This edition of JeepNewsNow.com sponsored by:
 
MiscellaneousNational Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
Posted by mike on 2006/5/15 11:49:20 (3333) reads

The Toledo Blade has a really interesting article about new fuel efficiency standards that are going to drive the fuel economy of Jeep vehicles significantly higher in the next few years.

The new rules, which are in effect but apply first to the 2008 model year, mean that the 2006 Liberty's EPA estimate of 23 miles per gallon must improve to 27 by 2011, and Wrangler's 16 mpg must jump to 28.

By contrast, Liberty's and Wrangler's top competitors, Ford Escape and Honda CR-V, have EPA-rated averages of 20 to 24 miles per gallon, respectively, and don't have as far to go to meet their targets of just over 27 mpg.

...snip...

How DaimlerChrysler will achieve higher miles per gallon in its vehicles is uncertain. Some improvement could be derived from new vehicle or engine designs and some from lighter-weight materials in the SUV that will not compromise safety.

Still, federal studies find, meeting the higher fuel targets will add perhaps $35 to $40 to the cost of the vehicle.

A key under the new rules is a vehicle's footprint, or the square footage determined by the length of the wheelbase (distance between the front and rear wheel) by average width of an axle.

Liberty's footprint is 44.2 square feet and Wrangler's 41.1 square feet. The figures for the four-door Wranglers and Dodge Nitro, to be made starting this summer at Toledo Jeep, haven't been determined.

Based on that footprint, the Transportation Department uses a formula to set mileage figures. It fluctuates based on the number of vehicles produced.
Check out the entire article.

Reader Reactions

The comments are owned by the poster.
We aren't responsible for their content.
You must login or register to post a comment.

Poster Thread
myhotwheels22981
Posted: 2006/5/19 10:54  Updated: 2006/5/19 10:54
Home away from home
Joined: 2002/3/22
From:
Posts: 247
 Mark H get in line with OOJ for your beoitch slappin'
Thank you, RUBICON for at least looking at the HHD info, Something MARK H obviously didn't bother to do...

MARK H the only thing you can K.I.S.S. is my @.$.$

You have alot of nerve and obviously only 2 brain cells to alledge that I have a 'financial stake' in HHD technology. That would be impossible to do, by the way, as the E.P.A., a governmental agency, owns the rights to the technology, and you can't invest in the E.P.A., this you would have known if you had actually gotten off your L.O.M.A. @$$ and done a google search.

And as far as proven technology goes, HHD in a simpler form is and has been in use in the tractor industry to provide front axle power to farm tractors.

JEEP also tested a version of HHD around 1998. It was deemed unstoppable back then. It didnt use the Accumulator and Resivoir tanks, just direct Hydraulic Drive, so there was no hybrid effect.
We don't see it in use right now because without the hybrid effect, it didn't have any real world advantages over a conventional tranny, until now.

Nonetheless, the HHD technology is not new, just being applied in a new area.

And, like RUBICON stated HHD is being promoted with clean diesel by the E.P.A. (also in the research beoitch) for further economy, and as far as the HEMI goes, the HEMI would truly realize its economy porential by staying in 4 cyl mode most of the time (its called HHYYYYBBRRRIIIDDDDD) with power on tap.

Again to recap, RUBICON good, OOJ bad, Mark H bad. YJ still sux.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/19 11:22  Updated: 2006/5/19 11:22
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: Mark H get in line with OOJ for your beoitch slappin&...
I looked into it yesterday and am not yet convinced. Still gotta keep it light & efficient & it's gotta last a lot of miles & operate over a wide range of temperatures (at least from -100F to 125F, AK to AZ) and be cheap.

Time will tell, but I don't see it by 2011.

I can tell you feel your green, alternative energy, tree-hugging debate is waning, as soon as you reveal your true intellect by getting petty & personal. I don't fall for flame-mails, so egg someone else on.

By the way, that's 2 engineering degrees I have, not 2 brain cells...

