2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

21 - 40 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
That using 87 the 2.0 will run and give the normal mpg and performance it should. I called jeep and all the mpg test were done with 91 not 87 or 89. Look i am not trying to drown grade you but dont believe everything the factory prints out. Do some mpg test intown and freeway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
That using 87 the 2.0 will run and give the normal mpg and performance it should. I called jeep and all the mpg test were done with 91 not 87 or 89. Look i am not trying to drown grade you but dont believe everything the factory prints out. Do some mpg test intown and freeway.
What makes you think that anyone said anything about 87 octane give the same performance as 91? In fact, the new owner's manual states:

The use of a 91 or higher octane “Premium” gasoline will allow these engines to operate to optimal performance.

Also, go to the EPA site, https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Pow...2019&make=Jeep&baseModel=Cherokee&srchtyp=ymm

Look up how the 2.0L Turbo was tested (use the "Compare" feature). In fact, it now states "Regular Gasoline" for the fuel economy numbers. If you want to further blow your mind, look at any of the 3.2L numbers - they were tested using "Midgrade Gasoline"! So you do believe the official EPA numbers, right?

The big news, in my opinion, is a change of words. The old manual stated:

This engine is designed to meet all emission regulations, and provide satisfactory fuel economy and performance when using high-quality unleaded “Regular” gasoline having a posted octane number of 87 as specified by the (R+M)/2 method. For optimal performance the use of 91 or higher octane “Premium” gasoline is recommended in these engines.

and...

Use of gasoline with a lower than recommended octane number can cause engine failure and may void or not be covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.

This wording has caused a lot of discussion in this forum and others on if your warranty is void if you use 87 octane. The wording is not clear at all.

The new wording clears up this confusion a little, though it is still poorly worded in my opinion.

While operating on gasoline with the required octane number, hearing a light knocking sound from the engine is not a cause for concern.

and...

Use of gasoline with a lower than recommended octane number can cause engine failure and may void or not be covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.

The word "recommended" is nowhere to be found except in the warning. It is implied that the recommendation is 87 octane, at a minimum.

If you look at the "2.4L And 3.2L Engines" right next to the "2.0L Engines", it states:

While operating on gasoline with an octane number of 87, hearing a light knocking sound from the engine is not a cause for concern.

and...

Use of gasoline with an octane number lower than 87 can cause engine failure and may void or not be covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.

That's clear and to the point! I have no idea what FCA decided to mince words for the 2.0L.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
Why doesn't someone hook up a data tool and do some data logging in their 2019 Turbo, with 87 and 91 octane and go through similar conditions and see what boost, engine timing advanced values are. We can all argue about what's better, facts aren't opinions>:D

"light knocking isn't of concern"

I prefer zero knocking, my tuned cherokee has zero knock under every circumstance:laugh:

While I was running a factory tune a few months back I noticed my vehicle sounded difference and was down on power, I hooked up my scantool and did some logging. Found out my engine was knocking HARD. As soon as I got home I drained my gas tank. Traced the issue back to a station I had never bought gas at before.




Again someone go do some proper data logging, I can predict the results, the computer is going to pull timing when running 87 octane when the engine starts getting warm and IAT's start to rise. I don't know about others but I would prefer to not have my engine pull timing because of knock or the potential for knock to occur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
well I have 87 in right now and averaging 26mpg over the last 300 miles according the computer.


With 93 and winter tires on I was averaging around 21.5mpg previous fillup.
Honestly havent noted much different in mpg. maybe 1mpg max.. which a headwind throws it off more.


93 octane costs 25%-27% more than 87 here. (60cents or more per gal)

I'll use 87 when its cool out and I'm not towing.

I also dont use autostick and bog it down with high load under 2000rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I googled curb weight of a limited is like 3500-3900 wrx are around 3500. Why no support that’s lame. Hopefully
Hp tuners will release support soon and with the easy access to the turbo would be realllly easy to change. Maybe one with reworked and upgraded internals in the oem housing.


I have another car that walk a lot of things lol i just wanna do it in the daily lmao
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
I googled curb weight of a limited is like 3500-3900 wrx are around 3500. Why no support that’s lame. Hopefully
Hp tuners will release support soon and with the easy access to the turbo would be realllly easy to change. Maybe one with reworked and upgraded internals in the oem housing.


I have another car that walk a lot of things lol i just wanna do it in the daily lmao
HP Tuners won't release support unless someone with a 2019 steps up and buys the module and provides them with the information they need.

No one else has bought a module except for me, and i've logged 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 Model years, why not grab the MPVI2 the smart access cable and give it a try
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I googled curb weight of a limited is like 3500-3900 wrx are around 3500. Why no support that’s lame. Hopefully
Hp tuners will release support soon and with the easy access to the turbo would be realllly easy to change. Maybe one with reworked and upgraded internals in the oem housing.





Where


I have another car that walk a lot of things lol i just wanna do it in the daily lmao
HP Tuners won't release support unless someone with a 2019 steps up and buys the module and provides them with the information they need.

No one else has bought a module except for me, and i've logged 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 Model years, why not grab the MPVI2 the smart access cable and give it a try


Where can i get one ? I’ll order it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,159 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
The question then is, how much of a higher octane will it adjust for? If 91 gives noticeably better performance than 87 (not surprising for a turbo engine, IMO), then what about 95... 98...105...??
92-93 would be about it. Just to give a cushion in case the gas isn't that great. There computer program isn't going to have crazy high timing or extra boost waiting to be utilized past their 91 octane spec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
To all, OE tunes got me down to 5.8 0-60, 9.2 1/8 mile and 14.35 1/4 mile. And I’ve walked a few WRX’s on the track. Magnaflow cat back 3” and K&N filter are bolt ons which put me in the 9.5’s at barona speedway. Next 2 weeks going back out with new OE tune and royal purple max octane boost 30 points so about 94 octane.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
I"d use boostane rather than royal purple. Again you 9.5 number isn't overly special considering the "work" you've done to it as your vehicle is 100s of pounds heavier than my trailhawk was but running nearly the same times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
Back in the old SAAB 99/900 turbo days you could do something to the turbo waste gate to boost pressure.
Usually had to make other improvements so you didn't blow up the engine.
The Cherokee should have an inter-cooler, if not you could add one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I"d use boostane rather than royal purple. Again you 9.5 number isn't overly special considering the "work" you've done to it as your vehicle is 100s of pounds heavier than my trailhawk was but running nearly the same times.
It’s 9.2 now man, 9.25s consistently is probably the fastest I’ve heard of, it was 9.55. And low 14’s now. I’m content for now, piggyback garbage 🗑 didn’t stay consistent. Wondering between 9.5 and 9.6. OE tune pulled it off, it’s just a shame no intakes, underdrive pulleys out there. Only way forward might be the mishimoto intercooler pipe which is only for the wranglers due to the engines turned a different way. I’m still debating it though. DP doesn’t really interest me as I’d have to retune from a stage 1 to 2 and deal with smelling like burnt flatulence or rotten eggs.
 
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Top