Dodge Caliber Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
AWD = 23/26
FWD = 24/28 or something to that effect.

The AWD adds about 300 pounds I believe and about 2-5 mpg decrease.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Yeah I was also thinking:

FWD 2.4L CVT2 w/autostick and 5- Speed (when released late '06 as '07 model) about 25 City/ 30 Highway

Seems like the 2.0L CVT2 now is getting 28 City/ 32 Highway (average) as opposed to EPA on Sticker of 26/30 (heavier foot??) from reports of actual owners on here for some real actual numbers. Some are even reporting more in the highway than 30-32 -ask Silverfox about that. They seem to be reporting numbers better after each fill as the engine breaks in more.

AWD 2.4L probably 22/26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Yeah, something along those lines. Ask Sil. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
2.0 CVT FWD: 28/34

2.4 CVT AWD: 26/31

I think that's close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
There ya go! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
caliber4whoosh said:
AWD = 23/26
FWD = 24/28 or something to that effect.

The AWD adds about 300 pounds I believe and about 2-5 mpg decrease.
Its 150lbs actually. Still enough to make a difference though in measured acceleration. I ordered the AWD because of seasonal road conditions I experience where it will make a difference. As well, the AWD system is in effect from low speed to 65mph where in many cases, a driver will enjoy the enhanced driving characteristics if provides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't know why I thought that would help me make my decision (whether to wait for the FWD R/T), but I appreciate the responses none-the-less! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Based on the figures shown, I would assume that the Non AWD version will be a little higher?
Has anyone had on the road experience with the R/T in regards to MPG?
Its too bad they did not make a Sel-trac type of awd. I am considering the awd for light off road and snow use.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
JeepFreak said:
I don't know why I thought that would help me make my decision (whether to wait for the FWD R/T), but I appreciate the responses none-the-less! :D
I am waiting for the R/T FWD, if I really don't care that much about MPG then I may SRT-4 it! If gas prices keep the way they are, no, will do R/T FWD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
The AWD uses more fuel bcause the drivetrain has to turn all four wheels under acceleration and at certain speeds. Factoring the MPG constantly, like most testers do, the AWD will show lower numbers because of that reason. It's easier to turn two wheels rather than four. A 2.0 AWD would suffer greatly, which is why only the R/T has the AWD option at this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
JohnC said:
Based on the figures shown, I would assume that the Non AWD version will be a little higher?
Has anyone had on the road experience with the R/T in regards to MPG?
Its too bad they did not make a Sel-trac type of awd. I am considering the awd for light off road and snow use.
I agree. An AWD mode defeat switch would be the best of both worlds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
JohnC said:
Based on the figures shown, I would assume that the Non AWD version will be a little higher?
Has anyone had on the road experience with the R/T in regards to MPG?
Its too bad they did not make a Sel-trac type of awd. I am considering the awd for light off road and snow use.
If it comes down to it, I'm sure I can modify it to be more selectable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Hi new to this Forum as of April10 (today) I own a Orange R/T that I have had for a month now. Anyone else actually have an R/T????

Our real gas mileage by recpt method has been averaging 25 mpg. We drive 50 per day and 90% is highway. My wife is the driver during the week. I "get" to drive on the weekend when we go out - another 100 or so.

I love the R/T!!!!!! It does add 300 pounds according to what I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
OrangeRT said:
Hi new to this Forum as of April10 (today) I own a Orange R/T that I have had for a month now. Anyone else actually have an R/T????

Our real gas mileage by recpt method has been averaging 25 mpg. We drive 50 per day and 90% is highway. My wife is the driver during the week. I "get" to drive on the weekend when we go out - another 100 or so.

I love the R/T!!!!!! It does add 300 pounds according to what I know.
You have the colour and one I want, I'm assuming thats 25 US MPG?? This is a great forum as well as the other one!!!:):DOne can add approx 5 MPG for Kanadian MPG..........30mpg is getting better all the time!!!!!!!:)
http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
There's a couple of us that have RT's. I also have an Orange RT, just picked it up last week and I love it so far. I'm seeing mileage numbers close to yours as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I bought my Caliber RT in June with 4 miles on it and now I have 10103 on it at first I was geting 28-34 now I am getting 22-28 and not happy about this milage. has this happend with anyones caliber? also after the car has been driven up to operating temp once it is turned off i hear a pinging from the rear (sounds like a heat sheld ) has this happend on your caliber?:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Silverfox said:
The AWD uses more fuel bcause the drivetrain has to turn all four wheels under acceleration and at certain speeds. Factoring the MPG constantly, like most testers do, the AWD will show lower numbers because of that reason. It's easier to turn two wheels rather than four. A 2.0 AWD would suffer greatly, which is why only the R/T has the AWD option at this time.
I do not agree... If the weight of the vehicle (for arguement's sakes) is the same, torquing 4 wheels to get that object moving is about the same about of energy to get 2 wheels moving the same weight!

The mileage diff is due to the extra weight of the AWD components (transfer case, shaft, overrunning clutch, rear transfer unit), plus the extra wind coeffcient drag which these components add to the vehicle.

A DC 2.0 AWD would suffer due to torque inadequacies. However, a 2.0L CRD (diesel) does okay (diesels have better low end torque usually).

On a 200 kms trip today in the R/T, we did 8.8L/100km, about 32 MPG (imperial). This is up slightly, HOWEVER, the road conditions, load, ... are not consistant with previous trips, so up slightly could not be the proper wording.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top