Rated miles per gallon is total BS!

I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
Bullshit!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.

 

You must be doing something wrong. I too have an 01 automatic Limited; use
5W-20 Mobil 1, pump the tires to 36 and always get at least 17.5 mpg.
Sometimes on the interstate, in warm weather, with a tail wind and a slight
decline, I can manage 22.5. My 3.8 04 mini-van does better. I think Chrysler
left off the good parts.

Richard.

 

|I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
| I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
| 30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
| I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
| 4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
| Bullshit!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.
|
|
|

The wife and I almost always do *better* than EPA rated.

1997 Neon Sport...rated 24/34, the wife got 28/36
1997 Grand Caravan 3.3 V6...rated 18/24, I get 18/27, wife gets 18/24
2000 Neon SE...rating unsure, daughter gets average 31 (mixed)
2003 Stratus SE 2.7 V6...rated 20/28, Wife gets 25/29
2004 Sebring LXi 2.7 V6...rated 20/28, I get 24/31

I did have a 2003 Chevy Malibu that I hated...so I got rid of it last year
after 9-months. It had a 3.1 V6 rated at 20/29, I got 19/32 (I have no idea
why the city/highway mileage was so far apart in real world numbers...but was
consistently so).

I don't know what my son gets on his 1996 Dakota SE V8 extended cab.

In all cases, we log the mileage on every gas receipt and calculate MPG. So we
have several years of history on the older vehicles. The mileage remains about
the same over time (so far)...but is a little lower city mileage in the winter.

If you _always_ do worse, I would look at driving habits/conditions
Quick/abrupt starts? On the throttle up to a stop light or intersection then
hard on the brakes, (vs. coasting up to it)? Mountain terrain in your area.
Unusually cold weather conditions. Also, tire pressure? Roof rack (apparently
can have up to a 2MPG difference in highway mileage)? Wrong viscosity oil?

 

I'm thinkng more along the lines of something wrong with the vehicle -
like a bad O2 sensor, throttle body needs cleaning, or something. I've
seen mpg discussions on various car forums in which everyone's getting
reasonable numbers, but there's always a couple of credible people
claiming that they get much lower with reasonable highway driving in
essentially the same vehicle - for example, on the 300M forum, most
people will say they get low, mid, or high 20's in normal (i.e.,
non-spirited) driving, but there's always a few who get 16 or 17. I've
gotta think something's not right with the engine controls - usually
something simple - once you know what it is.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

Hmm, must be problem with your car - tire inflation, driving habits ... etc.

I have an '01, manual, with 41,000 miles on it. In town I get 20-23
depending on AC use and traffic. On the highway I get 26-30, depending
on conditions and driving speed. This is in the Las Vegas area where it
gets fairly hot in the summer. Keep tire pressure at 36 PSI, use
Pennzoil 5w-30, and had plugs changed at 30k as well. Driving technique
and tire pressure make a difference in my experience. I the highway I
do at times get better than EPA estimates.

 

While the EPA ratings don't have a really strong correlation with
reality, Something Is Wrong with that mileage. If your commute is
more than a mile, you ought to be seeing much better than that...

 

another keyboard replies............

2001 5 speed cranberry PT just turned 41K

my wife who drives it more gently than I do got on a .5 tank mainly highway
(local OR 34) 30.24.
We (both driving it) average in mixed usage 26 to 27 MPG.
TO defend this statement........ONE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC LIGHT after 16 miles,
north (no stops)
ONE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC LIGHT
after 2 miles, south, then east for 62 miles with no light or stops
ONE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC LIGHT
after 2 miles, south and then no lights for about 38 miles
NO stops or lights for about
..5 west, then wet tires.........
I live on the beach in Oregon just north of Waldport

Had PLUGS and WIRES changed under warranty.........and the mileage is now
back to the above numbers

Howard

 

There are a long line of reports posted on the PT web sites that the 5 speed
does much much better in this regard. 18 in town and about 21 on the highway
are common for the automatic and that's what I get. But a few PT's out there
seem to be blessed with more power and economy. Must be some Mexican magic
at work

Richard.

 

I have a 2003 Grand Caravan with 3.3. I consistently get 16 litres/100 km ,
which is about 15mpg. This is lower that the advertized numbers. I thonk the
sticker says around 13-14lt/100km for city. I wonder after reading this post
I should ask the dealer to check something. Appreciate any comment with
similar car owners
Thanks

 

My 98 Grand Voyager 3.3 is rated at 21mpg city and 32 mpg highway Canadian
(Imperial). On mostly country road and suburban driving I get around 26-27
mpg Imperial (about 22 U.S.). I don't hot-rod but I don't hold up traffic
either. There seems to be something wrong with either your driving habits or
the condition of your vehicle.

 

what is the weight for your 98 van. I thing my generation is heavier ,
around 4000 lbs

 

You say nothing about how its driven. If it never gets out of the city
and never gets above 35 mph between red lights or stops in highway
traffic jams, consider yourself lucky to get 17 mpg. If this is highway
mileage, fix whatever is broken and causing such poor performance.

The last 3 new cars purchased in my extended family (92 Dakota, 93 Eagle
Vision, 2001 Durango) all EXCEED the EPA estimates in true highway
driving, and match them in combined driving.

 

My '96 T&C LXi 3.8 is rated at 17 city and 24 hwy and currently averages around
15 city and 22 hwy (87 octane). Of course I do have to use the "California
Reformulated" fuel six months of the year, the van does have 184,000 miles on
it and the city driving does consist of Los Angeles city/freeway driving so I
really can't complain. My wife averages 16.2 (89 octane) after a year and
21,000 miles on the Pacific AWD and we haven't averaged hwy driving yet. The
Pacifica is rated at 17 city and 22 hwy.

I should point out (especially for TOM KAN PA) that even though these two
vehicles are rated as stated above the sticker for the T&C says the majority of
vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 14/20 city and 20/28 hwy.
The sticker for the Pacifica says 14/20 city and 18/26 hwy. And both stickers
indicate "actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving
habits and vehicle's condition".

RP

 

Interesting, I almost always get close to the highway mileage on cars I
own and have owned in the past. A lot depends on your driving habits.


Matt

 

I believe about 3850, or almost the same.

 

Why would you calculate your mileage in Imperial miles per gallon when your
fuel is measured in liters, and distances in kms?

 

Because most Canadians still *think* in cups, tablespoons, inches, feet,
miles and gallons (Imperial ones, the only type ever used up here) despite
everything being sold and marked metrically.

 

It is bullshit you have to have a very light foot to get the epa mpg.
But then you have some asshole honking at you because you not moving
fast enuff.

 

I had a Neon like that. I never can get the rated mpg in my Chryslers,
but I've always gotten +2mpg in GM products.

 

Had a Caravan (2.6L) once that got pitiful mileage on Amoco gasoline, but
got at or above rated MPG with other fuels.
Maybe try switching brands.