Why does PT foglight come on with right turn signal?

Ron,
I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's
both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My
driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal
with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could
not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack
rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what
they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the
tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One
month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the
usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back,
we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable.
As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940,
with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then
I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such
as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since
the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51
Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart,
86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You
stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the
difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a
manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid
Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were
serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the
transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were
immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem
to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if
you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant
sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here,
not the old days.

 

I stand by what I said re: fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went
to the AllPar site (here's the link : www.ptcruizer.com/cruize.html) and
looked at their road test of an '02 PT. Check it out, at the begining of
day 3 he refilled the tank and was getting 30 mpg. Also, there's a
couple guys in our car club (with an '04 and an '06) and they get
slightly less mileage than ours (27-29), but we chalked it up to the
automatic.

I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d).
That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used
to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3
speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were
15 year old tech with no o/d's and throttle body fuel injection. I would
expect new 4 banger tech with o/d's to at least deliver fuel mileage to
match.

BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before
Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After
I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner
(which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71
Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally
lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt
a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years,
along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what
ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66
Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that
would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept
my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big
block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage.

 

i'm thinking a 383 4 speeder is way better than my rt dakota as far as milage
goes turns 4500 r's at 60 in drive, thanks for od it goes to 2500 r's at 60 12
mpg is best i get
my brothers 66 396 dual quaded chevelle gets 28 on the highway at 60 as long as
like you said! keep your foot out of it and that still amazes me

 

Well, Ron, god bless you, but I had to go to a more efficient Chrysler
product, it would be very strange to have two "lemons" on gas mileage,
from two different years, from two different dealers, with two
different engines. I, myself, am 55 years young, and proud to drive
Chrysler products. I also forgot to mention my step-dad's 61 Dodge
Phoenix with a 318, it got great mileage for that era. I forgot to
also mention my 73 Fury Suburban, 360 that would eat you out of house
and home even when gas was around fifty-three cents: 10-12 city/15-16
highway. As I mentioned, I am no stranger to Chrysler products. Road
tests are so subjective: I remember Uncle Tom's test from Mechanic's
Illustrated. He would run those like "scalded cats" and he admitted
that those were not real world figures.
You said that you came up through the world of muscle cars, I came up
through a family that prized the old flathead sixes, and the only
eight my grandfather had was a straight one in an old Chrylser.
So, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree about the PT
Cruiser mileage. If they would put the smaller 2.0/CVT combo in
there, or better still, the diesel option that is in the European PT,
then I think we would all be driving them! Last night, filling up the
Caliber, only have had it three weeks, it got 26 around town. My
1940, which goes out on sunny Florida days got 15 just driving it
slowly around Jupiter Island and some stop and go. Took it out on the
highway for an old-fashioned "clean out" with the overdrive engaged
and it got 20.45mpg, not bad for a 241.5 flathead six with a whopping
108 hp, maybe I could have gotten more if I had the high perfomance
head, 112hp!

 

I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
sample to another of the same vehicle.

I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
admitting to or differences in terrain.

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

 

Bill,
I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good
information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this
particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a
particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers,
they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I
am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan
and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even
meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT
Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around
21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the
things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil
1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and
still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to
expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got
rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me,
the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too
exciting!

 

Well thanks!

I also believe that for a given vehicle with atypical (for that vehicle)
bad fuel mileage, there has to be some component (or timing tolerance,
or computer anomaly) that is causing it. All I'm saying is that there
has to be a reason. We (and dealers and their diagnostic equipment)
just don't have the smarts and infinite time/money to narrow it down to
that particular component. The best we can do, in the absence of some
obvious clue, is hit all the usual suspects (plugs, throttle body,
exhaust. sensors, PCM firmware and hardware, fuel quality, timing belt,
etc.), and a few shots in the dark, and hope to luck out before the
money and/or our patience run out. Fortunately for me I am blessed with
two Concordes - one a 2.7, the other a 3.2 - that both are on the high
end of the typical mileage numbers.

