Karl on Cars - 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited CRD 3.0 Diesel

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited CRD 3.0 Diesel

The 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3.0-liter V6 common-rail diesel is rated at 17/22 mpg. To be honest, I'm not overly impressed with those numbers, but on our Limited 4x4 model the diesel engine package only costs $1,655. For that money you not only get the diesel engine (215 hp/376 lb-ft torque), but you also get a larger fuel tank (22 versus 20 gallons), a stronger battery (800 amp), Dana 44 rear axle, engine block heater and additional body insulation (to shut out the engine's increased noise).

To put some meat on those numbers let's examine what "going diesel" costs you and what it gets you. At $1,655 you spend an additional 4.2 percent over the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited's MSRP of $38,555 to go diesel. But the 17/22 mileage figures with this engine are 18 percent better than the 14/19 figures you get from the standard 4.7-liter V8 (19.5 mpg average versus 16.5 mpg average). Towing capacity is also higher with the diesel than the 4.7-liter V8, at 7,400 pounds versus 6,500 pounds (that's a 13 percent increase for the math wizards out there).

So, if you drive 15,000 miles a year, and regular fuel costs 3.50 a gallon, your annual fuel bill is $3,182. If you drive those same 15,000 miles with the CRD diesel, and diesel costs $4 a gallon, your annual fuel bill is $3,076. That's almost a wash, but theoretically that $106 a year means it would take 15.6 years to pay for the diesel engine option.

Another factor to consider is refueling frequency (and associated time). If your time is money, and the diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee goes 429 miles on a tank (19.5 mpg x 22 gallons) versus 330 for the gasoline engine (16.5 x 20 gallons), then you'll be filling up approximately 10 more times a year. At 10 minutes a fill up that's 100 minutes a year. If you make somewhere between $30 and $50 ð °“z¿§?8fÏ?§ËW?§¯Y?§ß"Z?§9!\?§ü^?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@1
2007 Infiniti G35s: On the trackÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@` ƒâ
PÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 8f9!E?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@P`m{P€!t%ª
`
forum-responseÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ @pÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ€P ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÀPÐ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿðPÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿP ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿPÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

68.56.206.127ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

.eea5e1e/6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ðÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ €t%Ö$ ÀÀÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 8f??§Ë5?§¯7?§ß"8?§9!:?§ü>?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@
httpÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ möÏìG
71.236.207.246ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

.eea5e1e/7ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Àðÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ^ê8fZC?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@
forum-responseÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
.eea5e1e/11ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ p ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@PPÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`Pp ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿp8f?§cZ®eR?§£T?§gÅ?§bU?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@
text/htmlÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ m€t%[{ö
httpÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ m4Ø
216.143.52.4ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
.eea5e1e/10ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ^ê

forum-responseÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 8f×?§cûeÓ?§£?§ge?§bÕ?§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@Œ
{WOO!!! SPRING BREAK!!

Technically, The C300 and cts replaced the G35.

Hey is the c300 ok? Its

Posted by Karl Apr 2, 2008 6:00 am

Permalink

Categories: Jeep | Fuel Efficiency

Comments

firstwagon - Apr 2, 2008 7:33 am (#1 Total: 13)

I like to see a real world comparsion between two Grand Cherokees, one diesel and one Hemi.

I saw a short magazine comparsion and thier diesel gat 21 mpg while the hemi got 14. Since diesel is cheaper then gas where I live, that's a huge advantage.

rick8365 - Apr 2, 2008 8:37 am (#2 Total: 13)

The big issue here seems to be the ridiculous price of diesel fuel vs gas. I cannot believe that after wanting and waiting for diesels to become available here that now they are coming and we have this inexplicably large price differential. Diesel doesn't have to be cheaper, just in the same ballpark as gas and the advantages show through.

I'd like to see a real world comparo of the 4.7 and the CRD .... the 4.7 routinely gets poor mileage in the real world scenario (even if it's better than it was). I'll bet the CRD does better than rated and the 4.7 worse. 17 / 22 isn't really that impressive and I'm a little suprised by it - I imagine it wouldn't be hard to get more out of it than that.

hoops26 - Apr 2, 2008 9:31 am (#3 Total: 13)

I'm surprised the diesel option only costs $1655. The Cummins diesel in the Dodge Ram 2500 is $6100, and another $1500 if you want an automatic transmission. I'm willing to bet they are losing money on the Jeep. (or they're making less way less money on it since the gas version is so overpriced anyways)

Unfortunately, I think the days of new diesels getting significantly better mileage is over considering today's tailpipe regulations. With the price of diesel fuel and the insane price for the diesel engine option (both expensive probably because of the govt. exhaust regulations) the only people who will purchase the diesel engine option are those wanting the additional benefits of diesel. (Additional towing capacity, longer range, torque)

It really sucks as a diesel F150 in 2004 would have been great mileage wise. By 2010 it will probably only be slightly better MPG wise than the gasoline counterpart, but much more expensive.

aspade - Apr 2, 2008 9:40 am (#4 Total: 13)

One of the weakest points of the gas powered Jeep is the range between fillups. The mileage of a fullsize truck and the gas tank of a Ranger combine for the fuel light coming on every three hours on the highway.

