Jeeps and mpg

Eventer

I'm looking for some opinions on mpg for commercial jeeps. I'm going to be pulling a horse box from every week or two, fuel consumption will take a hit but not too concerned however I have to use the jeep for work usually getting around the county. I was looking at the Kia sorrento 2.4 but heard they are hard on fuel when solo.
The sante fe 2.2 is another I was thinking of. They will obviously be diesel and no larger than 2.5. would be great to get some opinions on exactly how much its costing people

YouTookMyName

MPG is for car drivers.....

Max Power1

20-25 in generl for a diesel 4X4, petrol would be 1/2 that.

stick shooter

Go santa fe if you want any kind of MPG great jeep .

Fishtits

Ive a 94 2.8 Pajero for the winter, it does circa 20 mpg.

Top Dog

Just curious - but if you're looking for a commercial 4x4, then why are you limiting yourself on engine capacity when all commercials have the same tax rate (unless taxed privately)?

Stinicker

I was reading that the Isuzu D-Max gets over 30mpg, A friend of mine has an old trooper and is getting only 12MPG on it.

I just spent the last two minutes trying the translate the above to l/100 km and I think it is the stupidest thing ever why isn't it set as litres per kilometre? and not how many litres will take you 100 kms. Stupid metric system.

Compton

Stinicker wrote: »

I was reading that the Isuzu D-Max gets over 30mpg, A friend of mine has an old trooper and is getting only 12MPG on it.

I just spent the last two minutes trying the translate the above to l/100 km and I think it is the stupidest thing ever why isn't it set as litres per kilometre? and not how many litres will take you 100 kms. Stupid metric system.

if you dont mind sitting in the most boring place ever and sitting on cardboard seats get the dmax

bazz26

shblob wrote: »

if you dont mind sitting in the most boring place ever and sitting on cardboard seats get the dmax

It's a 4x4 workhorse being used to pull a horse box, how exciting do you need it to be?

OP, 4x4s are not designed with fuel economy in mind. They are big, heavy and have the aerodynamics of Mary Harney. High 20s mpg is probably as good as you get, with a loaded horse box on the rear expect that to be less.

kuro2k

just get a land cruiser!!

Del2005

bazz26 wrote: »

It's a 4x4 workhorse being used to pull a horse box, how exciting do you need it to be?

Eventer wrote: »

I'm going to be pulling a horse box from every week or two, fuel consumption will take a hit but not too concerned however I have to use the jeep for work usually getting around the county.

Eh!

BrianD3

What weight (unladen and gross) is the horsebox and how much off road capability do you need. The Ford Kuga 4x4 van has a 2100 kg towing capacity and average official mpg of 47. It would be an economical vehicle for normal driving.

Big Nasty

This is a Jeep

Jay_C

kuro2k wrote: »

just get a land cruiser!!

Great advice Might see if they'll throw in a second engine too and just wait for the inevitable Or get a Pajero

pburns

Do you need to go off-road? I noticed a while back while (car) shopping with a friend that a lot of Subaru diesels have tow-bars - Legacy, Outbacks, Foresters... 2.0 and more economical than bigger 4x4s. I have a Navara and never tested it but in a different league for fuel consumption than the Subaru (naturally enough)...

CiniO

Stinicker wrote: »

I was reading that the Isuzu D-Max gets over 30mpg, A friend of mine has an old trooper and is getting only 12MPG on it.

I just spent the last two minutes trying the translate the above to l/100 km and I think it is the stupidest thing ever why isn't it set as litres per kilometre? and not how many litres will take you 100 kms. Stupid metric system.

Because if now you are getting 8.5 l/100km, then with your unit (litres/km) you would get 0.085 l/km.

People don't like to operate such small numbers.

Metric system is very wise. Only thing which can be called stupid here is imperial system.

ingen

Eventer wrote: »

I'm looking for some opinions on mpg for commercial jeeps. I'm going to be pulling a horse box from every week or two, fuel consumption will take a hit but not too concerned however I have to use the jeep for work usually getting around the county. I was looking at the Kia sorrento 2.4 but heard they are hard on fuel when solo.
The sante fe 2.2 is another I was thinking of. They will obviously be diesel and no larger than 2.5. would be great to get some opinions on exactly how much its costing people

Jeep is a brand name,
http://www.jeep.ie/ :rolleyes:



yes the commercial jeeps like above, cherokee, grand cherokee, commander, 20-30 mpg, depending on how driven, although the older 2.5L cherokees give better fuel consumption!

Stinicker

CiniO wrote: »

Because if now you are getting 8.5 l/100km, then with your unit (litres/km) you would get 0.085 l/km.

People don't like to operate such small numbers.

Metric system is very wise. Only thing which can be called stupid here is imperial system.