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

 

I had an 88 New Yorker with Mitsu 3.0 that easily got 32 mpg highway.
Our 2000 3ooM will get up to 28 mpg highway if I make sure the tires
are properly inflated.
The n/a 2006 PT Cruiser automatic can barely get 24 mpg highway with a
rare 25 mpg.

Lets go back to basics..
Is there anything impacting airflow into or out of the engine that
would reduce mpg ?

Early 3ooM mods included playing with cat back dual exhaust systems
using after market camaro mufflers, which increased highway mpg by 5
mpg under most tests.

Does the PT Cruiser have exhaust or intake restrictions ?
Is the intake air too hot ?
Is the catalytic convertor too restrictive ?
Are the factory tires use a tread pattern or compound that lowers mpg ?
Are there too many internal losses in the automatic transmission ?
Are there better design intake manifolds that will fit in that tiny
engine bay ?

 

one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for
tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to
a taller tire it will improve milage

 

A taller tire will imporve *real* mileage, but not as *calculated* using
the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not
corrected for the tire size change).

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

 

I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit, along with all
of the other things that I did to try and increase the mileage. You
came up with a lot of good ideas that it takes engineers to work on!

 

Bill,
I forgot to say that in all the talk about the PT Cruiser mileage, I
went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit running it at 35
lbs. It only made the car ride smoother over those terrible, Eagle
standard size tires that came on my 2003 and 2005. As stated, I
finally gave up the ghost on the PT and went with the Caliber, whose
larger 215 17" tires give a very smooth ride, almost as good as my
1940's 6.50/16!

 

I have to ask you how you figured your fuel mileage with the larger
tires. You do realize that the odometer would not read correctly - that
with a larger OD tire you would have been getting better milage than you
would have read or calculated from any of the vehicle's milage
calculating systems or odometer?

Also, I don't know what the factory tire size was, but the 65 probably
wasn't more than a couple of percent different in OD and mileage effect
than the factory size tires.

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

 

who cares what the overhead states. it is a average anyway
just filling the tank pulling out on the road and matting it throws milage out the
window by going with what the overhead reads! real is what i am all about

 

I agree it's low, but I see one thing that could be a significant factor
in the low PT Cruiser MPG that appears common.
Poor streamlining; the front, steep rear and particularly the NON FLAT
sides.

BTW the EPA HWY mileage figures are measured at
much less than a steady 65MPH,
so poorer streamlining would show more difference at a steady 65MPH.

I consistently get 29MPG HWY at 65MPH with my '95 3.3L Concorde.

Just compare the VW new Beetle 2.5L 23/31 mpg
New Beetle Convertible 2.5L 22/30 mpg
of the same engine. The convertible has not as smooth a roof and is
likely slightly heavier, resulting in slightly lower EPA mileage. The
difference would be greater at a steady 65MPH.

The '07 PT Cruiser 2.4L I4 150HP is rated at 22/29 mpg.

How about this for an all around FAST compact car for $23k!
Caliber SRT4 2.4L turbo 285HP 22/28MPG.
0-60 = 6 sec.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/caliber-srt4.html

 

I agree that the overhead is not as accurate as the odometer in a given
situation with the correct tire size. But average over a tank would be
fairly consistent on a given vehicle. But yes - I agree that the
overhead is not the most accurate.

So you're saying you'd go by the odometer? It definitely would not
reflect any improvement in mileage from a larger OD tire without either
correcting the pinion factor or putting a correction factor into the
calculations. The odometer does not know the tire is bigger. Any
improvement in mileage from a bigger tire will not come out in the
calculations (and may even result in a decreased *calculated* mileage
due to the slight extra load - but only because the odometer reading
does not reflect the extra distance traveled due to the larger tire -
once that is factored in - yes - the calculation will reflect the
positive effect of the larger tire).

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