DodgeTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

mileage and suggestions for better mileage (4.7)

5K views 74 replies 16 participants last post by  2000durangoslt 
#1 ·
So I replaced my gas guzzler jeep grand cherokee with a gas guzzler dodge durango 4.7. I probably "should" have gotten something with better mileage but what fun is that?

Anyway, tips for better mileage? Talking about things that will eventually pay for themself etc.

Thanks!
 
#2 ·
BrandonMiller said:
So I replaced my gas guzzler jeep grand cherokee with a gas guzzler dodge durango 4.7. I probably "should" have gotten something with better mileage but what fun is that?

Anyway, tips for better mileage? Talking about things that will eventually pay for themself etc.

Thanks!

:cricket: :cricket: :staggering silence:

'bout the only thing that's going to get you a significant increase in MPG (maybe) is to get a CAI. I gained +2 MPG from that.

mufflers/exhaust (for the most part, maybe .1-.15 MPG better on the 4.7L if you're lucky) and of course suspension upgrades will not get you better MPG.
 
#4 ·
After doing the calculations, I figured my $268 CAI investment paid for itself in about 1300 miles. soooo now technically I should have an extra $3200 (16000 miles).... if oil prices were equal to today's.

CAI= Cold Air Intake.

Basically you remove the sound baffles and stock air box and put in an open element filter with straight tube.

Looks like the picture below.

Before the CAI I got 13/13.5 MPG. Now with all my mods and shiznit I get 15.2 regularly and if I just cruise (<65)I'll get up to 16.7/17.1.
 

Attachments

#7 ·
If you look at the air box, mine had what I can best describe as a tentacle extending from the bottom of the box into a cavity on the fender. It seemed rediculously restrictive.
 
#8 ·
BrandonMiller said:
So I replaced my gas guzzler jeep grand cherokee with a gas guzzler dodge durango 4.7. I probably "should" have gotten something with better mileage but what fun is that?

Anyway, tips for better mileage? Talking about things that will eventually pay for themself etc.

Thanks!
Yeah, keep the key in the off position and walk. LOL...
 
#10 ·
Here's a press release describing a project DC gave its staff back in 2002 to improve the Durango 4.7's MPG
------
It's Called MAGIC, But It's Pure Engineering from Chrysler Group

* Small Changes to Engine, Vehicle Add Up to 25 Percent Better Fuel Efficiency

AUBURN HILLS, Mich., June 13, 2002 -------- Chrysler Group
researchers are using a series of small steps in engineering to produce a
giant leap in fuel efficiency that could benefit consumers in the not-too-
distant future.
With a series of engineering changes to Chrysler's standard gasoline-
powered, 4.7-liter V-8 engine, researchers have produced an engine with 14
percent better fuel efficiency. The cost of those changes: less than $200 per
engine. The project has been nicknamed the MAGIC engine, which stands for
Multiple Approaches to Great Internal Combustion. The improvement in fuel
efficiency was achieved with no sacrifice in emissions, power, cost, weight,
engine life or other engine characteristics such as noise, vibration or
harshness.
"We call it the MAGIC engine, but it's really pure engineering," said
Thomas Moore, DaimlerChrysler Vice President and head of the Liberty &
Technical Affairs advanced technology research group in Rochester Hills,
Michigan. "Our goal was to demonstrate that all these little changes actually
work in the real world and add up to major improvements in efficiency. Today
we can say that it all works."
Eight different design and engineering changes were made to the standard
engine. "Most of these changes are not new, and individually, they produce
miniscule gains in fuel efficiency," Moore said. "The idea of the MAGIC
engine is to package them all together so the overall gain is significant."
As a next step, Chrysler engineers packaged the MAGIC engine into a Dodge
Durango SUV with several additional design changes to enhance fuel efficiency.
That vehicle, project Apollo, achieves an overall improvement in fuel
efficiency of 25 percent.

