My Jeep Compass Forum banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
What method/formula do you use to calculate fuel use/mileage?
i started off with a calculator, then some fuely
it all points to the onboard mpg within a few tenths

so i am only using the onboard now

i do a quick math check at each fillup in my head
(335.x miles/ 9.7xx gallons) is close enough to 33.5mpg for me (its actually 34.5)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
I've been averaging 23-25 all winter, but, I like to remote start it up 12 minutes before I leave for my 9 minute drive to work :devil: I mean hey, its parked outside (no room in the garage) and its northern Minnesota, hella cold here in the winter mornings!

I also remote start it a good 5-10 minutes before I leave work. So I basically have it idling nearly 50% of the time, and still get mid 20s no problem. In the summer usually around 28 for daily driving, and it easily claims 29-32 on any road trips.

Personal best short-run is still this 138 mile trip back in June to a larger city north of home, conditions were pretty much perfect and I was in no hurry, rural rolling 55 MPH roads (but obviously averaging more like 60 MPH). Good chance I drafted a truck or something for a good part of it, can't remember now. Seems like it held 40 MPG for the first leg but I must have gotten impatient at some point to drop it down to 38 grin:

According to those values, you average speed was ~53 MPH (138/2.6). It think it is pretty reasonable to get that MPG on a flat surface at that speed. You can get close to 40mpg at 50mph. If you get a slight tail wind, it is even better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
Tripod said:
According to those values, you average speed was ~53 MPH
That sounds about right, have to pass through several towns where the speed limit dips to 30 mph so that would drag the overall average down for sure. Outside of the towns, highway cruising I usually aim for about 60 MPH but if I was drafting a big semi truck then I would have settled for whatever he was doing. Can't remember now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.


Can you have a manual car with electric motors? That combination seems a bit strange to me since electric motors don’t use transmissions and having a car with both electric motor and manual transmission would need the driver to put the gear in neutral (or drive with clutch fully pressed) while only using electric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
Tripod said:
Can you have a manual car with electric motors? That combination seems a bit strange to me
Sure you can, it all just depends on how they implement it. My 2011 Honda CRZ I used to have was a 6 speed manual hybrid and, although it was a poor winter weather car for northern mn, man do I miss driving that car in the summer. It had such a beautifully simply hybrid system. All they did was replace the traditional flywheel with a high-power brushless motor on a basic 1.5L naturally aspirated SOHC motor. Let me tell you, that combo worked GREAT. Gas mileage of a tiny 4 cylinder, power of a small V6, in a small light car. It was so much fun to throw around, and I averaged 46-48 MPG with it under constant aggressive driving. 50 MPG was easy to obtain if driven more lightly.

There was no plugin for that car. All your electricity came from engine braking or light cruising, during which time the brushless motor became a generator. That was actually much easier to do with a manual vs automatic, and I saved big time on brake pads since the brushless-motor-turned-generator did a fair share of the work to slow down the car if I wanted it to. If I wanted to coast instead I just put it in neutral.

Yep, I would say depending on how they design the system it can be better to have a manual paired with a hybrid system. But there are many other ways to put an electric motor in the mix, and the CRZ IMA system (Integrated Motor Assist) did have its caveats, such as no option to drive on purely electrical power alone.

------------------------------------------------------------------

eric said:
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD
Its alright but I had my hopes up that they would just place a beefy brushless electric motor in the center of the car where the two sections of driveshaft meet. Throw in clutch or two, you would have the options to:
1) assist the front axle gas motor combo during normal acceleration
2) assist both front and rear axles equally during heavy acceleration, starting a heavy towing load, rock crawling, etc
3) drive the rear wheels independently for short periods as your 30ish mile range "EV mode"
All the while retaining true AWD capability even if the electric motor system fails, and probably most important to me the ability to send gas engine power to the rear wheels which is important to me for the way I use my Jeep.

