Thank you, RUBICON for at least looking at the HHD info, Something MARK H obviously didn't bother to do...

MARK H the only thing you can K.I.S.S. is my @.$.$

You have alot of nerve and obviously only 2 brain cells to alledge that I have a 'financial stake' in HHD technology. That would be impossible to do, by the way, as the E.P.A., a governmental agency, owns the rights to the technology, and you can't invest in the E.P.A., this you would have known if you had actually gotten off your L.O.M.A. @$$ and done a google search.

And as far as proven technology goes, HHD in a simpler form is and has been in use in the tractor industry to provide front axle power to farm tractors.

JEEP also tested a version of HHD around 1998. It was deemed unstoppable back then. It didnt use the Accumulator and Resivoir tanks, just direct Hydraulic Drive, so there was no hybrid effect.
We don't see it in use right now because without the hybrid effect, it didn't have any real world advantages over a conventional tranny, until now.

Nonetheless, the HHD technology is not new, just being applied in a new area.

And, like RUBICON stated HHD is being promoted with clean diesel by the E.P.A. (also in the research beoitch) for further economy, and as far as the HEMI goes, the HEMI would truly realize its economy porential by staying in 4 cyl mode most of the time (its called HHYYYYBBRRRIIIDDDDD) with power on tap.

Again to recap, RUBICON good, OOJ bad, Mark H bad. YJ still sux.

DCX can go a few different routes to meet the 28.1 MPG goal, but only one would be the best for Jeep owners...

1. DCX could put a more efficient engine under the hood, and put the Wrangler on a serious diet.

2. DCX could use a start-stop Hybrid system like the Saturn VUE Green Line...It is much simpler than the Prius Synergy Hybrid system, and it makes no sense for any engine to be running if the car is not accelerating, anyway.

3. A high efficency Turbo-diesel and a 6-speed transmission might come close to 28.1 MPG, but remember, the Wrangler is being tested on the EPA test loop, so CRD owners might be getting 25-30 MPG, but may not get it under the controlled conditions of the EPA exam.

4...My vote goes to the HYDRAULIC HYBRID DRIVELINE (do a google search on Hydraulic Hybrid Driveline---This is NOT the Hydraulic Launch Assist that Ford was using on it's concept F-350 a year or two ago)

In a nutshell, HHD completely eliminates the transmission and replaces it with a hydraulic pump, which is poweresd by the engine. The pump pressurizes a high pressure tank, and under acceleration, pressure is bled off to a resivoir, and in the process spins impellers to provide power to the driveshaft.

Under braking, the process is reversed, and the impellers from the driveshft recapture kinetic energy by spinning the impellers and pressurizing the high pressure tank.

The EPA Ford Expedition Demonstrator got 38 MPG with a 3.8L engine, and the Wrangelr could probably get 40 MPG with a HEMI/MDS.

This system is like a CVT with no moving parts, and infinite gear ratios, determined by the pressure flow. It requires little or no computer interaction and no heavy battery pack

If you want a HEMI under the hood, you NEED to lobby DCX to use this system on the Wrangler.

I'm all for diesels (love the torque) but consider the info in this link (under the 2007+ rules): http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.html
and here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/chapter1.html#c1_2
and here:
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A5

The new 15ppm ("S15") sulfur limits are coming into effect, mostly this year, being reduced from the now U.S. standard 500ppm ("S500") levels. That means 2 things to the consumer: 1) the price for diesel will go up (probably a lot more than the current estimates). 2) If you mistakenly burn higher sulfur diesel in a car designed with all the new MY2007+ super-whompadyne pollution controls for ultra-low sulfur fuels, you'd better reach for your checkbook... 'cause it won't be pretty.

Honda just announced that they will be bringing its European diesel engine to the US before 2010. This is the same record-breaking (speed and fuel economy) engine that powers the Euro-spec Honda Accord (known as an Acura here in the US).

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/17/honda-new-hybrid-new-diesel-engine-and-2-new-plants-in-n-a/

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040506.html

Hopefully this will force DCX's hand at releasing its 3.2L Bluetec and 4.0L V8 diesel here in the US.

From www.dot.gov:

"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 533 and 537
[Docket No. 2006- 24306]
RIN 2127-AJ61
Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks
Model Years 2008-2011
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule reforms the structure of the corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE) program for light trucks and establishes higher CAFE standards for model year (MY) 2008-2011 light trucks. Reforming the CAFE program will enable it to achieve larger fuel savings, while enhancing safety and preventing adverse economic consequences.
During a transition period of MYs 2008-2010, manufacturers may comply with CAFÉ standards established under the reformed structure (Reformed CAFE) or with standards established in the traditional way (Unreformed CAFE). This will permit manufacturers and the agency to gain experience with implementing the Reformed CAFE standards. In MY 2011, all manufacturers will be required to comply with a Reformed CAFE standard.
Under Reformed CAFE, fuel economy standards are restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint," the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy is established for each increment in footprint.
Smaller footprint light trucks have higher targets and larger ones, lower targets. A particular manufacturer's compliance obligation for a model year will be calculated as the harmonic average of the fuel economy targets for the manufacturer’s vehicles, weighted by the distribution of manufacturer's production volumes among the footprint increments. Thus, each manufacturer will be required to comply with a single overall average fuel economy level for each model year of production...."


If you read the last paragraph, it may begin to explain why Jeep is introducing so many new crossover vehicles, and why the patriot and compass have such small, er, efficient, engines. All this talk about watering down the Jeep legacy may actually be Jeep trying to maintain the Jeep Wrangler Legacy for future generations.

It isn't so much the miles per gallon but the cost per gallon that gets me.

I want to know who came up with this figure:

Still, federal studies find, meeting the higher fuel targets will add perhaps $35 to $40 to the cost of the vehicle.

I wish they would indicate what technology can be used to raise the EPA rating of a Wrangler by 12 MPG and only costs $35 to $40 per vehicle. It would pay for itself in the first few tanks of gasoline.

I don't know....It seems that basing fuel consumption on the footprint of a vehicle without regard to its weight is unfair. Wranglers are heavy for their footprint size for a very good reason. They have to be engineered to actually go offroad whereas an escape just has to have some of the looks but none of the capability. I hope every wrangler owner wants a diesel, because I don't see any other way to maintain the wranglers abilities without going entirely diesel.

Something doesn't smell right. If the average Wrangler gets 28mpg by 2011, I'll hacksaw one by hand and eat it with ketchup on national television. That ain't gonna happen. I agree, the 3.8L was not a big enough "jump". Give me the new 255HP 275ft-lbs 4.0 V6 or the HEMI and a 30 gallon tank! Screw the MPGs; give me HP & torque. Burn, dinosaurs guts, burn! Remember, it's not how many MPG you get between fill-ups, it's how quick you get there that counts. If you want good MPG go buy a Prius. Vrrrrrrrrroooooooommm!

good, im glad that someone is making jeep step it up and get smart with their engine, because the 3.8 isn't near a big enough step up from its predecessor. Odds are with the new regulations, jeep will have to roll in another engine very soon, and i don't understand why all the complication with the disel when mercedez is very close ties with chrystler, yet chrystler won't use one of their disels for the jeep.