Poster Thread
myhotwheels22981
Posted: 2006/5/19 22:03  Updated: 2006/5/19 22:03
Home away from home
Joined: 2002/3/22
From:
Posts: 247
 (...sigh...!) GOOD GRIEF!!!!
Ok, Mark, I'll bite...WHAT KIND OF ENGINEER ARE YOU?

Electrical and computer engineer don't count for purposes of this discussion. I mean let's face it, if I were a Janitor, I could call myself a Sanitation Engineer.

But ok, I'll throw you a bone and say you're an engineer.

You still haven't used your superior powers of engineering to answer not only my core question, but the central theme of the article all of these posts are responding to.

HOW IS DCX GOING TO MEET THE 28.1 MPG GOAL IN 2011???????????????????????

Your best response seems to be that DCX will do some sort of lobbying against the fuel mileage standards, or will argue that the Wrangler is in it's own special class of vehicles (which I really wouldn't argue) and should'nt apply to the Fuel standards, kind of like the Wrangler shouldn't be held to the 1.5X rollover strength since it is a convertible.

That is all fine and dandy, but that lobbying hasn't happened yet, nor is there any indication that it will.

If the E.P.A. has the technology to make a vehicle the size and footprint of the Wrnagler get 30-40 MPG then they really don't have any incentive to issue any waivers or deferrments, now do they?

Don't get me wrong, the JK's 18/20 MPG rating is good, but Hybrid technology is good enough now that the simplest of systems can be added to boost the Wrtangler up to 28.1 MPG.

Again, there is really no reason for an engine to be running if the car is not moving.

Personally, I think you were asleep in PHYSICS class when the Professer said that a machine in opperation and performin no work is wasting energy.

I also like your usage of 'GREENIE" That's almost as bad as being called a "LIBERAL'

Unfortunately, you cannot write off someones opinions by calling them a "GREENIE", just because you don't like them.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/22 10:04  Updated: 2006/5/22 11:11
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 A real one
Since you asked so nicely, I'm a Metallurgist, and I have degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering. I work for a company that makes fuel systems (fuel rails, intake manifolds, throttle bodies, LOMA {MDS} units, EGR valves, fuel injectors, emissions canisters, etc...). When something breaks, they bring it to me, and I do the fracture analysis --usually on an SEM. Kind of CSI meets metallurgy.

We have a Tech Center that also does research in fuel cell technology. BUT contrary to its growing popularity, hydrogen isn't free. That's another story...

My contention is that I don't believe DCX will meet the 28mpg bogey for the JK by 2011. Yes, I believe lobbying efforts (and the usual donations & bribery) will ensue to bend or change the CAFE laws. I don't want to see a JK with a 4cyl hybrid that costs $4K more, or is less powerful or less reliable... or a 6cyl hybrid that is even more expensive AND heavier. BTW, many of the hybrids have fallen short of expectations. The advertised (inflated) MPGs are unattainable in real world driving and the few $K sdded expense has a break-even that runs into many years. But, yes, of course they do still provide a significant MPG improvement. Given the choice, for now, I'd stick with a non-hybrid and save the extra few $K for gas. In another 10 years, when they get significantly better, I'll probably change my mind.

I'm all up for a good diesel. Right now, for the JK, that might mean 25MPGhwy, realistically. As I've said, if they reach 28MPGhwy(gas) average for all JKs by 2011, I have my ketchup ready & I'll eat a JK piece by piece on national television.

Poster Thread
myhotwheels22981
Posted: 2006/5/18 15:17  Updated: 2006/5/18 15:17
Home away from home
Joined: 2002/3/22
From:
Posts: 247
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
DCX can go a few different routes to meet the 28.1 MPG goal, but only one would be the best for Jeep owners...

1. DCX could put a more efficient engine under the hood, and put the Wrangler on a serious diet.

2. DCX could use a start-stop Hybrid system like the Saturn VUE Green Line...It is much simpler than the Prius Synergy Hybrid system, and it makes no sense for any engine to be running if the car is not accelerating, anyway.

