NEW Compass Owner - Jeep Compass Forum
 6Likes
  • 1 Post By Jasmine
  • 1 Post By Tripod
  • 1 Post By Jasmine
  • 1 Post By arudlang
  • 1 Post By Tripod
  • 1 Post By RadRacer
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1 of 11 Old 10-19-2018, 11:49 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 87
 
Garage
NEW Compass Owner

I have a 2018 Silver Compass Limited AWD
jjcom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 01:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Two locations in NH: One near Concord, the other at the 45th.
Posts: 674
 
Welcome to the board! Hope your Compass is good to you.
Jasmine is offline  
post #3 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 01:35 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 87
 
Garage
Everything except for the rattles on the passenger panels, automatic HVAC going crazy and the strange humming from the transmission around 35+ MPH
jjcom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 03:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Two locations in NH: One near Concord, the other at the 45th.
Posts: 674
 
Yeah there's a thread on here about that. I think we all have the hum to one degree or another. Service bulletin TSB 08-095-18 from FCA has a software update your dealer can do. I'm still under warranty and my dealer did it at no charge. What it seems to do is move the humming noise up to about 50MPH so it isn't as noticeable. You can also make the noise go away by using autostick or by turning ESC off. I was chastised by some on the site for turning off ESC because it is a safety device; still others said ESC is always there regardless of the switch position. IDK. Since I had the update done I really don't notice the hum as much, maybe because at 50 there is more road noise and that covers the hum. You can check out the discussion here: https://www.myjeepcompass.com/forums...in-issues.html

There is another problem you should be aware of. The new Kittenfish engine, I mean Tigershark engine, tends to use a lot of oil, as in 1000-1500 miles/quart. I'm told this is the way the engine was designed -- they relaxed the tolerances and use ultra-thin oil to minimize friction in hopes of achieving better MPG. You'll probably be down a couple quarts if you wait till your next oil change, or it may just shut down on you if it senses the oil is too low. While many new engines may use oil during the break-in period, say up to 10,000 miles, this engine consumes more oil than anything I've owned, even past 250,000 miles.

On the bright side I'm getting 31.5 overall MPG in the 14,000 miles I've owned my Compass, and up to 34MPG on a long easy drive. Unfortunately, any fuel savings are eroded by the oil consumption.
arudlang likes this.
Jasmine is offline  
post #5 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 06:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 758
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
Service bulletin TSB 08-095-18 from FCA has a software update your dealer can do.
This update greatly reduced the humming noise for me, although I never really believed the humming noise was indicative of any issues and the sound is still there just at different speeds as Jasmine said. The update will make most people happy but when you still hear it now and then just remember its one of the most advanced all-wheel drive systems around just doing its good work for you, trying to give you AWD performance with 2WD economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
You can also make the noise go away by using autostick or by turning ESC off. I was chastised by some on the site for turning off ESC because it is a safety device; still others said ESC is always there regardless of the switch position.
ESC has three states. When you start the car, it is completely on. If you press the button momentarily, it is partially off. If you hold the button at a STOP for about 10 seconds it will go almost completely off, but, slips back into partially off mode if you go above a certain speed. This is all described in the user manual.

I am adamantly against making a habit of doing normal daily driving with ESC even partially off. I think it is foolish to think that is some kind of solution for a "noise" that has never been proven to be indicative of any kind of issue whatsoever, while putting lives at risk by operating the vehicle with its safety measures reduced. They will know, if you are involved in a major crash, what the state of ESC was at the time of collision thanks to data recording built into the ECU. The legal liability alone there should be enough to dissuade anyone from such activity, but there are always people that insist and thats why you can't even completely turn off ESC anymore. (Full disclosure, I was once one of those people doing most daily driving with ESC disabled in one of my previous vehicles, but everyone is young and dumb once...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
The new Kittenfish engine, I mean Tigershark engine...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
...tends to use a lot of oil
This is not really...quite...fair to say... arrrg here we go.......

Yes, its true the engine is designed to "use" a tiny bit of oil as a sacrifice to the friction gods in the quest to attain better fuel economy and more power out of a smaller engine. This has been going on for a long time, across many different engine manufactures. It is not new and not unique to Jeep/FCA. The science behind it is sound and we reap the benefits. This engine produces nearly the same horsepower as engines with nearly two liters of additional displacement did in the early 2000's, and gets significantly better fuel economy. The MPG figures Jasmine is reporting are leaps and bounds better than the MPG of somewhat comparable small SUV's of the late 90's. These are the first SUVs I am aware of that play with the 30 MPG mark and yet retain significant towing and payload capacities. I had a late 90's era S10 Blazer for 10 years, it had similar horsepower and towing, a little more cargo room, but yielded 16-18 MPG most of the time, 22 on its best day, even with a fresh rebuilt engine. Jasmine, you are saving buckets of fuel that more than pay for any oil consumption your engine may be doing as long as its working within spec.

