Gas Mileage

[PCC]

Originally Posted by 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.

With all due respect and aside from the racist nature of this post, my comments were meant as an asking for help with this dilemma (low fuel mileage w/my PTC). Most have indeed given me some ideas, which I do fully appreciate and will implement.

I offered a comparo of one car to another. To illustrate how inefficient the PTC is, which is my opinion. From the tenet of most all of the responses, others have had similar issues. I guess if we were all that "worried" about the mileage of the PT, we would all purchase vehicles that gave us better mileage. No matter what/where they were made.

[85_305]

Originally Posted by PCC

I totally understand the rationalization vis-a-vis mileage vs. penache. However, it seems to me that any 4-cyl. engine worth it's salt, would/should be able to pull off (easily) getting much more than 22MPG. That is precisely why I asked for inputs as to how others increased their mileage with this vehicle and engine. And many thanks to those who gave me their recommendations.

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.......

Right there is your problem... comparing GM to Chrysler. I mean hell.. I've seen MODDED ls1 camaro/trans am's w/ around 400 rwhp, and w/ the 6spd they get 30-32mpg highway. Find me ANY car thats similar. GM nailed it on the HEAD with the LSx series motors. But I agree with this whole post. Why would a supposed economy car with a tiny ass 4 banger do worse on gas than an exotic sports car.

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.

Your logic is flawed. 4 cylinder cars require MUCH less fuel to sustain themselves, and something you need to keep in mind is 4 cylinder cars have no torque.. they only advantage they have is rpm's. So therefore, you need to ride them higher in the rpm range to produce any power. Whereas a v8 has much higher basic fuel needs, and rpm's KILL v8 gas mileage. Hell.. I cruise at 80mph in my honda and thats about 3800 rpms but guess what.. I get about 40mpg going that speed.

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. 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.

Again, your comparing this chrysler (think: dodge) to a GM. Dodge has NEVER been known for their gas mileage. GM really does shine in their v8 performance-car segment.

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.

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.

Actually, I've seen the common thought on this board that the transmissions in our PT's are archaic and inefficient.

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, just as an FYI my "jap crap" civic w/ a 1.7l motor produces about as much power as a pt cruiser, but weighs nearly 1000lbs less. And my "jap crap" gets 35-36mpg city and 40+mpg highway.


To the original poster. I've recently installed a custom SRI for my PT. On the fatal night of my unfortunate timing-belt mishap, I was driving on the highway going to the middle of nowhere to pick up auto parts. With the cruise control on, going 5-7mph over the speed limit the whole time, I was averaging 26 mpg. But keep in mind I only used half a tank.. if I would have ran the whole tank out, I'm sure the mileage would have increased (if that makes sense?). The SRI has certainly helped thus far, and after I get my t-belt done i will continue to dock the mileage and keep accurate reports on it.

[PCC]

Originally Posted by 85_305

Right there is your problem... comparing GM to Chrysler. I mean hell.. I've seen MODDED ls1 camaro/trans am's w/ around 400 rwhp, and w/ the 6spd they get 30-32mpg highway. Find me ANY car thats similar. GM nailed it on the HEAD with the LSx series motors. But I agree with this whole post. Why would a supposed economy car with a tiny ass 4 banger do worse on gas than an exotic sports car.



Your logic is flawed. 4 cylinder cars require MUCH less fuel to sustain themselves, and something you need to keep in mind is 4 cylinder cars have no torque.. they only advantage they have is rpm's. So therefore, you need to ride them higher in the rpm range to produce any power. Whereas a v8 has much higher basic fuel needs, and rpm's KILL v8 gas mileage. Hell.. I cruise at 80mph in my honda and thats about 3800 rpms but guess what.. I get about 40mpg going that speed.



Again, your comparing this chrysler (think: dodge) to a GM. Dodge has NEVER been known for their gas mileage. GM really does shine in their v8 performance-car segment.



Actually, I've seen the common thought on this board that the transmissions in our PT's are archaic and inefficient.



Well, just as an FYI my "jap crap" civic w/ a 1.7l motor produces about as much power as a pt cruiser, but weighs nearly 1000lbs less. And my "jap crap" gets 35-36mpg city and 40+mpg highway.


To the original poster. I've recently installed a custom SRI for my PT. On the fatal night of my unfortunate timing-belt mishap, I was driving on the highway going to the middle of nowhere to pick up auto parts. With the cruise control on, going 5-7mph over the speed limit the whole time, I was averaging 26 mpg. But keep in mind I only used half a tank.. if I would have ran the whole tank out, I'm sure the mileage would have increased (if that makes sense?). The SRI has certainly helped thus far, and after I get my t-belt done i will continue to dock the mileage and keep accurate reports on it.

I heard from a Benz technician that the PTC auto-tranny (from 05 to current/08), is a "hybrid" Benz/Mopar tranny. And I believe him, because if you listen carefully to pre-05 PTC trannys, they sound the same as all other Chrysler/Dodge trannys (after a certain amount of miles on the odo/usually around 20K, you hear those tranny solenoids clicking - and at some point in the future that is the begining of the end of those trannys).

