Caliber fuel mileage?

Anybody have any "actual" fuel mileage results from their Dodge Caliber yet?

Funny, Canadian dealerships put the L/100km, but use UK MPG!! That's not
right!!!


I'm quite curious, but I don't think a manual 1.8L Caliber will do better
than 9L/100km, which overall, isn't that great.

Also, parallel parking, ummm, CAN YOU SEE THE FRONT END OF THIS THING?!?!?!
MAN! Never mind the rear, can't figure out where the front bumper is!! (I
test drove an automatic, I want one, but............)

 

Hi Robert,

Are you in Canada by chance? The reason I ask is that prior to
converting to the metric system, we Canadians used "Imperial" gallons
(as opposed to "U.S." gallons) as our standard of fluid measurement.

Cheers,
Paul

 

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am in Canada.

That is misleading advertising that Transport Canada has to put a stop to,
or better yet, have all three, CAN/US/UK.


It's been quite a long time since we've changed from gallons to metric
around here, hehe.. I think we can follow our US neighbours so that we can
follow along when we read Consumer Reports and not be stunned when we find
out AFTER we bought the vehicle, that the stated MPG was in different units.


Cheers

 

If you indeed own a CDN version of the Caliber, then please quote from
the owners manual exactly what units the display is configured to show
when set to MPG.

On my 300m (as bought in Canada from a CND dealer in Nov/99) my
overhead display will show milage in Miles per US gallon (not UK
gallons). I can't believe that Chrysler Canada would pull a bone-head
move like show milage in terms of UK gallons.

 

BTW: this is on the window sticker at the dealer, not referenced from the
manual.

I don't own a Caliber, but I'd like one.. however, the fuel mileage doesn't
impress me very much. I expect it to come in at 10L/100km in everyday
driving (75% highway- based on current reports with the CVT, yes, it will
improve slightly as the engine breaks in, however, that will be offset as
the engine ages due to wear/tear, then it will consume approx 10L/100km
again .

I'm waiting to test drive the manual 1.8L which isn't available on the lots
yet.

 

For a vehicle that weighs 3000 lbs, I'd expect a lot better than
10L/100 km (23.5 mpg).

On a recent 200-mile highway round-trip, my overhead console had me at
30-33 mpg (in one direction) and about 28 mpg in the other direction
in my 6 year old, 62k miles 300M. That's 8.1 L/100km for a 3.5L
engine in a 3600 lb car, doing 120 kph (75 MPH) with the tach saying
2250 - 2300 rpm.

 

I believe the computer display on my 300M Special speaks five
different languages; fortunately for me, English just happens to be
one of them.

In any event, I can confirm it allows me to choose either litres per
100 km and miles per U.S. gallon. My '94 and '97 LHS are both
uni-lingual (the former is still with me, but the latter now since
gone); again, I could switch between litres and US gallons.

BTW, I bought my first LHS in October of '93 and I'm pleased to say
"Lady Chrysler" turned 265,000 km last month and is still going
strong.

Cheers,
Paul

 

Hi Robert,

It probably comes down to simplicity; three different methods of
measurement could be a little confusing and perhaps even moot, given
the current generation of Cannuckleheads have always used metric and
most of the preceding generation have, to varying degrees,
successfully adapted to it.

For years I knew our Imperial gallon was 25 per cent larger than a
U.S. gallon. However, what I didn't know until recently is that our
ounce is bigger too (that bet cost me a few bucks... the moral here is
always check your facts). I guess we should be thankful we no longer
use stones and hands. ;-)

Cheers,
Paul

 

On long stretches of open highway and on relatively flat terrain, I
can still average 7.9 litres per 100 km in my '94 LHS, but only if I
keep my speed in the range of 100 kph. My '97 always managed to do
just slightly better and I remember my best extended round-trip number
was 7.7. Really quite remarkable for a car of its size and weight.

I don't believe I've ever gotten below 8.2 in the 300M but, then
again, it's hard to only do 100 in this car. And, interestingly
enough, the only non-Chryco car I've owned (sorry Chrysler, I promise
never to be unfaithful again) was a '84 SAAB 900 Turbo -- a four
cylinder, 5-speed -- and I don't recall ever doing better than 10
litres per 100 km.

Cheers,
Paul

 

sure, but the Saab is a turbo, and it does pound out some decent power, so I
bet you "pressed" on the pedal once in a while and the turbo spooled up nice
nice didn't it!?!? hehehe...

I like Saabs, I'd buy a nice used Viggen, but, whatever.. I dunno about the
caliber though.

The published fuel economy vs. what we get is another story.

They are saying 28/32 mpg for caliber automatic (28 city, 32hwy)... I
believe that was from the Dodge USA site.

 

28stones/100furlongs

 

Guilty as charged! The SAAB was an absolutely fantastic car to drive
and I truly loved its "ugly duckling" styling and quirky design, as
well as the huge amount of leg room and commanding view through the
wrap around window.

Sadly, it was also ... and lets put this as kindly as possible ...
somewhat "trouble prone" and horrifically expensive to maintain.
Furthermore, there was just one dealership in the Toronto area I
trusted to work on it and who I felt wouldn't rip me off -- that
dealership, btw, was Budd's in Oakville. Graham, their head tech knew
these cars inside-out and made handing over that credit card just a
little less painful.

In any event, some of my fondest memories are of the drive between
Halifax and Montreal via I believe I89. It would be 02h00 in the
morning and the road completely deserted. I would turn on my brights
and floor it up the mountains, with the turbo needle tickling the red
zone. And when you pushed that car, you knew exactly how it would
behave... the handling was perfectly rock solid.

Cheers,
Paul