There lies the rub. The grain of truth to the oil consumption scare is that FCA seems to be having a bit of trouble cranking out these mass-produced engines and keeping tolerances in check. The spec for the tightness of the piston rings is dialed back to reduce friction, but all it takes from there while trying to build thousands of engines as quickly as possible is the occasional batch of rings or cylinder bores (we don't really know which, could be both) to be off enough to make these parts looser yet in their interaction with each other... and you start getting handfuls of really angry new car owners who's engines are burning up a LOT of oil..

We are only talking about handfuls here. If your engine's tolerances are within spec, and if your piston rings all seat properly within the first few hundred or couple thousand miles, you can hardly tell the oil level has crept down the hash marks of the dipstick by the time the next oil change rolls around. 1/4 to 1/2 a quart is probably the intended amount to be allowed to slip past the rings and get burnt up over the course of one oil service interval. Due to variances in build tolerance, some could be a bit more, this is why our oil pans have extra capacity built into them. 5.5 quarts is a ton of oil for a little four banger, but some of it is basically extra to help ensure there is always plenty of oil available, even when the engine is old and wore or breaking in or, unluckily, assembled out of spec.

Mine seems to use about the amount of oil it is intended to now that I am approaching the 20,000 mile mark. It used up probably over one quart before the first oil change, maybe 3/4 of a quart the second, and has settled off since then at maybe 1/2 a quart between intervals. I'm not keeping that close of track anymore. At this point my engine seems to have great compression (and good power), and gets me fantastic fuel economy, all as intended. I've been able to tow 3500 pounds across a 1200 mile road trip that included portions in the mountains of West Virginia, and I've been able to hold 38 miles per gallon for 150 miles driving solo unloaded on a rural 55 MPH road. Anyone who doesn't think that is impressive dynamic range for this little powerplant should take a closer look at what your options were just a couple short decades ago. This is the "have my cake and eat it too" vehicle that I always wished my gas-thirsty S10 Blazer could have been back in the day.

Jasmine I hope you don't feel that I am ragging on you, we agree on some things and disagree on others and that's just fine. I know there are an uncomfortable number of owners who are very vocal on the internet about issues with oil consumption but its a handful of unlucky voices crying over the silence of hundreds of thousands of 2.4-powered FCA vehicles that work as intended day in and day out. FCA is admittedly not very good about supporting those who win the reverse-lottery on these engines. That's why anytime someone asks I keep telling them "you gotta lease it, and make sure its a 'good one', before you buy it out completely." The combined electrical gremlins that have come from the hasty copy-and-paste of code from other FCA vehicles dumped into this thing, combined with the chance of getting an engine thats a tad (or a lot) oil thirsty means you just can't know for sure until you've had the chance to assess it over the course of 10-20 thousand miles. The old S10 Blazer I had was the same way, the first year of a major redesign with a lot of things that got cleaned up in the years that followed but the particular Blazer I had was one of the "good ones" and it served me well.

I can't guarantee this is good advice, but based on my experience I feel like the fact that I am towing about 15% of the time helped my piston rings to seat as best they could early in the life of this motor. I won't get into the details here because folks are probably sick of me going on and on anyways, and I've said this all before, but you can google around the topic of break-in procedures and advice for new and rebuilt engines and although its mainly in the context of racing there is some universal understanding that putting an engine under a moderate load early in its life can help the piston rings to seat and create the best seal they can. Failure of piston ring seating means an engine that burns a lot of oil all its life. When the cylinder walls are new there is a finite amount of time for the rings to dig in and make their home, if it doesn't happen and the piston walls glaze without the rings settling in there is nothing you can do shy of taking it all apart and honing the walls to try to roughen them up again.

The book says don't tow until at least 600 miles are on it. I had a 2000 pound boat hitched to mine at about 620 miles and towed it carefully to nearby lakes and it seems to have worked out for me, but it could be totally unrelated too, remember this is anecdotal. A trailer is not necessarily required to create the moderate loads that certain engine builders recommend for engine break-in.

