I agree with Cutlass. IMO, if you want a diesel, you want an OOOOLD one so you can do things like 100% veg. We shopped on a new X5 diesel for my wife- good mileage at ~25 mpg, but he also told us that it could only take "high test" diesel and that even B98 is pushing it.
Another point, in terms of this mythical improvement in economy. I just don't see it. Our anvil powered '85 Gwagen with a 5cyl NA diesel gets 22mpg at around 60 mph steady (and it won't go a whole lot faster). Well, my '12 Rubicon got just under 21 mpg at 70 mph in a cross country drive to break it in- with AC, cruise, GPS, etc. Even taking the X5 improvement of ~4 mpg, that's not enough to matter to me. Now if you start talking apples to apples in vehicles (obviously the x5 and JK are not) and tell me I can get 30 mpg in most conditions and have the same capability, ou got my attention. But I don't see that happening.
My last point is on this notion of these no longer being "Jeeps". I call baloney. Find a more capable off road machine out of the box than the Rubicon. And what makes the CJ so great? It didn't even have lockers, had poor articulation, was maybe as comfy as a Rover, only marginally more reliable with the hodge podge of parts, and had plenty of weak components in the D20 axle- not to mention the rust issues. The TJ w the first step to modernizing the Jeep in finally introducing coil springs and a proper HVAC system. Explain the difference there between the TJ and JK? Similar running gear, still body on frame, etc. Sorry, but those statements are pretty unfounded. The JK has more power, better economy, more space, better articulation, more creature comforts, and I think I've read a new and better version of the lockers (in the rubicon). Explain to me how this is worse? Time marches on, folks. If a real Jeep only has leaf springs, well I dunno what to say.
