David Miles

Staff Writer

05 Jan 2007

As ´green´ as they get - the 4x4 Jeep Wrangler

One of the more unusual stories to emerge from the motor industry in 2006 was that the all-American 4x4 Jeep Wrangler is the world’s greenest car.

This information came about after a ‘dust-to-dust’, cost per lifetime mile, analysis compiled over three years by the Oregon based CNW Marketing Research organisation. A remarkable piece of research when you consider the Wrangler is a 4x4.

Last year all manufacturers of cars and commercial vehicles of all sizes, in response to new EU legislation about emissions and green issues, bombarded us with information about their introductions of Euro IV-compliant engines, the use of bio-alternative fuels, electric power, hybrid technology and even hydrogen power.

At the same time we have been inundated with claims by the anti-4x4 lobby that these vehicles are not environmentally friendly and should not be used other than for farm work or by country residents.

Being seen to be ‘green’ is a big issue for vehicle manufacturers so the news that the iconic Jeep Wrangler is the most green of vehicles, and a 4x4, raised a few eyebrows, and a few protests from manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota. Their hybrid models, according to the ‘dust-to-dust’ research programme, were not even placed in the top 50 of ‘green’ vehicles.

The Most Green Machine – Why Wrangler?

CNW Marketing Research argues their dust-to-dust yardstick measures the environmental impact of a vehicle from the date of its manufacturer to the date it is scrapped. It takes in not just the car’s fuel consumption and CO2 emissions but also the energy used in its design and production both in car assembly plants and by suppliers of parts and sub-assemblies. The energy used in transporting cars to dealers and in maintaining, servicing and scrapping and recycling them is also taken into account.

But why aren’t today’s exotic hybrids at the top of the table? It’s because vehicles like Jeep’s Wrangler use established technologies that use less energy in manufacture and share many parts among other vehicles. Both these factors contribute towards a noticeable reduction in the energy used in vehicle manufacture. Cars like the Jeep Wrangler also tend to have a longer life cycle, adding ‘green value’ at the end of the car’s lifespan as well as at the beginning.

Applying this ‘dust-to-dust’ analysis of energy use shows cars with some of the lowest CO2 emissions and most friendly environmental credentials in quite a different light. Hybrid cars show up poorly because of the energy used in their manufacture and in the disposal and replacement of high-energy-use items like batteries and electric motors, and in their use of lighter-weight construction materials like lightweight steels which use more energy and which are harder to recycle.

By contrast, the simple but strong construction of cars like the Jeep Wrangler, make them a recycler’s dream. Put simply, according to CNW, while a modern hybrid uses less fuel and produces lower exhaust emissions, the price society pays in overall energy costs is higher.

The total energy cost rates of the most expensive vehicle in the survey, (a luxury non-hybrid executive saloon) came out nearly 20 times higher at £7.20p per mile than the Jeep Wrangler’s winning 38p per mile rate.

COMMENTS

Xpress: 22-09-2011; HOORU, the majority of Jeeps feature a 6 cylinder powerplant which is a lot more fuel efficient than the 4 cylinder powerplant. The reason the 6 cylinder is more fuel efficient is because it makes a lot more power, so you are not constantly on the gas trying to go anywhere. I am barely able to cruise at 70mph with my 4 cyl 89 Jeep Wrangler holding 3000 rpm in overdrive (5th gear). My buddies Jeep holds a steady 85mph at 3000rpm in overdrive, but he has the revered I6 powerplant. MPG for the 4 cyl is averaging around 18 combined highway and city, and the 6 cyl powerplant averages around 25, both highway and city driving. This is of course based upon a stock vehicle with a light footed driver. Also, all Jeep Wranglers up until 2006 came with straight inline engines, where in 2007 with the introduction of the JK model they switched over to a V6.

-HOORU-: 08-01-2009; Arg: Jeep is *not* a large vehicle. Most are simple 4 cylinder engines (though they do come in v6 and such). It´s gas mileage is not bad at all- in fact, 2 door, 4 cylinder (still 4x4) gets over 30mpg, which is the same as most average sized cars. The jeep wranglers upkeep cost are legendary- so long as your not an idiot, you can maintain your jeep for almost nothing. Find a junkyard with an unlucky victim and strip it. (though, there aren´t many wranglers in junkyards). Why do you keep assuming that it´s this huge clunky thing? Just because it´s 4x4? You must have seen one at one point in time... As a reminder, 4x4 is NOT an engine ... In case some folks are confused... which alot seem to be for some reason. I find the article engaging, and I have always wondered how upkeep would factor into the day-to-day 'footprint' of 'green' vehicles, as compared to others. Of course, compared to huge, gas-guzzeling things like the hummer is a no-brainer... But long lasting, little upkeep, pretty good gas mileage of Jeep Wrangler is another.

Arg: 25-11-2008; Chris, samwise, 6x6owner, it is not I who is making strings of estimates and assumptions. It is the original report. The original report is here: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf A similar report to my quick-and-simple analysis is here: https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf The assumption about vehicle lifetime miles seems very suspicious to me. Toyotas are famously high-mileage vehicles, and there is no hard evidence that big engined cars do more miles than small ones.

LLS: 29-08-2008; After buying Toyota trucks for years, I just bought my first Wrangler. Why? Because they are the only ones who have stayed true to rugged utility. I bought the Jeep because I couldn´t find a Toyota that wasn´t a 'Sissy Utiltiy Vehicle' clad in Tupperware. Jeeps were real 4x4´s before it was a fad, and they´ll likely still be 4x4 after the fad passes. For those of us who actually use it, that´s a good thing.

zjilla: 24-08-2008; like mbl says, as long as we have ' rain, sleet, snow, water, mud, sand, rocks, pavement' 4x4s will never be phased out but only become a more fuel efficient production.

