Gas Mileage

[Hooligan]

3800 mile trip mostly highway, got as much as 31.8 MPG, drove mostly 65 mph. I believe the AiRaid air intake has helped some. Can't prove it tho, I do keep my tires about 2 pounds higher than listed, I use Mobil 1 in oil changes and have 14,000+ miles on our 2008.

The PA Fuel Economy Estimates sticker states 19 MPG and 24 Highway MPG which is about normal for the PT NA that I was getting on our 2002 & 2006 even tho at that time EPA estimates was much higher. I do believe that the EPA made auto makers put more realistic estimates on their cars.

[mopar_man]

Originally Posted by PCC

As an example of how far any rationalization goes. I also own a late model Corvette. It puts out just over 400HP. On the highway, I attain just under 22MPG and in the city, just under 19. That is with a V8, using premium fuel. Now the PTC is a great vehicle (and I do like the vehicle). But when a 4-cyl. engine does not outperform an 8 cyl. (w/over 400HP) on MPG, that's one heck of a compromise, no matter what the utlility or penache of that vehicle is. Just saying.......

That comparison boils down to a couple things, the big one being aerodynamics. There's also the weight vs. power thing. The PT Cruiser weighs about 3000 lbs, depending on your options. Using a stock rating of 150 hp, that's a pretty terrible power-to-weight ratio. Combining that with the aerodynamics and it's pretty clear why these cars don't do well for mileage. I don't know the exact year of your Corvette but I'll use an '06 for comparison. The stock weight of that car isn't much more at 3200 lbs but it's got several hundred more horsepower and more gears to move it around, making it work less. Next time you take your PT out, take notice of how many RPM's you're turning at 60. Run your Corvette at the same RPM and see how well your mileage does.

[mopar_man]

Originally Posted by Hooligan

I do believe that the EPA made auto makers put more realistic estimates on their cars.

That they did. They're using tests with faster speeds and acceleration, A/C use and cooler outside temps. If you want to check out your car's rating with the old and new ratings, go to fueleconomy.gov. There's also user ratings on there too.

[PCC]

Originally Posted by mopar_man

That comparison boils down to a couple things, the big one being aerodynamics. There's also the weight vs. power thing. The PT Cruiser weighs about 3000 lbs, depending on your options. Using a stock rating of 150 hp, that's a pretty terrible power-to-weight ratio. Combining that with the aerodynamics and it's pretty clear why these cars don't do well for mileage. I don't know the exact year of your Corvette but I'll use an '06 for comparison. The stock weight of that car isn't much more at 3200 lbs but it's got several hundred more horsepower and more gears to move it around, making it work less. Next time you take your PT out, take notice of how many RPM's you're turning at 60. Run your Corvette at the same RPM and see how well your mileage does.

Mop, all of what you say makes complete sense. But it still doesn't explain why Chrysler didn't engineer the PT and it's engine better. Look at the HHR. That has a 2.2 liter and weighs slightly less than the PT and their numbers are much better than the PT's. GM did have the advantage of coming out later, however, Chrysler could have done way better to make the PT more economical and much less inefficient. It is a terrible engineering job to tout an "economical 4-cyl. engine" and then spec it worse than most V6's and some V8's.

My Corvette is a much better engineered vehicle (it should be, it cost almost 3.5 times the PT). Fyi, my 'Vette is an 05/C5, so it does have the same amount of automatic "gears" as my automatic PT (4spd auto for both). And yes, the V8 in my Corvette is much smoother in RPM's. But the comparo still stands. My V8 Corvette gets similar mileage to the 4-cyl. PT. It tells me the PT is much less efficient and the Corvette is much more efficient.

Thanks again for your input.

[PCC]

One observation I will make on the feedback, so far. This engine seems to work best (be at it's most efficient) when you tach it at around 2500RPM (or just about 63MPH)? Many have commented here they experience in the 25/26MPG range. Which is acceptable to me.

I will try "slowing-down" and see if I can replicate these numbers. I heard the automatic tranny in this is more of a Benz/Mopar hybrid (meaning it is not a Chrysler - "noisey selenoids tranny"). I believe it shifts much more smoothly than any other Chrysler tranny. So I should be able to get decent mileage with help of this "hybrid" tranny. Not as good as the manual but close.

Thanks again to all for your inputs.

[Travis2k7]

Originally Posted by PCC

Mop, all of what you say makes complete sense. But it still doesn't explain why Chrysler didn't engineer the PT and it's engine better. Look at the HHR. That has a 2.2 liter and weighs slightly less than the PT and their numbers are much better than the PT's.

Yeah, Bryan Nesbitt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia did a better job on the HHR than he did on the PT... except in the looks dept. HHR looks more like a box with wheels.

Originally Posted by PCC

One observation I will make on the feedback, so far. This engine seems to work best (be at it's most efficient) when you tach it at around 2500RPM (or just about 63MPH)? Many have commented here they experience in the 25/26MPG range. Which is acceptable to me.

That would be correct... I know when I'm pushing 80-85 I'm well over 3k RPM and there goes the mileage...

Will be fueling up tomorrow but as it looks right now I'm on track for a 23-24 mpg fillup this time as well. I find that acceptable for 50/50 highway/city driving commuting to and from work.

[Carl48]

Got a 08 PT in May (used) base, 2.4, auto. Drive it mostly around town several days a week, stop & go. The mpg readout on the instrument panel shows in the 22-23 mpg range. However, keeping track of the fill-ups vs mileage since the beginning of the month comes out to 27 mpg.

[PCC]

This brings up another interesting thing. I usually use both the mileage from the trip computer and long-hand calculations.. Both (on my vehicle) are customarily identical. I may have a variance of about .5 or so. But I account for that on round up/down the trip computer does automatically and small differences in fill-up volumes.

[Sharkstooth]

I believe they set the car up on a chassis dyno at the factory and run it at non-stop perfect condition without wind and at the exact mph to get those numbers so thats how they can advertise it.I honestly thought that a stardard trans would burn more gas than an automatic because you will generally shift at higher rpm's.That's just my opinion because i have had a lot of cars with a standard trannys,but i had modified all of them.

[elmeyer]

I have a 2003 GT stock turbo. Been tracking since 12/8/2007 & get 21.12mpg. I don't baby it at all., drive it like i stole it. I have a Vette also, I enjoy my cars, if you are worried about milage sell it & buy some jap crap for better milage.