300C Fuel economy

[General Schvantzkoph]

Test drove the 300 and the 300C this weekend. The performance of the 3.5
was quite good and the 300C is a rocket. The demonstrator 300C that I
tested was getting 14.7MPG, I'm wondering what people are really seeing
for daily and highway driving. My 94 Concorde with a 3.6 still gets 23 MPG
in the summer and 21 in the winter, 28 on the highway. Frankly I'd feel a
little guilty about driving a car that was getting less than 15MPG, so
what are people really getting on the 5.7HEMI and the 3.5?

 

[Art]

New cars are usually lousy on gas mileage for the first few thousand miles.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

New cars are usually lousy on gas mileage for the first few thousand miles.

Lower, yes. "Lousy", no. If the demonstrator was getting 14.7 in the first
few thousand miles, it certainly isn't going to rocket up to 22 or
anything close after that time.

-Stern

 

[Art]

I presume he was referring to an on-board mileage calculator. Anyone bother
to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations
after a few fill ups?

Also if the demo 300C was used to show off, mileage did not reflect
displacement savings when cruising, assuming they exist.

 

[marlinspike]

Think about how a new car is probably test driven. I know for my local
Chrysler dealer it's a short trip around the block in a high traffic area. I
would take the EPA numbers as being pretty close, maybe a little optimistic.
Richard

 

[RPhillips47]

Think about how a new car is probably test driven. I know for my local
Chrysler dealer it's a short trip around the block in a high traffic area. I
would take the EPA numbers as being pretty close, maybe a little optimistic.
Richard

You have that a bit backwards. EPA numbers are "a little close" and "pretty
optimistic".

RP

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

I presume he was referring to an on-board mileage calculator. Anyone bother
to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations
after a few fill ups?

Also if the demo 300C was used to show off, mileage did not reflect
displacement savings when cruising, assuming they exist.

A demonstrator is definitely worst case because test drives are short and
everyone stomps on the gas pedal to see what it can do. That's why I'm
asking about real world experience. The car weighs two tons so you
wouldn't expect it to get great mileage but I would like to know what to
expect. So anyone who has one, what are you getting in every day driving
and what have you gotten on a long highway trip?

 

[Steve]

Lower, yes. "Lousy", no. If the demonstrator was getting 14.7 in the first
few thousand miles, it certainly isn't going to rocket up to 22 or
anything close after that time.

-Stern

Well, but the demonstrator probably gets "performance tested" about 8
times per day (every time someone takes it out for a test drive....) and
never does more than 3 miles at a time of steady highway cruising.

 

[Steve]

:




You have that a bit backwards. EPA numbers are "a little close" and "pretty
optimistic".

RP

My experience with cars purchased since roughly 1990 (4 vehicles in the
extended family) and with a few rentals is that I can usually EXCEED the
EPA highway mileage by a pretty good bit. The most outstanding example
was a '92 5.2 Dakota that my father bought. I forget what the EPA
sticker was, but I think it was under 20 mpg highway, and he used to
routinely get 22-23 mpg with it. Measured mpg, not computer-calculated
mpg, too.


That's completely opposite to my 70s and 80s experience when EPA mileage
was often a good 30% optimistic on both numbers.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

A demonstrator is definitely worst case because test drives are short and
everyone stomps on the gas pedal to see what it can do. That's why I'm
asking about real world experience. The car weighs two tons so you
wouldn't expect it to get great mileage but I would like to know what to
expect. So anyone who has one, what are you getting in every day driving
and what have you gotten on a long highway trip?

Haven't had mine long enough for a highway trip but I'm getting close
to the EPA estimate for combined mileage. With that much power under
the hood, I frankly don't care what mileage I get since it's still
better than my Kia Sedona minivan and the driving pleasure is light
years ahead.

 

[RPhillips47]

My experience with cars purchased since roughly 1990 (4 vehicles in the
extended family) and with a few rentals is that I can usually EXCEED the
EPA highway mileage by a pretty good bit. The most outstanding example
was a '92 5.2 Dakota that my father bought. I forget what the EPA
sticker was, but I think it was under 20 mpg highway, and he used to
routinely get 22-23 mpg with it. Measured mpg, not computer-calculated
mpg, too.

I guess you don't have the fortunate pleasure of having to buy the required,
mandated California "reformulated" gasoline that does improve the air we
breathe (?) but doesn't fare well on mileage - at least not on our Pacifica AWD
that my wife drives, our '96 T&C LXi that I drive, our '93 GC Laredo that my
newly licensed daughter drives or our '91 Honda LX that my son drives (of
course, we ARE California drivers so that could also have something to do with
it!).

 

[NJ Vike]

I guess you don't have the fortunate pleasure of having to buy the required,
mandated California "reformulated" gasoline that does improve the air we
breathe (?) but doesn't fare well on mileage -

Er, we do in NJ and all it does is use more gas which puts more pollutants
back in the air. So, how is this helping?

Ken

 

[RPhillips47]

Er, we do in NJ and all it does is use more gas which puts more pollutants
back in the air. So, how is this helping?

Ken

Obviously you DIDN'T see the question mark in parenthesis after the word
breathe (it wasn't to question my spelling of the word!)??????? And your
gasoline in NJ is oxygenated and has MTBE (which, of course, is outlawed in
California but is used anyway) added? The story we get is the gas for
California is formulated just for California but maybe NJ and others have
decided it is worth the scam to say so to charge more. I can say, though, that
our air is considerably cleaner than years ago and we do not have many Smog
Alerts anymore, but the mileage DOES suffer.

RP

 

[mic canic]

if you were reading the mileage info from the v.i.c. then there is a good
chanace it's wrong
the milage is averaged and if someone fills the tank pulls out on the road
then floors it
the computer will average it off that first action and the milage will be off
verses someone just pulling out into traffic and going slow. refilling the
tank resets the computer for that

 

[N.Cass]

Anyone bother
to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations
after a few fill ups?

1995 Eagle Vision Tsi, 3.5L engine with the trip computer.

On 2 seperate occasions, I compared the trip computer with manual
calculations, and both times the trip computer was off by .1

Trip computer: 22.5
My calculation: 22.4

 

[Art]

Pretty amazing accuracy.

1995 Eagle Vision Tsi, 3.5L engine with the trip computer.

On 2 seperate occasions, I compared the trip computer with manual
calculations, and both times the trip computer was off by .1

Trip computer: 22.5
My calculation: 22.4

 

[NJ Vike]

I think you misunderstood the post as I did see the ? in your post.

My point was that our gas mileage suffers when we're forced to use this
garbage and that I can't see how it helps when we are putting more
pollutants back in the air. Or, at least that's the way it appears to me.
This isn't directed to you as it's a question for anyone who may offer an
opposing view.

Ken



I wasn't questioning the word or the

 

[NG]

My 94 Concorde with a 3.6 still gets...

3.6? Is there such a thing? Thought they only had 3.5's then next was the
3.8?

Just wondering.

-NG
'04, '03 Neon SXTs

 

[Art]

94 Concorde came with a 3.5 just like my 94 LHS.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

3.6? Is there such a thing? Thought they only had 3.5's then next was the
3.8?

Just wondering.

-NG
'04, '03 Neon SXTs

Your right it's a 3.5.