autoevolution
 

Jeep Trackhawk vs. Lifted Wrangler Fuel Efficiency Battle Has Surprising Result

Jeep Trackhawk vs. Lifted Wrangler Fuel Efficiency Battle 4 photos
Photo: TFLCar/YouTube
Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk vs Lifted Wrangler Fuel Efficiency BattleJeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk vs Lifted Wrangler Fuel Efficiency BattleJeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk vs Lifted Wrangler Fuel Efficiency Battle
What's the last thing you would want to do when getting behind the wheel of a Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk? Well, with the exception of the obvious illegal stuff that might lead to spending the night in a rather uncomfortable bed, one of the best answers to that question has to do with trying to convince the brute not to guzzle gas.
Well, this is precisely what the aficionados over at TFL Car have recently done, but at least they had a serious reason for it, namely racing a lifted Jeep Wrangler. No, we're not talking about a drag race, as we're referring to an efficiency battle instead.

To be more precise, the Trackhawk, which came in factory stock form, battled a Wrangler that had been gifted with the usual offroading goodies, such as the said lift kit and 35-inch tires.

The two Jeeps were driven on a 254-mile course as part of a trip from Boulder, Colorado to Moab, Utah, so most of the driving was done on highways, while on-the-road inclines were also on the menu.

Now that Jeep has come up with the 707 hp Trackhawk, certain people who are not exactly up to date with the automotive phenomenon, have shown concern regarding the efficiency of the thing.

Well, perhaps to their surprise, lifted Wranglers, which have been around for much longer, deliver the same kind of efficiency. To be more precise, the Hellcat-ized Grand Cherokee achieved 16.44 mph, sitting pretty close to its 17 mpg EPA highway rating, while the high(er)-riding Wrangler got 16.98 mpg - of course, the Wrangler, with its naturally aspirated 3.6-liter V6, has around 2.5 times less power than the GC Trackhwak.

It's worth mentioning that the figures above are approximate, since the method used to measure the efficiency involved the good old refueling vs. covered distance method.

As for the giggles delivering along the tip, the winner wasn't too difficult to determine.

If you liked the article, please follow us:  Google News icon Google News Youtube Instagram
About the author: Andrei Tutu
Andrei Tutu profile photo

In his quest to bring you the most impressive automotive creations, Andrei relies on learning as a superpower. There's quite a bit of room in the garage that is this aficionado's heart, so factory-condition classics and widebody contraptions with turbos poking through the hood can peacefully coexist.
Full profile

 

Would you like AUTOEVOLUTION to send you notifications?

You will only receive our top stories