Total additional costs for project Apollo are only about $700 per vehicle.
Areas of improvement are:
* Increased compression ratio (4 percent) -- resulting in greater
efficiency and lower emissions -- through:
+ Intake port air-gap thermal barrier.
Chrysler Group has applied for a patent for this innovative feature.
+ On-demand piston oil-squirters
+ Precision cooling system

* Charge motion control (5 percent). Use of swirl control valves to
enhance flame propagation during warm-up and partial load
This also enables increased EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation)

* Friction loss reduction (4 percent). Design changes to lower friction
at no extra cost:
+ Crankshaft offset
+ Reduced oil-ring tension
+ Shortened coolant jacket

* Parasitic loss reduction (1 percent). New design oil pump with reduced
internal leakage and reduced friction

Chrysler Group engineers used the same incremental approach to fuel
efficiency improvements in the Dodge Durango SUV fuel efficiency demonstration
vehicle.

The Apollo project includes the following enhancements:

* A 12V alternator/restarter to allow transparent shutdown and restarting
of a warm engine in stop/start traffic conditions (4 percent)
* Improved cooling technologies, including electronic thermostat,
electric water pump, transmission temperature management and multi-mode
temperature strategy (5 percent)
* Improved undercarriage aerodynamics (belly pans and air dams) and
grille shutters resulting in reduced drag (1.2 percent)
* Electro-hydraulic power steering (1 percent)

"Engineers have been improving the internal combustion engine for 130
years, so big improvements are hard to come by," Moore said. "We made the big
improvement one small step at a time."
 
#12 ·
I like how they calculated the total cost per engine... Yeah, per engine straight off the assembly line. It's be like 2 grand or more for all that crap, plus installing it would be impossible without pulling the motor. (I know it wasn't your intent to suggest he actually do all this ;) It is a pretty cool article! Thanks for sharing it!)

The conversion from mechanical-hydraulic to electro-hydraulic alone would be very costly I would think since I doubt you could just do that without the new alternator.
 
#14 ·
HankL said:
With a series of engineering changes to Chrysler's standard gasoline-powered, 4.7-liter V-8 engine, researchers have produced an engine with 14 percent better fuel efficiency. The cost of those changes: less than $200 per engine.
DC is spouting Total BS with their cost estimates.

The cost for these changes would be significantly more as Don as stated. His estimate might be correct if you could do the work yourself, but if you had the work done by a shop I gotta figure you would be better off selling your Durango and buying a Toyota FJ crusier or an H3 to get an SUV with better milage.

Boy sometimes the folks that write these press releases have thier heads stuck up a very dark smelly place.

ps. if these changes were sooo cheap and effective, why the f#@k didn't DC at least offer these as options. They still obviously have not offered these mods to current 4.7L owners. IMO this type of press release is insulting to Durango owners. It is kinda like DC saying Na na na na na na to all Durango owners. How irresponsible of them.
 
#17 ·
TS = torsion Shackle. Easy to do, very inexpensive, reliable, rugged, effective and loved by the overwhelming majority of TS owners. You can do a search for hundreds of threads on the lift, or just check the Gen 1 Durango suspension forum. There is a good thread at the top of the forum that is sticky since this is one of the most common Durango mods out there.
 
#18 ·
canyonD said:
DC is spouting Total BS with their cost estimates.
Well, if you consider that instead of needing to buy an additional crank shaft like we would (and all that other crap too, meaning the p/s pump, alt. rings etc.) It may very well only equal an additional $700 straight from the factory... maybe. But for the person who already owns their 4.7L, this is not a realistic option at all.

It is rather daft of them to put this out there like that.
 
#19 ·
yeah agreed. Makes me think WTF? How does only $200 in added cost not get mandated by the feds when it improves milage by 25%? Someone in washington is really asleep at the switch. How irresponsible of our leadership and how irresponsible of DC.
 
#21 ·
milage will vary between 12 and 20 mpg depending on engine type, 2WD vs 4WD, axle ratio, tire size, driveline options, driving style, towing, load carried, etc, etc...
 
#24 ·
I guess I could get 12mpg around town if I velcro a raw egg on the go pedal. I get 10.2mpg normal driving.
 
#26 ·
Bleu, that seems exceptionally low. The lowest report of milage I had seen was 9 with towing a heavy load thru the mountains. What gives?

I have a 4.7L with 4x4 with the 3.92 ratio axles and the largest stock tires 30.7" od and the worst milage I tend to get in city driving is 12.5 mpg. On long road trips, I can get as good as 17-18 mpg

Maybe you have an O2 sensor problem or maybe you are idling alot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top