US Diesel Liberty Sales Double That of Original Plan
22 March 2006
|
| The 2006 Liberty |
Chrysler has sold almost 10,000 of the Jeep Liberty CRD since it appeared in showrooms in early 2005—double the expected number. The Liberty CRD is the first diesel-powered mid-sized sport-utility vehicle sold in the US.
Sales of the diesel model represent approximately 6% of total Liberty brand sales during the period since introduction.
Chrysler fills the Liberty with B5 (5% biodiesel) when it leaves the assembly plant in Toledo, Ohio. The biodiesel fuel is made from Ohio soybeans, refined at the Peter Cremer facility in Cincinnati.
The 2005 Jeep Liberty CRD, equipped with a 2.8-liter, four-cylinder, turbo common-rail diesel engine, offers 21% better fuel economy compared to a comparable gasoline-powered Liberty (3.7-liter, V-6 engine).
VM Motori provides the engine, an enhanced version of the four-cylinder diesel engine currently offered on this vehicle in Europe. VM Motori is owned in part by Detroit Diesel, a DaimlerChrysler company. VM has been supplying the Chrysler Group diesel engines since 1992 for minivans and Jeep products sold in Europe.
The 2.8-liter CRD engine delivers 160 hp (120 kW) and 295 lb-ft (400 Nm) of torque at 1,800 rpm, with 22 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, for a combined EPA rating of 23 mpg.
Modern turbodiesels make a lot of sense for large, heavy vehicles that tend to be used for longer trips (range is huge). The technology is proven in Europe, low-end torque is superb and maintenance overheads lower than for comparable gasoline engines. Driving a turbocharged vehicle still takes a little getting used to, although turbo lag has been greatly reduced by variable turbine geometry and reduced rotor mass. An auxiliary electric oil pump that runs even after the engine is cut avoids coke formation in the rotor bearings.
The switch to ultra-low sulphur diesel this coming fall would theoretically permit the addition of a particulate filter. If you're in the market for a diesel vehicle, ask your dealer when that will become available or if there will be an opportunity for a retrofit. Not having one could affect your resale value down the road.
This vehicle does meet current EPA but not CA emissions (which apply in CA, NY, MA, VT, ME). More here:
http://www.greencar.com/index.cfm?content=features34
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 22 March 2006 at 02:40 PM
Maybe the Jeep "Prisoner" might be a better name. They mileage, but Consumer Report's found the actual numbers to be an appalling 50% of the EPA figures.
The EPA rating is 22 mpg. Consumer Reports found reality to be an appalling 11 mpg.
That story is here:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/cu_gas_mileage.html
Posted by: Rudy Walton | 22 March 2006 at 03:30 PM
Actually, Consumer reports seems to drive all cars poorly. They got a combined 44 MPG in a prius and I think they did very badly in city driving (35 MPG) which is horrible. My combined avg is 49.7 MPG and I have a short, hilly commute. No summer miles on the car yet either. Take the consumer reports mileage with a grain of salt. Think of it as a low end/worst case scenario.
Posted by: Tripp Bisop | 22 March 2006 at 04:52 PM
That's nice. But I can't buy one in California. I just tried to build one on Jeep's web site, and it's not even giving me diesel as an option.
I'd love to buy one of these and run biodiesel in it. But I can't. Our clean air regs are far too restrictive in California. If I really want a diesel I have to buy used and 20 years old.
We need less regulation, not more.
Posted by: Cervus | 22 March 2006 at 06:20 PM
CR sucks. The EPA test is scientific and accurate. The CR test is almost reactionary. Its not scientific because it relies on driver input. There are too many uncontrolled variables.
So your car does not get the EPA rating? Most of the time thats because the way you drive it. Rarly it can be a defective car but its not because the design is incapable of meeting the EPA rating .
Yes I would like to see the EPA mpg test be updated, but I want it to be as accurate and scientific as it is today. Drive 60mph on level ground and you should get pretty close to the EPA rating of your car or HIGHER.
Posted by: Hampden Wireless | 22 March 2006 at 07:41 PM
My experience with the EPA numbers has not been bad. I still drive an aging Town Car that I bought off my parents while I was in college, and when driven intelligently it gets within +0.5/-1 mpg of its predicted highway economy (25 mpg) and +1/-2 of its predicted city economy (18 mpg). There are no great secrets: accelerate gently, coast intelligently, anticipate red lights, and keep up with the the oil, tire pressure, tuning, etc. That being said, when I drive with most of my friends, I notice that their habits are not nearly as efficient as they could be.
The EPA might be well advised to adjust its testing criteria to accomodate for real world habits. At the same time, by doing that we would lose the chance to know precisely how good the mileage of any givern car could be, within the technical contraints of a city-like environment. That is; the numbers currently tell us what a good driver could get. They do not tell use what most drivers get. Personally, I think both things are worth knowing.
Also, their highway cycle could be made a bit more realistic. An average speed of 48 mph, with virtually no time spent above 60, does not account for the fact that many highways now have speed limits of 65 mph, meaning drivers regularly cruise at 70. I tend to cruise at around 55 mph, which is why my numbers are so close, but I know that when I'm doing 71 mph down the New York thruway the wind resistance goes way up and my economy drops several points.