The last bit of my two-cents would be to not put anything cooky into your oil, ever, and don't play games with the viscosity pretending you know more about oil and this engine's lubrication needs than the dozens of engineers who designed and refined this motor. The 2nd gen Compass is "New" in the sense that it is a "New Combination" of all of FCA's same parts they have had on hand for years. This 2.4L motor they have had for a long, long time and although they keep tweaking it like with the Multiaire II intake system the core of it is pretty much unchanged, and they know what oil is best for it. Putting "thicker" oil into it is NOT a solution if you happen to have one of the unlucky oil burners. Goofy things like Slick50 and other friction modifiers do NOT belong in a new engine. If you want your piston rings to fail to seat putting a few ounces of friction modifier in would do it almost for sure, and there are a lot of people out there who think they are doing their car some big favor or setting it up to last for a million miles by sneaking some funny stuff in right away when its brand new. Some have had some seeming success playing that game but a lot of others have not.

Ok I've more than typed enough for everyone to be good and sick of my know-it-all platitudes, I'm off to throw my two cents around on another forum for a bit. Good luck with your new Compass!
arudlang is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 07:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 386
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
This engine produces nearly the same horsepower as engines with nearly two liters of additional displacement did in the early 2000's, and gets significantly better fuel economy.
Lol this is why I laugh when people say new Compass feels under powered, cant move its body, wont be able to go up hill off-road (yes I heard this). My 2006 Jeep GC has 230HP an that is a massive 4.7V8 on a 4700lb car. Compass has 180HP on a 3600lb car. So basically both cars have ~20HPs per lb. IF you go another 10 years back to 1995ish models, there are engines like 5.2L V8 that produced 220HP and a 5.9L V8 that produced 245HP. Lol there is even the AMC 1991 5.9L V8 that produced 144HP. I am not even going to talk about how inefficient transmissions and powertrain components were back then and even less power made it to the road.

So like you said, 2.4 multiair produces two times the power of an engine of its size from 10 years ago and even more if you go 20 years back. Yet some how it is under powered and cant move the car. I guess all the cars people were driving 10-20 years ago was under powered and were barely able to move. Since speed limits are practically the same, I dont see why would it even matter that much.
84z28 likes this.
Tripod is online now  
post #7 of 11 Old 10-20-2018, 02:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Two locations in NH: One near Concord, the other at the 45th.
Posts: 674
 
I just checked my oil this morning and I've used almost a quart in just over 2000 miles, so I'm probably getting 2200 mi/qt. My previous Patriot 2.4 used less than that even approaching 300,000 miles. I was using a quart between oil changes, c5000 miles.

Yes, there are trade-offs in everything. If you want more power and better fuel economy then you've got to burn some oil. That's apparently just the way it is.

My first car was a Ford Falcon (1960) with a 144CID I-6. Do the math and you'll discover in liters its a 2.4 -- same size as our Compasses. Fuel economy was marginally better -- I could manage the low 30s most of the time, but it only produced 85hp. Acceleration was glacial and hills required 2nd gear reducing my top end to 30MPH. Just imagine me doing 30MPH up that long hill coming south into Connecticut on I-84. The engine going putt-putt-putt, and the transmission humming along with the radio. If it was raining the vacuum wipers wouldn't work if accelerating at all, so when visibility got totally obscured I'd snap my foot off the gas long enough for the wipers to take a swipe. Of course I'd lose 1MPH that I wouldn't get back till I'd crested the hill. If I had to snap my foot off the gas a couple times on that hill, I'd be down to 25MPH. However, on the level the little thing could manage 90MPH. My driving style was to scream down the hills and gain enough momentum that I could maintain a crawl at the top of the next one.

No, it didn't have ESC, ABS, aribags, or even seat belts. Safety was up to me. I had that little creature for three years, never had an accident, never got a ticket (a judge would have laughed it out of court), it got me through college and never let me down.

Those were the good old days. Thanks for letting me reminisce.
arudlang likes this.

Last edited by Jasmine; 10-22-2018 at 12:00 AM.
Jasmine is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 10-22-2018, 04:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 758
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod
So like you said, 2.4 multiair produces two times the power of an engine of its size from 10 years ago and even more if you go 20 years back. Yet some how it is under powered and cant move the car. I guess all the cars people were driving 10-20 years ago was under powered and were barely able to move.
I will say, on the other side of the coin, while these engines are making comparable horsepower they are not making anywhere near the torque figures of older, bigger engines, and that's what hurts the most and gives the under-powered reputation. Torque is required for good acceleration, we have the horsepower of older V6 engines but lack at least 100 ft lbs of torque on them, and this is what people notice when they stomp their foot down on the go-pedal. Its the reason these vehicles have to downshift for the slightest hill and its a big part of why we have umpteen gears now instead of four, you really need to be able to have a good selection of gears to make the best use of a small amount of torque.