I use a mix of both and find MPG to be a perfect system.

dingding

How about a lexus RX400h

http://www.carzone.ie/search/Lexus/RX400H/Trade-Sa/201108201387564/advert?channel=CARS&featuredListingClickThru=true

newmug

OP, anyone who is of the opinion that the word "jeep" should only be used for the brand jeep, and calls everything else a SUV, should not be listened to as they know nothing about real, no bullsh1t jeeps. They are more akin to clipboards and golf than diesel pumps and hardy spicers.

Get a landcruiser. You will get around 20 mpg in most jeeps, so just get the best. A 2000 landcruiser will cost between 6k - 12K depending on condition, miles etc. You will not regret it.

David09

BrianD3 wrote: »

What weight (unladen and gross) is the horsebox and how much off road capability do you need. The Ford Kuga 4x4 van has a 2100 kg towing capacity and average official mpg of 47. It would be an economical vehicle for normal driving.

+1. I've driven one unladen and also pulling a loaded car transporter. Impressive towing capability for a 2.0 and very nice to drive when "off duty".
Ideal for intermitent towing use as a "light 4x4", but I'd doubt one would last long slogging daily with a heavy trailer permanently attached.

BrianD3

David09 wrote: »

+1. I've driven one unladen and also pulling a loaded car transporter. Impressive towing capability for a 2.0 and very nice to drive when "off duty".
Ideal for intermitent towing use as a "light 4x4", but I'd doubt one would last long slogging daily with a heavy trailer permanently attached.

I just checked the weights of Ifor Williams horseboxes. A single is 1600 kg MAM while a double is 2600 kg MAM. So if the OP is hauling a single horsebox, a Kuga 4x4 should have more than enough towing capacity.

He will need an EB driving licence in any case (possible can of worms opened)

It may be that the most off roading that the vehicle will do is pulling the horsebox from a muddy carpark. How well a Kuga would cope with this I'm not sure but i would guess that it would not require a "serious" off roader with large ground clearance etc.

gbee

I've a Terrano II commercial van. It gets from 25MPG no matter what I do with it, and motorway driving will return about 33MPG.

It's like a boat on the road, Jeremy Clarkson thought the beast so bad he would not rate it at all. Parts are total waste and it would be worth kitting it out for racing from a UK supplier if you don't want to be replacing the front roller bars every six months.

She has great pulling power and fitted with the right tyres will mudplug impressively. Mine is manual with 2 wheel drive and the 4 wheel select knob and low range a further select. Rarely in 4x4 and the low box got me out of nearly impossible situations.

Love it, but maintainance is a bitch, not what one would expect from a 'rugged' vehicle. Interior is basic and the seats poor for very long journeys.

Top Dog

newmug wrote: »

You will get around 20 mpg in most jeeps, so just get the best.

I'm getting an average of mid to high 20's

CiniO

Stinicker wrote: »

I use a mix of both and find MPG to be a perfect system.

You claim "miles per gallon" to be a perfect system in the country, where you fill up petrol in litres, and measure distance in kilometres....

Very interesting...

gbee

CiniO wrote: »

You claim "miles per gallon" to be a perfect system in the country, where you fill up petrol in litres, and measure distance in kilometres.... Very interesting...

I like MPG too, I run an iPhone App that takes the Kilometres [or miles] and Litres and outputs MPG.

Max Power1

CiniO wrote: »

You claim "miles per gallon" to be a perfect system in the country, where you fill up petrol in litres, and measure distance in kilometres....

Very interesting...

MPG is a lot easier to relate to than L/100km.

If we had a system of l/km or km/liter that would be relateable also. I dont get the need for 100 km!

Eric Cartman

the smaller engined 4x4s will do worse mpg towing than the bigger ones, its all about a balance

a 3.0 landcruiser, hilux or d-max will out-do a santa fe, legacy etc.. at towing but do worse mpg when not towing, you just really have to balance it up

CiniO

gbee wrote: »

I like MPG too, I run an iPhone App that takes the Kilometres [or miles] and Litres and outputs MPG.

Nice.
But if you were using l/100km you wouldn't need an IPhone. You could count it very easily in your head in seconds.

Max Power1 wrote: »

MPG is a lot easier to relate to than L/100km.

If we had a system of l/km or km/liter that would be relateable also. I dont get the need for 100 km!

What do you mean lot easier to relate?

If my car takes 7 l/100km and my friends car take 14 l/100km than it means that mine is twice as economical as my friends.

If my car takes 7 l/100km and I travel 200km it means that I burnt 14 litres.

That's all very easy calculations in opposition to MPG system.

coolbeans

Just FYI we've got a three litre Hillux that did a steady 33mpg unladen before we put a canopy on the back. since then it's plunged to a disappointing 27m p g. Just goes to show that aerodynamics are a huge factor in the fuel economy equation.

