 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / June 2004300C Fuel economy
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? New cars are usually lousy on gas mileage for the first few thousand miles. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? > > 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 > 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 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. > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Stern 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 > I presume he was referring to an on-board mileage calculator. Anyone bother > to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > -Stern >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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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!). > 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 >> I guess you don't have the fortunate pleasure of having to buy the >required, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >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 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 > >> I guess you don't have the fortunate pleasure of having to buy the > >required, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mandated California "reformulated" gasoline that does improve the air we > breathe (?) Austin gets its own "new and disimproved" formula (one of the 20-odd blends stupidly mandated in various parts of the country), which changed about a year ago. The new stuff smells like kerosene and promptly dissolved an old plastic air cleaner spacer on one of my carbureted cars, but really doesn't seem to hurt gas mileage (on either the EFI or carbureted cars0 as much as the "winter formula" gas that we got prior to this latest re-forumlation. > I presume he was referring to an on-board mileage calculator. Anyone bother > to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> -Stern 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? > > I presume he was referring to an on-board mileage calculator. Anyone bother > > to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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. > 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  SignatureNick <Remove number one if replying by electronic mail> Pretty amazing accuracy. > > Anyone bother > > to compare their electronic average readout to their manual calculations [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Trip computer: 22.5 > My calculation: 22.4 >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -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. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? > 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 94 Concorde came with a 3.5 just like my 94 LHS. > > My 94 Concorde with a 3.6 still gets... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -NG > '04, '03 Neon SXTs >> My 94 Concorde with a 3.6 still gets... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -NG > '04, '03 Neon SXTs Your right it's a 3.5. I've got about 1200 miles on my 300C and can give you the following report: Around town in Atlanta, I am averaging ~15 mpg. I recently took a trip down to Auburn AL, (about 150 miles away), and set the cruise at 78, with cruise control on, the MDS gets to take maximum effect and my mileage improved to 22 mpg. I expect mileage to improve more when no A/C is necessary, and if I cruised a bit slower. Bottom line though, if you put your foot in it, you automatically give up any decent gas mileage. It's pretty cool to watch the gas mileage on a recent reset after fillup on the road. On level ground you can see the MDS kick in, (but don't feel it), as the average mpg begins to tick up. When you begin an uphill pull, but before the cruise applies more power, you can see the MDS kick off and the mpg begins to tick down. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? > I've got about 1200 miles on my 300C and can give you the following report:... > > ...I expect mileage to improve more when no A/C is necessary, and if I cruised > a bit slower... And after it has a chance to wear in a little more after a few more miles. Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x") Glad to read your post as my magnum with the hemi engine is getting about same mileage around town. But here in Rancho Cucamonga, California I do a lot of uphill driving. Signature_______________________________________ "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: The chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'." http://community.webshots.com/user/godwino > I've got about 1200 miles on my 300C and can give you the following report: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > 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? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.