3. A high efficency Turbo-diesel and a 6-speed transmission might come close to 28.1 MPG, but remember, the Wrangler is being tested on the EPA test loop, so CRD owners might be getting 25-30 MPG, but may not get it under the controlled conditions of the EPA exam.

4...My vote goes to the HYDRAULIC HYBRID DRIVELINE (do a google search on Hydraulic Hybrid Driveline---This is NOT the Hydraulic Launch Assist that Ford was using on it's concept F-350 a year or two ago)

In a nutshell, HHD completely eliminates the transmission and replaces it with a hydraulic pump, which is poweresd by the engine. The pump pressurizes a high pressure tank, and under acceleration, pressure is bled off to a resivoir, and in the process spins impellers to provide power to the driveshaft.

Under braking, the process is reversed, and the impellers from the driveshft recapture kinetic energy by spinning the impellers and pressurizing the high pressure tank.

The EPA Ford Expedition Demonstrator got 38 MPG with a 3.8L engine, and the Wrangelr could probably get 40 MPG with a HEMI/MDS.

This system is like a CVT with no moving parts, and infinite gear ratios, determined by the pressure flow. It requires little or no computer interaction and no heavy battery pack

If you want a HEMI under the hood, you NEED to lobby DCX to use this system on the Wrangler.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/18 16:28  Updated: 2006/5/18 16:28
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
Interesting, but ...none of those will likely be implemented in the JK by MY2011... otherwise I have to get a big ketchup bottle ready, as promised. Stay tuned.

Given just those options, one day, just maybe, I'll come to appreciate the 3.8L a lot more than I do now.

My company makes fuel systems for (most) GM vehicles. We also manufacture the "LOMA" units (aka MDS) for GM's V8 truck engines. For many, the mpg gains are a lot less in reality (1-1.5mpg) than what is achieved during the (optimized) test conditions.

I have to believe most old school JEEPERS would rather have a simple reliable engine, pay a little more at the pump, and avoid expensive service visits to fix all the finicky "alternative" efficiency gizmos. Just my $0.02

Poster Thread
myhotwheels22981
Posted: 2006/5/18 22:58  Updated: 2006/5/18 23:47
Home away from home
Joined: 2002/3/22
From:
Posts: 247
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
Well, unforunately, an engine running full time, during deacceleration and idiling at a stop cannot get 28.1 MPG and meet the power requirements of the Wrangler.

With an average of 10 years for the last 2 production runs (TJ and YJ) the JK will more than likely have to deal with these fuel economy standards, unless the JK will only have a 6 year production run, which is highly unlikely.

Even though Jeep is building more Compasses and Patriots, the CAFE is still footprint-based, so overall numbers of high-mileage cute-utes son't have as great of an impact as they did under the previous standards.

The most primitative engineering theorem says that the fewer moving parts there are in a device, the less likely it is to break down.

The HHD has fewer moving parts than a conventional transmission, fewer than a CVT trans, and fewer moving parts than your TIMEX watch.

Wake up people...The EPA and the Federal Govenment don't care about your incessant whining about your JEEP of yesteryear...

As the longest running production vehicle type in the world, with mabye the exception of Harley Davidson, Jeep has a duty and obligation to go Hybrid, especially with the HHD system that will only improve the off-road capability of the most capable vehicle on the face of the earth.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/19 8:46  Updated: 2006/5/19 8:46
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 More on the K.I.S.S. Rule
Sounds like someone has a financial stake in HHD technology. Wonder what all this stuff costs per vehicle...hmmmm... The LOMAs (MDS) can add $2-4K. Hybrids add up to $5K. Both have fallen short of expectations. Diesels add about $5K, and so far, are the only viable "alternative" powertrain Jeep owners have been yearning for. And for good reason: better MPGs, good durability & reliability.

Primitive corollary: a dam has no moving parts (water turbines aside) and poorly engineered dams break. So, I'm not sold on anything new & not trail proven. The industry durability bogey is 150,000 miles (planned obsolescence) and many of us put way more than that on a Jeep. Once any new gizmo is proven & is cheap enough, then sure, I'm in. But if it breaks at 90Kmiles and costs me $5K to fix, I'll be in a break even situation with the few extra MPG I gained... Thanx to the EPA and the Sierra Club...