Eric Cartman

coolbeans wrote: »

Just FYI we've got a three litre Hillux that did a steady 33mpg unladen before we put a canopy on the back. since then it's plunged to a disappointing 27m p g. Just goes to show that aerodynamics are a huge factor in the fuel economy equation.

must be the canopy , i used to get 27 odd mpg on my d-max (motorway driving) with the back open, I put a roll n lock cover on the back and get 31/32 now

doctorchopper

gbee wrote: »

I've a Terrano II commercial van. It gets from 25MPG no matter what I do with it, and motorway driving will return about 33MPG.

It's like a boat on the road, Jeremy Clarkson thought the beast so bad he would not rate it at all. Parts are total waste and it would be worth kitting it out for racing from a UK supplier if you don't want to be replacing the front roller bars every six months.

She has great pulling power and fitted with the right tyres will mudplug impressively. Mine is manual with 2 wheel drive and the 4 wheel select knob and low range a further select. Rarely in 4x4 and the low box got me out of nearly impossible situations.

Love it, but maintainance is a bitch, not what one would expect from a 'rugged' vehicle. Interior is basic and the seats poor for very long journeys.

I take it you're not a car salesman :)

Fey!

Our automatic 3.0D Hilux Surf gets 6.7km/litre (19mpg, 14.3litre/100km) around town, and about 9.3km/litre (26mpg, 10.8litre/100km) on the motorway at a constant 120km/hour. That's with aircon on full blast, too.

Very good for towing, and minimal maintainence needed (they don't give a lot of trouble, and parts are pretty easy to find).

newmug

Top Dog wrote: »

I'm getting an average of mid to high 20's

Yep. Thats why I said around 20. Could be mid twenties, could be high twenties, could be high teens if you're towing every day. I meant around 20 MPG as opposed to 60-70 MPG you can get in some cars nowadays. So from the OP's point of view, forget the MPG, just buy the best jeep. As you can see from a previous poster, the Nissan Terrano is sh1t. So are Kia's, Hyundai's, basically anything that looks like a radio controlled toy. Stick to the reliables, Landcruiser, Hilux, Isuzu, maybe Pajero's at a push.

BTW thats good mileage you're getting from a Landcruiser. What tyres are you using?

Top Dog

newmug wrote: »

BTW thats good mileage you're getting from a Landcruiser. What tyres are you using?

Its not a LandCruiser

3.2 Shogun, running Vredestein Wintrac Xtreme on the front, and crap (IMO) Bridgestone Duellers on the rear.

kuro2k

newmug wrote: »

OP, anyone who is of the opinion that the word "jeep" should only be used for the brand jeep, and calls everything else a SUV, should not be listened to as they know nothing about real, no bullsh1t jeeps. They are more akin to clipboards and golf than diesel pumps and hardy spicers.

Get a landcruiser. You will get around 20 mpg in most jeeps, so just get the best. A 2000 landcruiser will cost between 6k - 12K depending on condition, miles etc. You will not regret it.

+1

Eventer

Jez thanks a million everyone for the response. I'm not too bothered about the fuel pulling the box (once otr twice every two weeks) its the solo that I was concerned. I was keeping the engine size low with a sante fe so I could get better fuel consumption. I'm currenly drriving a 1.8 volvo petrol, thinks its 37 mpg depending on urban or motorway was just trying to gauge if I was going to get hammered moving to commercial in these tough times.

E39MSport

my experiences: -
1KZ-TE in a 90 series LWB passenger cruiser c. 27 MPG not towing
1HD-FTE in a 100 series LWB passenger cruiser c. 24 MPG not towing (went right down when towing a fully loaded 3m trailer and 8 people on board but didn't measure - I reckon 16/17 but pulled very well)

You could go for an old school 80 series Amazon or similar era Surf - both impressive work horses and going pretty cheap these days. MPG wouldn't be as much of an issue if you save on initial cost. Very reliable.

BrianD3

Don't know if you mentioned whether you are buying new or not and what your budget is.

Re: the Santa Fe, its towing weight is 2000 kg whereas the Ford Kuga's is 2100 kg. So even though the Santa Fe is heavier (and probably less economical), its towing weight is less.

Depending on the weight of the horsebox, it may be that neither of these are suitable.

Eventer

Well trading a volvo 1.8 2008 in against it. Very low mileage bought for 14k 6 months ago so I'm in that ball park for a second hand. will be pulling a light double box with one horse only. Over a tonne maybe. Alot are focusing on the pulling power but as I said its only once every week or two. Its the balance with the solo fuel I'm trying to get right. thanks

Mycroft H

Managed to get 38mpg in the defender once and haven't done it again.


32-34mpg on average. Falls to about 28mpg when towing :pac:

Eventer

Thats pretty good mpg for a defender, what size engine is that

Top Dog

You might want to read this in relation to the Santa Fe's - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70311726