Dodge Caliber Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Why am I seeing 26 mpg for the 2.4 when the 2.0 is 32 mpg? :confused:

I've seen 28 mpg for the SRT. Can anyone explain this one?

I would have figured around 30 mpg.

The Charger 3.5 claims 27 mpg i think :p.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
This is true, however, which car gets the better mileage - 24/30 or 28/34? 28/34 will win out... The numbers are still a decent estimator when comparing car-to-car for fuel efficiency. Numbers will decrese in less-optimal conditions for every car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
The low MPG for the 2.4 comes from the fact that it is coupled with the AWD. As you can see there is alot of loss in the drivetrain.

Forget about the 3.5 Charger, The hemi MDS gets 26!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I am pulling the numbers from allpar.com.

Thanks Capt. I totally missed the connection between the drop in mpg and the AWD.

Now I wish the 2.4 came in FWD.

I might have to take a look at the Charger R/T again....but I had a HEMI and it got 15 mpg in the Ram 1500. Had to go when gas hit 2.99. :eek:

I was on the Charger forum and guys are reporting 20-23 mpg in mix driving with the MDS. Not bad for room and power :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Xram1500 said:
I am pulling the numbers from allpar.com.

Thanks Capt. I totally missed the connection between the drop in mpg and the AWD.

Now I wish the 2.4 came in FWD.

I might have to take a look at the Charger R/T again....but I had a HEMI and it got 15 mpg in the Ram 1500. Had to go when gas hit 2.99. :eek:

I was on the Charger forum and guys are reporting 20-23 mpg in mix driving with the MDS. Not bad for room and power :D
The 2.4 is coming in FWD. R/T FWD in August w/ manual. The best combination of all things caliber IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Don't forget, the EPA numbers are calculated differently for the 2007 and up model years. (this info is on the net). So, its not fair to compare the 2006 and 2007 models. The 2007 info will be closer to real world MPG. The 2006 numbers are still the slightly inflated numbers that have been used for comparison for years. Everything changed in 2007.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
moparknighthawk said:
Don't forget, the EPA numbers are calculated differently for the 2007 and up model years. (this info is on the net). So, its not fair to compare the 2006 and 2007 models. The 2007 info will be closer to real world MPG. The 2006 numbers are still the slightly inflated numbers that have been used for comparison for years. Everything changed in 2007.
Cool inforamtion, I didn't know that! Well thats good to know because everytime I look at EPA I automatically deduct like 2-3 MPG for City and Highway. I will have to remember that now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
The 2.0L will pull almost 25 city MPG after it gets broken in. I'd suspect around the same for the 2.4L. Highway driving for extended periods can net well over 30, if done right. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
You could say that, mainly because the World engine is strictly DOHC. You'll be seeing numbers comperable to the first generation DOHC minus the obvious for weight and aerodynamic differences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
moparknighthawk said:
Don't forget, the EPA numbers are calculated differently for the 2007 and up model years. (this info is on the net). So, its not fair to compare the 2006 and 2007 models. The 2007 info will be closer to real world MPG. The 2006 numbers are still the slightly inflated numbers that have been used for comparison for years. Everything changed in 2007.
Correct, EPA testing procedures have been updated for the 2007 model year. We should be seeing more realistic Fuel efficiency figures across the board.

Here are the official figures right from our product guides:
1.8L FWD w/ Man5 (148hp @ 6,500 / 125lb-ft @ 5,200) 28/35
2.0L FWD w/ CVT2 (158hp @ 6,400 / 141lb-ft @ 5,000) 28/34
2.4L AWD w/ CVT2 (172hp @ 6,000 / 165lb-ft @ 4,400) 25/31

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
OUWxGuesser said:
So is there still some confusion? My dad saw a Caliber SXT (CVT) in a mall in Rockford, IL and said the windowsticker said 26/30?

Aaron
Humm interesting but quite honest, I have no idea why there is a discrepancy.

I can only go off what our product guide tell us, I could see our numbers being a bit off a little bit because there is always a margin of error.

Overall, the best people to ask are the owners. We rarely drive in ideal circumstances.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
551 Posts
Well f you could afford a ram and maintain it you should have just used it less because gas is down to 2 again so you may have been throwin out some retail value
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top