokee?
You might be able to swap the awd transfer case in the Cadillac ATS for a regular two speed unit. If you bought a couple year old one you would have some budget for lift and bumpers to improve the off road capability.
You would also be very, very cool driving around a lifted ATS with off road tires.
MadScientistMatt wrote: My father was shopping with similar requirements and picked up a new Subaru Forester. IIRC, that one does have a low range, although I haven't looked at it too closely.
yupididit wrote: Why doesnt a Forester seem like the answer to his needs here? They get the mpg, their AWD systems are great, and you can still buy them with a manual transmission.
New Forester's are not available with manual transmissions. They all have the CVT with X-Mode the same as my 2015 Outback. Last year for manual transmissions was 2016 and that did not have a low-range.
The X-Mode is a different program for the AWD/Traction control and I haven't found anywhere I wanted to go that I needed it yet. Did try it one time on a steep loose rock hill and could tell that it was faster with the drive switching but I probably could have made it anyhow without X-Mode.
MrChaos wrote: I am looking for something to replace the fiesta and I would like it to have 4x4 with low range and sub $30k and new. What options do I have?
Time machine and a late 80s Subaru?
Definitely had 4wd with a low range, and mine never once got under 24mpg because I don't think the engine could ever make enough power to use more fuel than that. Throttle bolted to the floor in 4th gear (87mph) it would get 27mpg. Upshift to 5th and it would slow down, not enough power to pull 5th. I think Subaru put that gear there for psychological reasons, there was no way that the engine could pull 2800 at 60mph unless you were going downhill.
(And on Sunday I found myself accidentally cruising at 95mph in the Volvo because I had just got done doing a two hour 80mph blast in the RX-7 and 95 in the Volvo feels like about 45 in the RX-7... How far I've come since those Subaru days!)
In reality, do wranglers, big US trucks or the Toyotas get 22 combined? My experience says no. The toyotas and trucks might get 22 hwy. Might. And the wrangler 20 hwy, maybe.
In reply to markwemple:
SWMBO's lifetime average MPG in the JK is about 19.5, last I looked. That's probably mostly highway driving and perhaps a bit optimistic as well. I don't think 22 is realistic.
On fuelly getting as close to the location an driving style the toyota trucks are averaging 22 combined, the jeep averages 18 and the 2.7 reg cab short beds that I can find do 22.(there is 2wd averaging 25mpg)
You'll need to log in to post.
