42 mpg in a TJ
- Thread starter bohuggabee
- Start date
Our 05 had a cable that connected from the clutch pedal to a valve by the brake master cylinder. No electronic or codes to deal with .
The only thing I really liked on the Forester was weather band on the radio . The car was soulless and troublefree until it was 6 years old and 68,000 miles,
the the engine started jumping through it's ass. Not a fan at all.
Hmm sounds like yours wanted gender reassignment later in it life than most Subarus do....
Hmm sounds like yours wanted gender reassignment later in it life than most Subarus do....
Well I reassigned it to Carmax , and we bought a 04 TJ sport with 58,000 miles . Since 2011 and 100,000 + additional miles I replaced the starter , rear brakes , water pump and 2 batteries. and we actually like the Jeep and fun in it.
If he owned a Rubicon maybe just maybe he could wake up ROF, that place is slower than molasses
They would enjoy the company.
We were laughing at the time , wondering what to replace the Forester with , and I said another TJ . I had my 99 for 3 years at that point and loved it .
My wife said why not . We loves her TJ a lot more that the Forester !
I have never owned a lesbomobile, I did ride in a Subaru Brat back in the late 70's, no ground clearance and soulless like you say.
They would enjoy the company.
That place is dead.....the same 4 or 5 folks posting all the time....
Have you ever owned one of these? It's a Hillbilly edition V8 WJ truck on 35s.
I tried to get a side view, but he was speeding through a school zone. He'll find out that they have cameras in a week or two. $100 fine.
Have you ever owned one of these? It's a Hillbilly edition V8 WJ truck.
View attachment 616566
Nope Alabamians aren't that ingenious yet......
Last edited:
This has gone through enough gender reassignment / identifying as a Toyota Hilux....... That it's Cool !
I think that one has been tried and it did increase power. On a lawnmower engine.
Lower right number is instantaneous MPG.
Idling in neutral coasting downhill at 35 mph gets high-50s mpg. You can hear those TSLs humming
Idling in neutral coasting downhill at 35 mph gets high-50s mpg. You can hear those TSLs humming
Well there you have it. An engine is just like a gun and oreillys is the car people. Because carbon nanotubes!
Alright boys, get out your notepads. I've got some numbers to consider!
Working on the hypothesis that 42 mpg is achievable by better matching the engine's efficiency (wants a relatively high load) to the chassis efficiency (wants to be relatively slow, like 25 mph) via elevation change. We need a road like I've drawn below, where the jeep powers uphill on leg "a" and coasts downhill on leg "b," where "b" is significantly longer and less steep, so you start and end at the same elevation. Ideally the start and end points would be the same, but finding that perfect route would be tough. As long as the start and end elevations are the same I'd consider it a valid test.
I took this video going up the mountain, behind a loaded semi going slowly.
Instantaneous mpg reading seems to be running around 15 mpg, but let's round down to 14 for this concept.
For road pitch I used google earth to measure distance and elevation that covers this section of road.
Elevation: 2280 ft to 3990, 1710 ft
Distance: 6.1mi
Pitch: 280 ft/mi
Goal is 42 mpg, uphill climb nets 14 miles for 1 gallon, which means I'd need to coast downhill with the engine off for (42-14=) 28 miles with the same elevation change. Burn 1 gallon going uphill for 14 miles, don't use any gas downhill for 28 miles. 14+28 = 42 miles on 1 gallon of gas.
28/14 = 2, so the downhill slope needs to be half as steep as the uphill slope.
So the question is, will the jeep reliably roll downhill in neutral with the engine off at with a pitch of 140 ft/mi? Pretty sure it will, as it'll coast downhill on this section at about 50 mph.
I don't consider these measurements to be accurate enough to provide "proof," I do think they provide a very strong indication that it is actually physically possible.
Rolling down a mountain in neutral with the engine off will be difficult to test safely. Maybe roll on the shoulder with the flashers on?
Working on the hypothesis that 42 mpg is achievable by better matching the engine's efficiency (wants a relatively high load) to the chassis efficiency (wants to be relatively slow, like 25 mph) via elevation change. We need a road like I've drawn below, where the jeep powers uphill on leg "a" and coasts downhill on leg "b," where "b" is significantly longer and less steep, so you start and end at the same elevation. Ideally the start and end points would be the same, but finding that perfect route would be tough. As long as the start and end elevations are the same I'd consider it a valid test.
I took this video going up the mountain, behind a loaded semi going slowly.
Instantaneous mpg reading seems to be running around 15 mpg, but let's round down to 14 for this concept.
For road pitch I used google earth to measure distance and elevation that covers this section of road.
Elevation: 2280 ft to 3990, 1710 ft
Distance: 6.1mi
Pitch: 280 ft/mi
Goal is 42 mpg, uphill climb nets 14 miles for 1 gallon, which means I'd need to coast downhill with the engine off for (42-14=) 28 miles with the same elevation change. Burn 1 gallon going uphill for 14 miles, don't use any gas downhill for 28 miles. 14+28 = 42 miles on 1 gallon of gas.
28/14 = 2, so the downhill slope needs to be half as steep as the uphill slope.
So the question is, will the jeep reliably roll downhill in neutral with the engine off at with a pitch of 140 ft/mi? Pretty sure it will, as it'll coast downhill on this section at about 50 mph.
I don't consider these measurements to be accurate enough to provide "proof," I do think they provide a very strong indication that it is actually physically possible.
Rolling down a mountain in neutral with the engine off will be difficult to test safely. Maybe roll on the shoulder with the flashers on?
and highly recommended to avoid doing it a TJ with power steering.
Similar threads
