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.

Save

Capt.Jim

· #6 · Feb 18, 2006

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!

Save

Xram1500

Discussion Starter · #7 · Feb 18, 2006

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.

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

Save

pac74

· #8 · Feb 18, 2006

thanks for the insight bro

Save

sonicman

· #9 · Feb 19, 2006

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.

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

The 2.4 is coming in FWD. R/T FWD in August w/ manual. The best combination of all things caliber IMO.

Save

moparknighthawk

· #10 · Feb 21, 2006

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.

Save

Xtreme Thunder

· #11 · Feb 21, 2006

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.

Save

Silverfox

· #12 · Feb 21, 2006

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.

Save

Xtreme Thunder

· #13 · Feb 21, 2006

Thats good, so it is mirrioring the MPG that of the Neon, well maybe a little lower for the Caliber by say 1-2 MPG. Is that safe to say?

Save

Silverfox

· #14 · Feb 21, 2006

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.

Save

DodgeInfoCenter

· #15 · Feb 21, 2006

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

Save

dbsynergy

· #16 · Feb 21, 2006

I like those numbers a lot better. That's a relief.

Save

OUWxGuesser

· #17 · Feb 21, 2006

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

Save

DodgeInfoCenter

· #18 · Feb 21, 2006

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

Save

sr4tuner

· #19 · Feb 21, 2006

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

Save

sonicman

· #20 · Feb 22, 2006

Dan, any mileage info on the upcoming FWD R/T 2.4 w/ manual? maybe 27/33 depending on the gear ratios?

Save

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month