I'm still whinin' about the loss of the 258! The loss of the 4.0L will take awhile, too. Ten years from now, I may be whining about my beloved minivan-based 3.8L (yuck...) By then Rube Goldberg will probably have free reign under the hood.

My prediction is that, as 2011 approaches and the new CAFE laws are found to be unreasonable (for cases like the JK) they will be moderated by (once again) averaging across a product line or adding some other loophole. At least, that's what's happened in the past. Either that, or they'll have to move the wheels even further out to create an even larger footprint...stick in a 2.5L engine from the PT... add a few flashlight batteries and 4 generators to the wheels... a filling spout for used vegetable oil from McD's... and a family of flatulent gerbils to get me started from a stoplight...

Poster Thread
RUBICON
Posted: 2006/5/19 10:16  Updated: 2006/5/19 10:18
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/13
From:
Posts: 377
 Re: More on the K.I.S.S. Rule
The nice thing is the Hydraulic hybrid system can be paired WITH a diesel for even greater fuel savings. It is a fairly simple system (and we all know we Jeepers prefer simple systems compared to electronic gadgetry). Paired with a diesel, you would see numbers well exceeding 40mpg.

I have sent my two cents to DCX about the need to build E85 Hemi MDS systems and Bluetec diesels immediately. Then they should work to introduce direct injection and hydraulic hybrid systems within the next five years.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/19 11:38  Updated: 2006/5/19 11:38
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: More on the K.I.S.S. Rule
I agree. Love the Bluetec diesel. Love the HEMI. I'm on the fence with the MDS, but I understand it's easy to disconnect WHEN it breaks. And it will. So I guess it's OK.

As I've said in other forums, there's really a lot of shortcomings with the E85 right now. I should know --we make E85 fuel rails. I'm sure some of the drawbacks will improve with time... But right now, it's up to 30% less efficient than gas, to start with... costly to produce... and very few pumping stations over most of the U.S.

But I do like the clean burning aspect...and getting away from foreign oil... that's a start.

Poster Thread
RUBICON
Posted: 2006/5/19 14:18  Updated: 2006/5/19 14:18
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/13
From:
Posts: 377
 Re: More on the K.I.S.S. Rule
The new GM and DCX E85 vehicles have a fuel sensor which detects the current ethanol level and tunes the engine accordingly, eliminating the efficiency problem. Indeed, if you attempt to run E85 in a normal engine without such a system you are going to have compression issues due to the change in octane. Not to mention, depending on the fuel lines, etc... some serious corrosion issues.

E85 costs no more to produce than premium fuel, and currently costs less than regular unleaded thanks to subsidies.

The only real big issue is a lack of E85 refueling infrastructure. Here in AZ there are no public E85 fueling stations in the Phoenix area. I would have to go to Tucson or Flagstaff to get it. However, bills have been signed by the governor to allow for E85 stations here.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/19 15:45  Updated: 2006/5/19 15:56
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: More on the K.I.S.S. Rule
I was referring to FFVs, not regular cars using E85 (which is a big No-No). The first FFV vehicles we made fuel systems for lost 30% MPG (that's worst case) when running on E85 vs. gas. Believe me when I say, the engineers that use E85 in their FFV trucks are not happy with their MPGs.

The current FFV trucks are a little better, typically dropping from 21mpg to 16mpg (see link below). That will improve further, but the MPG efficiency problem, unfortunately is here to stay for E85. Reason? All else being equal, even though the octane is higher, and in some cases you can get more power from E85, you have to burn a lot more to get it. So, the E85 has less specific energy than does gas or diesel. But you are right, in that there is room for improvement over the 1st Gen FFVs. We're working on it.