See: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
Posted by: NBK-Boston | 22 March 2006 at 10:43 PM
EPA is in the process updating its test procedures to provide more accurate fuel economy decals. This would not immediately impact CAFE and the gas guzzler tax, for which the current estimation method would continue to be used (i.e. there would be two sets of fuel conomy numbers). The latter programs are administered by the Dept. of Transportation and the IRS, respectively. The status of the EPA proposal is unclear.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 23 March 2006 at 12:20 AM
Cervus, I think CA's clean air regs are fine. The air quality from diesel fumes here in the UK is truly bad, almost physically sickening, when walking down a traffic filled street (Europe has a high percentage of diesel cars). If only every car here was ZEV or P-ZEV!
Posted by: JN2 | 23 March 2006 at 02:33 AM
I was behind a Liberty CRD the other day in the Washington DC area, and I was a bit dissappointed in what I saw. Every time the driver began to accelerate, puffs of black smoke came from under the vehicle. Maybe something was wrong with the vehicle, but I was under the impression that diesel technology had a handle on this particulate emission problem.
Posted by: Brett | 23 March 2006 at 04:32 AM
Remember the EPA's Shared Mileage Database of real-world, consumer, results:
Gasoline, 6 Cylinder, 3.7 Liter, Automatic (4 speed)
Number of Vehicles: 7
Average User MPG: 14.2
Range: 10 - 19 MPG
Diesel, 4 Cylinder, 2.8 Liter, Automatic (5 speed)
Number of Vehicles: 10
Average User MPG: 22.4
Range: 19 - 28 MPG
That's not Prius territory, but it is an improvement.
Posted by: odograph | 23 March 2006 at 06:53 AM
Oh, another point of comparison:
Subaru Forester AWD
Gasoline, 4 Cylinder, 2.5 Liter, Manual (5 speed)
Number of Vehicles: 3
Average User MPG: 27.8
Range: 25 - 31 MPG
(all the cars I've listed are 2005 models)
Posted by: odograph | 23 March 2006 at 06:54 AM
I'm not sure why you added the Forester for comparison, it's in a totally different class.
Posted by: James | 23 March 2006 at 08:57 AM
Jeep:
Total Interior volume (cu ft): 103.8
Cargo, Rear Seat Up: 29.0 cu. ft.
Cargo, Rear Seat Folded Down: 69.0 cu. ft.
Subaru:
Total Interior volume (cu ft): 93.5
Cargo, Rear Seat Up: 29.6 cu. ft.
Cargo, Rear Seat Folded Down: 56.4 cu. ft.
Posted by: odograph | 23 March 2006 at 10:21 AM
JN2:
My point is that too much regulation does more harm than good. The only diesel cars offered in California are from VW, and the modifications needed to meet the regs negatively impacts fuel efficiency. Whatever market there would be for new diesel cars is effecitely squashed by over-regulation.
Since there is effectely no passenger car diesel market, the market for biodiesel is limited to semi trucks. Now, this is a sizable market. But not as large as the passenger car market would be.
Because the regs require expensive additions like urea injection over and above the premium that diesels already command, people will stay with gasoline.
Posted by: Cervus | 23 March 2006 at 12:03 PM
That's not a problem of over regulation, it's a problem of the wrong regulation.
Posted by: James | 23 March 2006 at 12:05 PM
The forester is the perfect example why we don't need diesels. Its a more efficient design from the get go that outperforms the brick like diesel Jeep. None of us need diesels in our daily commute. Any fuel economy savings from diesel could be acomplished by using more efficient aerodynamics and drive train.
Posted by: Justin | 24 March 2006 at 01:45 AM
The forrester would not be as good off road as the Jeep. Simple fact.
Justin, larger vehicles bennifit from the low end torque a diesel provides.
Posted by: James | 24 March 2006 at 03:29 AM
That's where you get into details James, and where we think about the target audience(s). If you really want to tow something, or go truly off road, the diesel Jeep is much better.
But I think a lot of citty/road drivers could benefit from looking at both, before buying.
(Most city folks think they are "off road" when they are on graded gravel.)
Posted by: odograph | 24 March 2006 at 06:51 AM
People who buy SUVs are not going to stop buying SUVs because us tree hugging hippie types tell them not to. So any way of making SUVs cleaner, more efficient and safer are a good thing.
Posted by: James | 27 March 2006 at 02:51 AM
Justin, if you take your argument to it's extreme it would be rediculous - we don't need Foresters when we have Civics... We don't need Civics when we have motorcycles... We don't need motorcycles when we have mopeds... It's like the guy that criticized me for driving a 14MPG Chevy Blazer when he drove a Miata. Problem for him was that I lived next to work and filled my tank maybe once a month, while he drove in 40 minutes every day :)
Posted by: Ray | 28 March 2006 at 03:00 PM
I've had a Jeep Liberty Limited CRD for a month. Currently, the computer says I'm getting an average 24.1 mpg, and that has been climbing steadily through the week. I spend half my time in city driving and the other half on the highway each day. (Note that's time, not distance.)
The secret is to not drive stupidly (like a Consumer Reports vehicle tester), and to use the cruise control on the highway. Stand on the gas and the mpg goes down. It is not brain surgery.
Posted by: Ken | 28 March 2006 at 10:58 PM
Endeavour Development can help you developing your business plan, strategy, action plan, and implementing your sales program in the electrical vehicles business.
Posted by: Keltbraz | 23 March 2007 at 10:56 AM