I don't understand why or even how but your explanation on engines, mileage and Japanese cars are spot-on comments. My experiences with all types of Japanese vehicles, is that they are extremely efficient. Both Honda and Toyota are at the top of that list (with Mazda and Nissan just behind them). The whole domestic car market (Ford, GM and Chrysler) should have "stolen" this technology and replicated it, because it was one of the primary reasons for what you see today in domestics and the maladies of them going belly-up. Ford "finally" figured it out. With the Fusion and Focus leading the way.

By the way, what is an SRI? Please advise with pricing on same too. Thanks 85.

[85_305]

ah my bad.. wasn't paying attention to the year of your pt. Ya I hear good things about the newer transmissions. But the trans in say MY pt, is garbage and ancient in design. Very inefficient.

I do give a lot of credit to toyota (and some credit to the other jap manufacturers), but I love love LOVE honda.. and thats coming from a guy who used to hate anything not American.

Now, you want to talk trucks we're gonna talk Ford. You CANNOT beat Ford in the Trucks department. End of story. But like you said Fords lineups are amazing and they are finally nailing the economy issues in their newer lineups.

An SRI is a short ram intake. Basically, its the opposite of a cold air intake (I suppose you could call it a hot-air intake). The warmer the intake charge, the more thorough the burn therefore more economy. Though, with more heat comes a loss in power. Keep this in mind.

The thing with the SRI is, it will still increase throttle reponse (though it may kill lower end HP), but it generally increases top end hp. It also sounds wicket (well, as wicked as a 2.4l gets). Basically, what i did was bought a big ass filter (k&n is the best if funds permit it), took off the upper intake box, and put the filter right on the end of the rigid intake pipe.

My car is in the shop right now so I cant get pics.. but this is basically it
http://www.apactonline.com/images/au...ruiserBlue.jpg

Just keep in mind I'm using the STOCK plastic rigid intake pipe, and the lower intake box is still installed (though I may end up taking that out.. will have to see upon getting the car back).

[edsidders]

I didn't buy mine for the gas milage , when I bought it I expected 20-25 mpg depending on speed and terrain...I bought it because I LIKED IT..also good to tow behind motorhome...I was towing my 427 Cobra roadster replica ..Had to keep it hid in trailer , PTC is not such a PITA but still a sharp car with some room in it...

[Travis2k7]

Originally Posted by PCC

I heard from a Benz technician that the PTC auto-tranny (from 05 to current/08), is a "hybrid" Benz/Mopar tranny. And I believe him, because if you listen carefully to pre-05 PTC trannys, they sound the same as all other Chrysler/Dodge trannys (after a certain amount of miles on the odo/usually around 20K, you hear those tranny solenoids clicking - and at some point in the future that is the begining of the end of those trannys).

Originally Posted by 85_305

ah my bad.. wasn't paying attention to the year of your pt. Ya I hear good things about the newer transmissions. But the trans in say MY pt, is garbage and ancient in design. Very inefficient.

If that's true about the trannys I feel pretty good then... had it flushed when I bought it and mine's been great. I haven't heard a peep from it.

[quicksilverdon]

Originally Posted by PCC

I heard from a Benz technician that the PTC auto-tranny (from 05 to current/08), is a "hybrid" Benz/Mopar tranny. And I believe him, because if you listen carefully to pre-05 PTC trannys, they sound the same as all other Chrysler/Dodge trannys (after a certain amount of miles on the odo/usually around 20K, you hear those tranny solenoids clicking - and at some point in the future that is the begining of the end of those trannys).

I have not read of that anywhere.
Usually Chrysler changes the model - the transmission from 01 on for the PT is 41TE. In '04 (I think) they brought out the 40TE tranny - same as 41TE, but only 2 clutch packs rather than 4 for non-turbo PTs.

[fljohnboy]

Today I drove my recently purchased 2005 PT GT Turbo on a 250 mile trip up the interstate. Driving up no a/c on, back with a/c on. Mileage was 22 mpg running between 70-75. My last car was a Cobalt, automatic, and that car would consistantly get between 30-35 mpg. My car before this Cobalt was a 2005 Cobalt SS Supercharged with a 5 speed and the mpg's was also in the 30-35 highway. I'm sorta disappointed.

[PCC]

Originally Posted by fljohnboy

Today I drove my recently purchased 2005 PT GT Turbo on a 250 mile trip up the interstate. Driving up no a/c on, back with a/c on. Mileage was 22 mpg running between 70-75. My last car was a Cobalt, automatic, and that car would consistantly get between 30-35 mpg. My car before this Cobalt was a 2005 Cobalt SS Supercharged with a 5 speed and the mpg's was also in the 30-35 highway. I'm sorta disappointed.

Hey FL, check out all the comments in this thread. It seems the prevalent thoughts on our PT's, is that because the PT is aerodynamically challenged and extremely heavy for this type of vehicle; these facts make mileage with them, very poor. Basically, this vehicle is not efficient at all.

Other tidbits of information, in order to maximize/optimize mileage numbers, our PT's (especially automatics), need to be consistently driven in the 55-65MPG ranges, in order to get even close to the Chrysler/EPA MPG estimates (25/26 highway). You also need to baby the accelerator too. No jackrabbit starts, smooth acceleration and even smoother deceleration.

Look thru the comments in this thread. There are some very functional recommendations (and some not so functional). Good luck w/your PT and enjoy.

[85_305]

Keep the rpm's about 2,000. I know you'll be going slow as balls.. but thats the sweet spot for mileage.