1990 Montero or 1998 Montero??

[Monterorider]

I'd vote for 98 for sure. Stronger drive line, stronger suspension, better engine, more versatile 4WD system, more caring capacity, better towing... It's just better in all respects. Available rear locker already would shrink your improvement budget.

 

[vectorsc]

Get the 1998 - I have a 1999 that I dearly love. 80,000 miles is crazy good - I got mine for $2000 but it had 205,000 miles on it. It still runs strong and I expect to rock 300,000 in this truck easy.

If you don't buy the 1998, please send me some info in a PM about where it is - I might go look at picking it up.

 

[4D55 Performance]

I to was a long time FJ80 owner, but I have been much happier with my 2000 Montero than I was with 1996 FJ80's and my 1990 Montero. The Gen II.5 Montero is better than the 1990 Montero in almost every way. I like the looks of the 1990 better. The Gen II.5 gets 4-5 more MPG than the Gen I Montero. You should expect to get 22-24mpg with a gen II.5 montero on the freeway. The gen I Montero only gets 19mpg on the best of days.

 

[Dwing]

I paid $1500 for my 95. Off-Roader paid ~$1200 for his 96.

I bought mine with known issues, and have now fixed those issues, incurring another $1200-ish. Putting the truck up to $2700. Currently with bolts ons, I've got brand new 33 12.50 duratracs on the stock wheels, $400. ARB roof rack, $150. Smittybilt seat covers (worn drivers seat) $60. Add all that up and I'm still doing better than buying just about any other rig on the market, save one that's already been (reliably) gone through and is already modified. That's one reason I chose a second gen Monty over other rigs. It's a great value when you are patient enough to look for the deals.

Wow, I can't find any 2 or 2.5 at that range in norcal. I have a 94 LS that needs work. Have a friend that going to do the heads for me. It will be a camping rig and DD. I want to fix it and move up to a RS but will prob stay in the 2.0 as I like the body style more.

 

[Mad Matt]

You should expect to get 22-24mpg with a gen II.5 montero on the freeway.

Yeah, right. I never got better then 16mpg with my Montero, and that dropped down to sub-14mpg after i put the 32" KM2s on.

 

[GrassCat]

Yeah, right. I never got better then 16mpg with my Montero, and that dropped down to sub-14mpg after i put the 32" KM2s on.

I get 21-22 on the highway and I'm running 32's. Around town it's 17-18.

 

[4D55 Performance]

Yeah, right. I never got better then 16mpg with my Montero, and that dropped down to sub-14mpg after i put the 32" KM2s on.

Something is probably wrong on your Montero. You should be getting well over 20mpg. I get over 20mpg in mixed driving with my roof top tent and the A/C on full blast because it has been right around 100F for the last month. I know Roger runs 32" tires on his gen II.5 and he gets over 20mpg as well. The I know some members start dipping into the 14-16mpg range once they start running 40's, but that should not happen with 32's.

 

[Monterorider]

Something is probably wrong on your Montero. You should be getting well over 20mpg. I get over 20mpg in mixed driving with my roof top tent and the A/C on full blast because it has been right around 100F for the last month. I know Roger runs 32" tires on his gen II.5 and he gets over 20mpg as well. The I know some members start dipping into the 14-16mpg range once they start running 40's, but that should not happen with 32's.

I'll believe it when I see it. I've had two, never was far off EPA rating, for that matter never for any of maybe a dozen cars/trucks I've owned. Who are those members pushing 14-16 on 40's? :Wow1: Carlos comes to mind with 37s that's about tops it. We've discussed effects of altitude before but as far as I'm concerned San Jose/Sacramento are not far off sea level.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

As mentioned before, I've gotten as much as 23mpg hwy and as low as ~12 city/trails

 

[off-roader]

I think the biggest single factor in vehicle mpg is your right foot.:ylsmoke:

In addition to a poorly tuned engine, a lot also depends on how you drive. The Montero is a relatively big heavy vehicle and heavy to moderate acceleration/breaking in traffic or at the light will result in plummeting gas mileage. I know when I take it easy and drive conservatively, my mileage jumps 3-5mpg up (10-12mpg vs 15-17 mpg). I normally get 15mpg when I drive moderately. On a long trip on the open highway at 65mph, my mileage is up towards 17mpg. Starting at 70mph, it begins to plummet towards 15 and lower depending on the terrain & how often I brake/accelerate.:ylsmoke:

I should add that my mileage numbers are compensated for the size tires I'm running (i.e. +15% to the displayed mileage)

 

[Monterorider]

Ray you numbers make total sense. And you are on 35"s not on 40"s. Yes I believe on some odd occasion in perfect conditions maybe with tail wind going 55-60 on open hwy one can break well into 20s but I've got a bit of problem with statement that one shall expect it regularly. Slow and steady, no braking is they key. at 55 air resistance is still somewhat negligible so even with RTT.
Braking too often is second biggest indicator of ensuing bad mileage. One basically wastes energy spent accelerating up to speed into heating of brake rotors. How fast one accelerates doesn't really matter much so long you don't brake right away. Ultimately energy spent/wasted E=(m*V1^2)/2 -(m*V0^2)/2 only place it comes from is fuel burning inside you engine.

 

[off-roader]

How fast one accelerates doesn't really matter...

I think a whole lot of hyper-milers would have a problem with that statement. Smooth and steady is a hyper-milers mantra meaning the more constant your speed (i.e. the less acceleration/deceleration) the better... at least based on what I've been reading/seeing.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

Take my wife's 1999 Nissan Sentra SE ("Sports Edition" with 2.0 vs 1.6L with sport tuned suspension and different body styling and gearing ratio than normal Sentras... inhale...) with my driving, we get 20city and 28hwy. With my wife driving, 23 city and 30hwy. I'm am an aggressive driver with a heavy foot. She is cautious.

 

[Monterorider]

Oh yes definitely steady speed is the key. How fast you get to that speed may not matter much. Or at least it's not exact. Engine efficiency is not constant. It is highest usually before and around point of maximum torque. If you stay too low in power band it's not as good neither it is of course around red line. I've been practicing with PW since it has a mpg meter. It still hurts every time I look at it but so far (not very scientifically yet, maybe I need to write and app for that) it seems particularly gentle acceleration actually drops mileage somewhat. Staying in around 2500+ is about the best. Top torque for Hemi is at 4000 rpm very similar to Monty. It's fairly rev-happy engine too. At low RPM torque converter on auto transmission will be sleeping it won't lock up i.e more heat energy wasted.

 

[Monterorider]

Take my wife's 1999 Nissan Sentra SE ("Sports Edition" with 2.0 vs 1.6L with sport tuned suspension and different body styling and gearing ratio than normal Sentras... inhale...) with my driving, we get 20city and 28hwy. With my wife driving, 23 city and 30hwy. I'm am an aggressive driver with a heavy foot. She is cautious.

I bet you accelerate just a tad higher and brake just a bit more often. Again we are taking 10-15% difference in mpg. With Monty pushing well into 20s so say 22-23 we are tacking about 20-25%. Less likely. I'm not saying it's not possible but rather suspect some special conditions apply.