Next... I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe the Federal subsidy on E85 is >$0.50/gallon. Factor that in with the reduced MPG and compare it to regular 87 octane (not premium, c'mon now!) and the E85 costs more per mile, even if the sign reads less per gallon at the pump.

Better infrastructure, and demand, as you point out will certainly improve the outlook for E85... it's just a matter of time. Thanx for the feedback.


Here's a couple good sites to peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/17 10:33  Updated: 2006/5/17 12:52
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 DIESELs
I'm all for diesels (love the torque) but consider the info in this link (under the 2007+ rules): http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.html
and here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/chapter1.html#c1_2
and here:
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A5

The new 15ppm ("S15") sulfur limits are coming into effect, mostly this year, being reduced from the now U.S. standard 500ppm ("S500") levels. That means 2 things to the consumer: 1) the price for diesel will go up (probably a lot more than the current estimates). 2) If you mistakenly burn higher sulfur diesel in a car designed with all the new MY2007+ super-whompadyne pollution controls for ultra-low sulfur fuels, you'd better reach for your checkbook... 'cause it won't be pretty.

Poster Thread
RUBICON
Posted: 2006/5/17 9:49  Updated: 2006/5/17 9:49
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/13
From:
Posts: 377
 Diesels About To Go Mainstream In US
Honda just announced that they will be bringing its European diesel engine to the US before 2010. This is the same record-breaking (speed and fuel economy) engine that powers the Euro-spec Honda Accord (known as an Acura here in the US).

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/17/honda-new-hybrid-new-diesel-engine-and-2-new-plants-in-n-a/

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040506.html

Hopefully this will force DCX's hand at releasing its 3.2L Bluetec and 4.0L V8 diesel here in the US.

Poster Thread
phishjeep
Posted: 2006/5/16 23:52  Updated: 2006/5/16 23:52
Not too shy to talk
Joined: 2005/12/18
From: Virginia
Posts: 33
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
From www.dot.gov:

"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 533 and 537
[Docket No. 2006- 24306]
RIN 2127-AJ61
Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks
Model Years 2008-2011
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule reforms the structure of the corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE) program for light trucks and establishes higher CAFE standards for model year (MY) 2008-2011 light trucks. Reforming the CAFE program will enable it to achieve larger fuel savings, while enhancing safety and preventing adverse economic consequences.
During a transition period of MYs 2008-2010, manufacturers may comply with CAFÉ standards established under the reformed structure (Reformed CAFE) or with standards established in the traditional way (Unreformed CAFE). This will permit manufacturers and the agency to gain experience with implementing the Reformed CAFE standards. In MY 2011, all manufacturers will be required to comply with a Reformed CAFE standard.
Under Reformed CAFE, fuel economy standards are restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint," the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy is established for each increment in footprint.
Smaller footprint light trucks have higher targets and larger ones, lower targets. A particular manufacturer's compliance obligation for a model year will be calculated as the harmonic average of the fuel economy targets for the manufacturer’s vehicles, weighted by the distribution of manufacturer's production volumes among the footprint increments. Thus, each manufacturer will be required to comply with a single overall average fuel economy level for each model year of production...."


If you read the last paragraph, it may begin to explain why Jeep is introducing so many new crossover vehicles, and why the patriot and compass have such small, er, efficient, engines. All this talk about watering down the Jeep legacy may actually be Jeep trying to maintain the Jeep Wrangler Legacy for future generations.

Poster Thread
JayBird
Posted: 2006/5/16 18:56  Updated: 2006/5/16 18:56
Quite a regular
Joined: 2005/9/12
From:
Posts: 41
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
It isn't so much the miles per gallon but the cost per gallon that gets me.

Poster Thread
gladiator
Posted: 2006/5/16 10:38  Updated: 2006/5/16 10:38
Quite a regular
Joined: 2005/7/26
From:
Posts: 43
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
I want to know who came up with this figure:

Still, federal studies find, meeting the higher fuel targets will add perhaps $35 to $40 to the cost of the vehicle.