Getting another 100 miles per tank shouldn't cost $1600 - it should be addressed with a gas tank commensurate with the vehicles mileage and cost $16 for the extra sheet metal - but a bad bandaid is still better than nothing.

rick8365 - Apr 2, 2008 10:42 am (#5 Total: 13)

hoops - I agree that the option seems cheap.....I think if you price a Ford or GM truck the diesel/auto package is about what you say the Dodge is. But, I think Mercedes offers the diesel option at no additional charge on the E and M class (maybe some others as well - G & R?) which makes them quite tempting and makes one wonder why it's so expensive in some vehicles.

pjungnitsch - Apr 2, 2008 11:34 am (#6 Total: 13)

I wonder how the maintenance costs compare. My brother bought a GMC HD diesel last year (especially before the complicated new pollution controls came out) and and has still been unpleasantly surprised by the servicing costs. The water separator-fuel filter for one, IIRC.

blackadder5639 - Apr 2, 2008 11:34 am (#7 Total: 13)

Karl, like I said in your previous post, I think the fuel economy advantages of diesel engines would be appreciated mostly by commercial users or owners who drive a lot. For the typical use, the fuel economy advantage seems too low to be worth it. That's why I think diesels should be marketed to highlight fuel economy AND their other advantages.

hoops26, could you provide a bit of a brief engineering lesson: why and how to increasingly stringent emissions requirements affect fuel economy of diesels? Thanks in advance.....

bepperb - Apr 2, 2008 12:34 pm (#8 Total: 13)

Right, the "stringent emissions requirements" don't change the fact that a gallon of Diesel contains more energy than a gallon of Gasoline. It is because of this that they will always get better mileage. Some of the new technologies to meet these requirements also work to increase efficiency, like high pressure common rail injection systems.

Anyway, I'm just glad this didn't morph into a discussion about the price of diesel, and wild assumptions about it (see yesterday's discussion)

hoops26 - Apr 2, 2008 1:06 pm (#9 Total: 13)

black - As part of meeting the govt. Tier II standards, vehicles sold after 1/1/07 must meet the appropriate levels of hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and nitrous oxide levels etc. One way of doing this is using a diesel particluate filter (DPF) in the vehicle's exhaust system. This filter reduces nitrous oxide and hydrocarbon levels, while "catching" diesel particulate matter. After a few thousand miles, this filter either needs to be repalced or cleaned. Ford, GM, and Dodge chose the cleaning method. To clean the filter you either need to use a catalyst, or make the engine run in such a way to create extremely high exhaust temperatures, and burn the particulate matter away. This filter is supposed to last 100,000 -150,000 miles.

So not only are the 2008+ vehicles burning extra fuel to push the exhaust gases through the DPF, they are using extra fuel to clean the DPF.

Some vehicles will be using a urea injection system soon to help meet these diesel regulations. I'm not sure if that will help fuel economy, but it definitely addes cost and complexity.

The end result is no more black sooty tailpipes on diesel trucks.

texases - Apr 2, 2008 1:18 pm (#10 Total: 13)

While it's a $1,600 sticker price difference, I wonder what transaction prices are? I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the gasser (take my Cherokee, please!) and the diesel (very special, don't you know) is much more than $1,600.

One other thing - diesels get better mileage both because of the higher energy content of the fuel and the much higher compression ratios they run.

ahightower - Apr 3, 2008 9:12 am (#11 Total: 13)

Texas

Ditto, the diesels will probably sell closer to sticker, stretching that 15.6 year pay-off to about 25...

jeepowner5 - Apr 4, 2008 12:12 pm (#12 Total: 13)

I recently purchased a 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 3.0L Diesel.
When the fuel tank is between 3/4 to full, and you are stopping or backing up and stop abruptly, you hear a knock/clunk in the rear of the vehicle. We were told by service that this is "normal" and that it is the fuel swishing around in the tank and making that knock sound. Has anyone else been experiencing this knock?

drjeckles - Apr 15, 2008 8:19 am (#13 Total: 13)

I have a 2007 CRD and I too am hearing the clunk. It is not the fuel hitting the tank! I am wondering if it is either the fuel pump/fuel gage assembly knocking against something or something in the drive train. (as an engineer and an expert mechanic, I can say that a clunk is not caused by liquid hitting the tank but by some solid object knocking against another or taking up some slack or looseness).

I have heard this since buying the car and haven't gotten around to bringing it in yet and asking about it. I only have around 7,500 miles on my car and am otherwise very happy with it.

I have the 2 WD version and currently get around 22 commuting in rush hour traffic and much better on long trips (depending upon how carefully I drive). While I have never seen the 30 mpg that is possible with this vehicle, I have not really tried to drive a bit slower and more carefully (slow acceleration and anticipating every slowdown & stop), i fully believe that it is very capable of that figure if I really needed it.

Acceleration wise, while there is a bit of a lag (turbo lag?), this vehicle can probably out accelerate a large percentage of "performance cars" on the road today.