When I'm pulling our 2000+ lb boat back up out of the lake on a wet, steep ramp I want real engine power being sent to every wheel, especially the rears where two or three hundred pounds of tongue weight are being applied. Pure electric rear wheels would help for taking off on snow and ice better than FWD alone but you won't ever call such a car a rock crawler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
Yep, I would say depending on how they design the system it can be better to have a manual paired with a hybrid system. But there are many other ways to put an electric motor in the mix, and the CRZ IMA system (Integrated Motor Assist) did have its caveats, such as no option to drive on purely electrical power alone.
Yeah I was questioning it more about cars that can run solely on electricity. In that case, since the power is coming from the electric motors outside from the engine and transmission, transmission will need to be put in the neutral or clutch pressed, otherwise you will basically make "engine breaking" and waste energy. Of course they can make a very simply automatic system that disengage the clutch as soon as engine shuts off and electric motors are the only source of power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
Overall, I think this is a good idea. Electric motors powering the rear wheels gives the ability to market awd without the cost associated with AWD. Helps offset the Hybrid cost.

The battery is likely sized to optimize government rebates and what people are willing to pay. 31 miles is not bad and probably similar in size to the original Chevrolet volt that received the full $7500 rebate. That got 35-39 miles of range and subtract a bit for SUV aerodynamics and higher weight.

I hope the keep the 2.4 and the manual available for those that want it. The 1.3 is auto only and the manual left the renegade lineup for 2019.
EV's should not get any gov rebate/tax credit/ect

they should be paying a tax. they pay no road tax due to not using gas
it need to be made up someplace
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
When I'm pulling our 2000+ lb boat back up out of the lake on a wet, steep ramp I want real engine power being sent to every wheel, especially the rears where two or three hundred pounds of tongue weight are being applied. Pure electric rear wheels would help for taking off on snow and ice better than FWD alone but you won't ever call such a car a rock crawler.
Completely agree such a system isn't a rock crawler. It's designed for suburban mom's who don't know what a differential is to feel better about driving in the snow when they have summer tires on.
For towing, which the right software programming coordinating the different inputs the electric motors could work very well. The electric motors provide instant acceleration and torque.
The real issue with the towing example is the 1.3L engine. With the 1.3 sent to all fours do you really want to be towing the 2,000lb boat? I'd much rather have a V6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
EV's should not get any gov rebate/tax credit/ect

they should be paying a tax. they pay no road tax due to not using gas
it need to be made up someplace
I agree it's bad policy to subsidize EVs. You are just moving emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack of a coal powerplant. You are also minining for all the chemcials needed to make the battery. Toyota has been reluctant to produce a battery electric vehicles as their home market in Japan can't support the additional electricity use (their electrical grid was strained due to a nuclear plant being down and only having so much coal capacity).

Greeness or not, the federal subsidies exist. The Republicans had a chance to remove them with the tax overall but didn't. California's separate emissions requirements require automakers to produce vehicles that don't produce emissions or buy credits from others. California also provides HOV stickers driving up demand for EVs.

FCA is likely producing an electric renegade and compass to maximize the federal and California incentives. No need to make a more expensive battery that what is required to max out incentives.
FCA is operating rationally given the regulatory environment, but I agree the regulatory environment is well intentioned but has poor policy ramifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
eric said:
I'd much rather have a V6.
Well sure but if this is the only performance upgrade they are offering in the compass, whats a guy to do? Stick with the anemic 180 HP 2.4, or go for a 240 HP gas/electric combo? They will never offer a V6 in this compass, that I am certain of.

A 1.3L would be lucky for them to bless it to 1000 lbs towing capacity. Who knows what it could really pull, but undoubtedly the official numbers will be either very low or "towing not recommended" like they did on the 1.4L Renegade.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
976 Posts
You can get 36MPG if you know how to drive efficiently. There are multiple reports of people doing it.
I'm not a committed hyper-miler, but I like to maximize my fuel economy. Too many hills and curves around here to get those max figures some of you are getting, but tonight coming back from up north I averaged 30.5 MPG doing 70MPH on the interstate. I notice that as the temps have risen above zero F and into the 30s, my fuel economy has gone up a couple MPG. :) Can't wait to get the snow tires off, but I was glad I had them this morning. Probably another month on that.

I also noticed on the last leg of the trip I dropped my speed down to 55-60MPG and I gained another 1/2 MPG. Temp and speed play a significant role.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
I also noticed on the last leg of the trip I dropped my speed down to 55-60MPG and I gained another 1/2 MPG. Temp and speed play a significant role.
yep, i dropped @ 2-3mpg during the winter

when i get on a hwy thats 65 or above it can drop more than 5 mpg

the setup on the compass seems to be best @ 55-60mph
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top