I wish they would indicate what technology can be used to raise the EPA rating of a Wrangler by 12 MPG and only costs $35 to $40 per vehicle. It would pay for itself in the first few tanks of gasoline.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/16 14:13  Updated: 2006/5/16 14:13
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
What? How dare you question an official federal statistic! Didn't you know that a full 50% of all vehicles produced are below the average MPG rating?

That $35-40 increase to get a Wrangler to 28 MPG is per vehicle per tankful. That seems to work out pretty accurately for a 20 gallon tank

Poster Thread
carter
Posted: 2006/5/16 10:24  Updated: 2006/5/16 10:24
Not too shy to talk
Joined: 2005/7/27
From: Houston
Posts: 29
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
I don't know....It seems that basing fuel consumption on the footprint of a vehicle without regard to its weight is unfair. Wranglers are heavy for their footprint size for a very good reason. They have to be engineered to actually go offroad whereas an escape just has to have some of the looks but none of the capability. I hope every wrangler owner wants a diesel, because I don't see any other way to maintain the wranglers abilities without going entirely diesel.

Poster Thread
MarkH
Posted: 2006/5/15 15:23  Updated: 2006/5/15 15:23
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/20
From: The Great White North
Posts: 494
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
Something doesn't smell right. If the average Wrangler gets 28mpg by 2011, I'll hacksaw one by hand and eat it with ketchup on national television. That ain't gonna happen. I agree, the 3.8L was not a big enough "jump". Give me the new 255HP 275ft-lbs 4.0 V6 or the HEMI and a 30 gallon tank! Screw the MPGs; give me HP & torque. Burn, dinosaurs guts, burn! Remember, it's not how many MPG you get between fill-ups, it's how quick you get there that counts. If you want good MPG go buy a Prius. Vrrrrrrrrroooooooommm!

Poster Thread
Josephus
Posted: 2006/5/17 0:36  Updated: 2006/5/17 0:36
Home away from home
Joined: 2005/7/18
From: Pennsylvania
Posts: 265
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
It looks like Mark is a big fan of HP, I just can't afford to agree with him anymore. I need a vehicle I can drive everyday and on the weekends.
It would be nice if Jeep offered the MDS in the new Wrangler. I just wish they would release the computer codes, so "gas-only" people could add a supercharger to the MDS. It would probably get 25mpg on the highway and 400+hp/torque.
CRD or supercharged MDS, either way we gotta compress more air into that engine. Air is still free.
For myself, I would buy a CRD JKL Rubicon tomorrow.

Poster Thread
gymraider
Posted: 2006/5/15 13:24  Updated: 2006/5/15 13:24
Just popping in
Joined: 2005/12/16
From: Fort Worth area
Posts: 18
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
good, im glad that someone is making jeep step it up and get smart with their engine, because the 3.8 isn't near a big enough step up from its predecessor. Odds are with the new regulations, jeep will have to roll in another engine very soon, and i don't understand why all the complication with the disel when mercedez is very close ties with chrystler, yet chrystler won't use one of their disels for the jeep.

Poster Thread
highdesert
Posted: 2006/5/15 23:40  Updated: 2006/5/15 23:40
Not too shy to talk
Joined: 2006/1/9
From:
Posts: 34
 Re: National Fuel Economy Standards to Challenge Jeep
Agreed, finally Jeep will have to give North Americans the same diesel goodies that they give to remainder of the world. Bring on the CRD and six speed manual.
Main Menu
JeepNewsNow Everywhere
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Jeep Classifieds
Syndication - RSS
Add Jeep News Headlines to your site for free!

Display the latest Jeep news headlines on your Web site using our RSS 2.0 news feed!

RSS 2.0

Or, if you prefer, an even easier way of putting the headlines on your Web site is to utilize our free, JavaScript-based headlines. Check them out!
Who's Online
12 user(s) are online (3 user(s) are browsing News)

Members: 0
Guests: 12

more...
Advertisements
mike's totally free jeep news now is designed and maintained by AnelloConsulting.com
Copyright © 1998-2010 mike's totally free jeep news now
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Advertising Info