Fodder: 24-08-2008; 4x4saresoyesterday Why did you comment without reading the article? Where does it mention that a wrangler is fuel efficient?

Kyoseki: 23-08-2008; The 4 wheel drive part is being phased out because a lot of people simply want the looks of a 4x4 without the actual go anywhere capability. Why do you think Jeep now makes a 2wd Wrangler? (2wd incidentally is sacrilege to most of the Jeep community). I live in SoCal and see dozens of Jeeps daily, some easily 20 years old, people love Wranglers and drive them until either they die or the Jeep does.

Rick: 23-08-2008; i agree with mbl anyone who wants to get ride of 4x4s can kiss my rear

Duayne: 23-08-2008; When all the SUVs are 'phased out', the Wrangler will still be around

4x4saresoyesterday: 18-08-2008; 4x4s are increasingly being phased out. why, if they are so fuel efficient? because they arent.

mbl: 24-06-2008; I have an 07 Honda Civic 2 door and an 07 Jeep Wrangler 4 door. The Civic gets 30 mpg city while the Jeep gets 20 mpg city. They are both manual transmission. Obviously the Civic gets more mpg´s but I can´t carry my 16´ canoe, 4 bikes, 5 people and a bunch of camping gear in the Civic while venturing through the mountains. I used to have a Honda accord.......trust me its impossible. Also I will probably keep the Wrangler until I die and when the motor dies I´ll simply put a new one in the vehicle. People who own Wranglers know this and know that the CNW report makes sense.......because we own one. People seem to forget about all of those 'other' factors that need to be taken into account other than mpg´s when thinking about sustainability. There is nothing to the Wrangler.....its comprised of simple parts.....easily accessible and not just now but for probably the next 50 years. The majority of its parts are also easily recyclable. And like the report stated the construction costs to the environment are relatively small in comparison to most vehicles. It´s carbon footprint cannot simply be judged by how much petroleum the vehicle uses. Maintenance, accessibility to parts and labor, and materials should all be taken into consideration......and when something breaks 25 years down the road, you better believe Wrangler owners will fix it and they will have replacement parts to do so. You can not say that for any other vehicle on the market today.......I guarantee it. I appreciate the fact that we are having this discussion and I truly hope they will make Wranglers more fuel efficient some day. I try to watch my footprint in everything I do.....from my food to my furniture to the clothes I wear, but when people out there try to link the Wrangler with other SUV´s it makes me a little irritated. I totally agree with 6x6owner...My jeep gets really good mpg´s for its usage, size. And the fact that it is a 4x4 and I´m safe in the rain, sleet, snow, water, mud, sand, rocks, pavement........shall I go on. The bottom line is that the jeep will outlast most vehicles.......just take a look at how many people have 1970-80 jeep wranglers and how much they get for them when they sell them. This is what sustainable means.

samwise: 17-05-2008; well done arg. over 3 years of research struck down in 20 minutes by a guy plucking numbers out of thin air. Pure Genius. when they realsie they can´t stop the sale of 4x4´s what make of car will they go after next???

Diesel Destroyer: 14-05-2008; If we banned humans from the planet things would be much better!!! But untill that happens some will drive 4x4´s.. good on em!

6x6owner: 14-05-2008; Arg Do some research! The jeep is not big, it uses only a bit more fuel than a similar sized family car (eg Ford C-Max does 37mpg cf Jeep 31mpg) and generally lasts 3 times as long, is more likely to be repaired after a crash rather than scrapped and will do a far greater mileage. Take Landrovers as an example: an average LR will live for 25 years and be kept going by suing parts reclaimed from less fortunate examples. Older Volvos are similar. Fact is our Planet is NOT in danger from a few 4x4s, we might be dead in the water but lets not blame the failure of many Governments over many decades on a few car owners. Bill, so you take the word of 'the industry' as gospel, like they´re not biased.

BILL OVERMIRE: 12-01-2008; The CNW report has been widely discredited. No-one in the industry takes it seriously. You will find evidence of this all over the internet.

Chris: 11-01-2008; Arg, If you presented real data rather than a list of "let´s say" guesses, I´d be more apt to consider your point. Really, though, you can´t counter actual research with strings of estimates and opinions.

Arg: 21-11-2007; The CNW report is completely wrong. Proof follows. It has been well proven by many independent studies that approx 80% of the ´dust-to-dust´ energy consumption (and emissions) of a car is in its use, that is, fuel consumption and oil changes. So lets say a small compact car uses 80 units of energy as fuel and oil over its life, 15 units during construction, and 5 during disposal. That´s a total of 100 units. And let´s be very generous to a big 4x4 and say it lasts twice as many miles as the small car, so we have to consider the energy ´dust-to-dust´ of two small cars, that´s 200 units total. And lets say a big 4x4 uses twice as much fuel (reality is more like 3 times), that´s 320 units. And lets say the 4x4 uses *ZERO* energy in manufactrure and disposal (I couldn´t possibly be more generous to the 4x4!!!). So over the same life in years and miles, it consumes 320 units. That is 60% more than the 200 units for two small cars! If I had been more realistic and allowed 20 units for construction, 5 units for disposal, and three times as much fuel consumption (480 units), that is a total of 500 units, which is two and a half times as much as the two small cars combined!! So the greenest thing about a 4x4 is the fake military paint job.