2016 Jeep Wrangler on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Star Trek actor's death may be linked to Jeep shifter issue

The tragic death of Anton Yelchin on Sunday may have resulted from a known design flaw with his Jeep Grand Cherokee. The 27-year-old actor, best known for playing Pavel Chekov in the latest Star Trek movies, was reportedly crushed when his vehicle rolled backwards down the driveway in front of his house, pinning him against a brick pillar and metal gate. The 2014-15 Grand Cherokee was one of three models (alongside the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 sedans) that Fiat Chrysler recalled this past April due to roll-away risk. The vehicle was equipped with an unintuitive "e-shifter" that didn't deliver the usual tactile response of being shifted into position, leading to numerous drivers exiting the vehicle mistakenly thinking that it was in Park. The problem was reported to have resulted in 41 injuries – and now possibly Yelchin's death as well. The manufacturer stated at the time of the recall that "the vehicles involved in these events were inspected and no evidence of equipment failure was found." It determined that while the vehicle warned occupants if the driver's-side door was opened while the engine was running and the transmission not in the Park position, such measures may have been insufficient. Its remedy for the problem involved updating the vehicle software to better warn drivers in such an event, and changing the design for subsequent models. "Regarding the recall," an FCA spokesman told Autoblog, "I can confirm notices were mailed to affected customers. Included in those notices were tip sheets describing proper operation of the shifter. This supplemental information echoes the instructions in the owner's manual." Yelchin was born March 11, 1989, in St. Petersburg, Russia. His parents were a figure-skating pair, and defected to the United States when Anton was just six months old. In the prime of his career, Yelchin had several films currently in development, including Star Trek Beyond, set to reach theaters next month. His body was reportedly discovered by friends when he didn't show up for rehearsal. Related Video:

Jeep team takes a field trip to Wagonmaster; researching next Grand Wagoneer?

They have the very best intentions of rolling out a seven-passenger vehicle.
Wagonmaster has made a name for itself restoring and selling factory-perfect Jeep Grand Wagoneer models, bridging the gap between when the last production machine rolled off the line in 1991 and present day. The company's efforts haven't gone unnoticed. The entire Jeep product planning team took a little field trip to the company's facility in Kerrville, Texas back in December, and they weren't just there to take in the sights. According to owner Leon Miller's son, Chip Miller, the Jeep team was there to do research for the successor to the Grand Wagoneer throne.

2018 Jeep Wrangler four-cylinder fuel economy revealed

Fuel economy numbers for the 2018 Jeep Wrangler with the turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder have finally been announced by the EPA. In the city, the two-door model gets 23 mpg, and the four-door Unlimited gets 22. Highway fuel economy for the two-door is 25 mpg and 24 for the four-door. Combined for the two-door and four-door is 24 and 22 respectively. These aren't Prius numbers, but they do make the four-cylinder Wrangler the most efficient version of the off-roader so far. The rest of the Wrangler range with V6 power gets 20 mpg combined, with the exception of the manual four-door, which gets 19. The most efficient V6 models in the city are the automatic models, which, regardless of length, get 18 mpg. On the highway, the best V6 is the manual two-door, which manages 25 mpg, and only loses 1 mpg in the city to the automatic. The question is, is the improved fuel economy worth the price premium of the four-cylinder? The automatic-only four-cylinder engine is an extra $1,000 over a V6 automatic, and $3,000 over a V6 manual. And when looking at the annual fuel cost estimates at fueleconomy.gov, you might only save $50 to $100 each year. The problem being that, while it's more efficient, it also demands premium fuel that the V6 doesn't. So it could be quite a while before the upfront cost is recouped. But if you want a Wrangler that's a little nicer to the planet, it's probably the way to go, plus you get an extra 35 pound-feet of torque over the V6, even if it means sacrificing nearly 20 horsepower. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.