Catasstrophic converters and MPG???

[RMVette]

Originally Posted by Rodnok1

Friend's Jimmy is 6 banger and gets horrible mileage... 13 to 15 around the town and not much better on highway.

I had a 2000 Jeep Cherokee years ago with their age old 4L six and it got horrible mileage no matter how I drove it, but it was a bullet proof engine.

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by RMVette

I had a 2000 Jeep Cherokee years ago with their age old 4L six and it got horrible mileage no matter how I drove it, but it was a bullet proof engine.

The 1980's through 2000's 4.0 straight six is a gas hog, but also a torque monster and bulletproof. Excellent engines for their intended use (4x4 Jeep SUV workhorse).

[RMVette]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

The 1980's through 2000's 4.0 straight six is a gas hog, but also a torque monster and bulletproof. Excellent engines for their intended use (4x4 Jeep SUV workhorse).

Agreed.

[Rodnok1]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

Number of cylinders don't really gauge mileage. The old 305 CID GMC V6 was a torque monster but pretty much a pig on fuel. My friend's 490 CID 4 cylinder National is no fuel sipper, either. Our old V8 powered Grand Marquis got over twice the MPG's ....more like 3 times.

Again, the OP needs to dump the current turd while it still runs and drives, because it won't shortly.

I agree but people automatically equate less cylinders with better mileage.
We picked that Jimmy up almost for nothing as a backup vehicle or snowing only driver so mileage wasn't a concern.

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by Rodnok1

I agree but people automatically equate less cylinders with better mileage.
We picked that Jimmy up almost for nothing as a backup vehicle or snowing only driver so mileage wasn't a concern.

I actually get the same MPG's in my 4.7 liter, 282 HP V8 '05 Tundra as I did with my 3.0 liter, 150 HP V6 4Runner. And the 4Runner had a 5 speed manual.

The Tundra loafs along, pulling grades and loads on light throttle. The 4Runner always had to be up in the powerband, down a gear or two, doing the same job. Sometimes the big engines are more economical because they simply don't have to work as hard to move the same load. Used to see this a lot in the 80's and '90's with GM pickups....the guys with the 350 engines got better performance AND mileage than the cheapskates who bought the 305 for 'economy'.