I'd like to say its worth the loss in torque to get the better fuel economy but the sad scam is that they HAVE engines that do both, we just don't get them due to cost and how they want to position their vehicles to compete with each-other and the competition. Look at the Chrysler 300, it weighs at least 500 pounds more than a Compass, potentially upwards of 1000 pounds more, yet with the 3.6L V6 it gets virtually the same highway mileage as a Compass while providing 292 HP and 260 lb-ft of smile-inducing torque.

Can you imagine how formidable the Compass would be with 292 horse and 260 lb-ft of torque??? It would be an incredible machine, and all the while it would get pretty much exactly the same fuel economy it does with the 4 cylinder

They could do it so easily too. Competitors are using the same ZF 9-Speed transmissions with V6 engines producing similar power as the 3.6L, and even within FCA's lineup you have the Cherokee using either the same 2.4L we have OR the 3.2L version of the V6 on the same transmission. There is no technical obstacle here, just money and marketing politics

Ah well, thats enough ranting about what we could have had. Don't even get me started on the turbo 4 cylinders they could have used...

There are things to love about the 2.4L, like its simplicity, durability, and low cost. Its a solid little motor, and they could not have brought the new Compass to market with a V6 option at the price levels we enjoy now.
Tripod likes this.
arudlang is offline  
post #9 of 11 Old 10-22-2018, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 386
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arudlang View Post
I will say, on the other side of the coin, while these engines are making comparable horsepower they are not making anywhere near the torque figures of older, bigger engines, and that's what hurts the most and gives the under-powered reputation. Torque is required for good acceleration, we have the horsepower of older V6 engines but lack at least 100 ft lbs of torque on them, and this is what people notice when they stomp their foot down on the go-pedal. Its the reason these vehicles have to downshift for the slightest hill and its a big part of why we have umpteen gears now instead of four, you really need to be able to have a good selection of gears to make the best use of a small amount of torque.

I'd like to say its worth the loss in torque to get the better fuel economy but the sad scam is that they HAVE engines that do both, we just don't get them due to cost and how they want to position their vehicles to compete with each-other and the competition. Look at the Chrysler 300, it weighs at least 500 pounds more than a Compass, potentially upwards of 1000 pounds more, yet with the 3.6L V6 it gets virtually the same highway mileage as a Compass while providing 292 HP and 260 lb-ft of smile-inducing torque.

Can you imagine how formidable the Compass would be with 292 horse and 260 lb-ft of torque??? It would be an incredible machine, and all the while it would get pretty much exactly the same fuel economy it does with the 4 cylinder

They could do it so easily too. Competitors are using the same ZF 9-Speed transmissions with V6 engines producing similar power as the 3.6L, and even within FCA's lineup you have the Cherokee using either the same 2.4L we have OR the 3.2L version of the V6 on the same transmission. There is no technical obstacle here, just money and marketing politics

Ah well, thats enough ranting about what we could have had. Don't even get me started on the turbo 4 cylinders they could have used...

There are things to love about the 2.4L, like its simplicity, durability, and low cost. Its a solid little motor, and they could not have brought the new Compass to market with a V6 option at the price levels we enjoy now.
I really wished that we had the 2.0 turbo diesel engine. It is already offered in EU market. It has 170 horsepower at 3,750 rpm and 280 lb-ft of torque @1,750 rpm. FCA also have a 2.2 turbo diesel that produces 197HP and 320 lb-ft of torque and a 5 cylinder 2.4 turbo diesel that produces 207HP and 295lb-ft of torque. These engines would have been a dream, but for now it is only used in Alfa Romeos. Both engines probably also have higher MPG than gas engines as well.
arudlang likes this.

Last edited by Tripod; 10-22-2018 at 09:15 PM.
Tripod is online now  
post #10 of 11 Old 10-23-2018, 12:54 AM
Senior Member
 
RadRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 100
 
Garage
While I'm getting used to the 4 cylinder, I definitely wish they would have brought a turbo-diesel option. I traded my grand Cherokee EcoDiesel in on this; it had an amazing 410ftlb of torque and got the same gas mileage as the Compass. It also weighed 1300lbs more.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
arudlang likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2018 Jeep Compass Lattitude - Billet Silver, 4x4
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, EcoDiesel - GONE
RadRacer is offline  
post #11 of 11 Old 10-23-2018, 04:41 PM
Senior Member
 
joninpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Northampton County, PA
Posts: 136
 
turn up the radio

'18 Compass 4x4 Sport 6-speed manual
joninpa is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Compass Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome