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

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.

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.

If we banned humans from the planet things would be much better!!! But untill that happens some will drive 4x4´s.. good on em!

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.