Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Chrysler 300/300C: MPG-Real World Numbers
50 messages, Last post on Oct 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM
You are in the Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: tall12 (Oct 11, 2005 11:17 am) Also, the van with it's higher seating arrangements is more convenient to get in and out, but I don't find the 300C as objectionable as the '97 Subaru Outback which we traded for the 300C. For my long legs, it was much lower and more difficult than the 300C. If we had stuck with the plan to order a 2006 300C next spring, AWD would have been our choice since our experience with the van has been so good. However, having reviewed the videos regarding the evolution of RWD with ESP and anti-lock brakes, etc., I have far less concerns about drivability this winter than I did before (paritcularly for my wife). No doubt AWD would be even better, but I do think this 300C will handle and drive far better in winter conditions than my favorite high school/college RWD car... the '68 Charger! Regarding "minor goosing"... Last night I had to make a "quick" trip back to Lowes to retrieve a bag of hardware we had left at the counter. It's about 8 miles one way, half of which is 65 mph freeway. I hit 65 mph before the end of the on-ramp (goosed it a little - ha). The rest is urban 35-40 mph with stop-lights every, or every-other block. I was fortunate to make every light going to the store, but had to stop at every other one on the way back. Made the round trip (including going into the store) in about 35 min. The info center mileage went from 15.8 to 16.1 mpg then dropped back to 16.0 by the time I got back in the garage (remember we're in the first 100 or so miles on our fill of the tank). |
|
|
Replying to: tall12 (Oct 11, 2005 11:17 am) Drive one and you'll see this isn't the case. The Marauder will feel weaker pretty much all around to the 300C, especially on the bottom end. In city driving, it will also do just as poorly - it's rated at 17/23 and even requires premium gas. It also doesn't have the stability control of the 300. There are a bunch of other reasons the 300 out classes Ford's "Panther" cars, including the solid rear axle... |
|
|
Replying to: tall12 (Oct 11, 2005 11:17 am) By the way I have a 2006 AWD 300C. I get between 14 and 15 MPG in the city (NY) and 20 to 21 MPG highway. Best highway MPG I've seen is 24 MPG.
|
|
|
Replying to: jjtawdc (Oct 12, 2005 6:39 am) If that's the case, it sure is silly. That doesn't appear to be the way the mileage calculation in my T&C van functions. If the engine if off and gas consumption is impossible, the fuel consumption calc. should remain static/off. Surely it would be an easy thing to "fix" via some EPROM flash update or the like. These vehicles have been out for quite some time now... I'm really surprised that this hasn't been corrected by now... somehow or other. |
|
|
Well, we took the 300C for a Fall Foliage road trip within WV this weekend. After about 15 miles of in-city driving after filling the tank, we took out. First 80 mils or so was freeway driving at 70 mph. Thereafter was highway driving at 55, and mountain driving at 35 or less on curvy and/or hairpin cornes, up and down terrain in the 3,200 to 3,500 ft range (the Appalachian are NOT the Rockies). We took one side road (gray) that we thought would connect to a state highway, and wound up outside the boondock security gate of a coal mine and had to turn around and retrace out path for about 5 mile or more. When we finally got gas after 9 hours of travel and 400 miles (+/- 20) the tank took 16.2 gal. The trip computer had calculated 22.8 mpg. Manual calc. at 380 miles gives 23.5, and at 420 miles would be 25.9. After refill, we had about 100 miles more to home base, 20 at 55 mph and 80 at 65 mph, and the trip computer was showing 24 mpg as we pulled into the garage. So I'm thinking the trip computer is underestimating fuel economy by a significant margin. That's too bad. Someone just posted in the Problems and Solutions forum that they completed an 1800+ miles trip between Ohio and Myrtle Beach, etc., and averaged 28 mpg for the entire trip! Don't know whether that was trip computer or actual calc., but I'm going to keep working on my records! |
|
|
|
 I posted the 28.0 MPG. Over a week drove to Myrtle Beach, Charleston, and Hilton Head. Did usual drives around town and beaches. Drove around Charleston. Took I77 from Ohio down and I75 back to Ohio. Appalachian and Smoky Mountains along way! Stayed at speed limits and did not haul from lights. Tried to drive very smoothly. Drove most of 1859 miles on cruise control. MPG based on car computer. The four cylinder cutout/in is sometimes obvious, especially if you watch the tach. As the 4 cylinders cut in the tach drops 100 to 200 RPM. Have had other trips of 28.0 and 26.0 MPG over lesser distances. It gets only 16 to 17 MPG around town. At idle the MPG drops. Have never sat with key on and watched MPG.
|
|
|
Ok, just filled up the tank for this week. First 100 miles was coming home from the trip last week at highway speed (65 mph - see previous post), remaining 206 miles was city driving with a 2.5 mile higway sprint typically going each way to/from town. Trip computer indicated 16.6 mpg. Tank took 16.6 gal of 87 octane... that works out to 18.5 mpg. Not going to complain about that... our T&C van averages about 15 and change. |
|
|
|
Managed to get about 25.3MPG(US) or 30.4MPG(Imperial) after a drive from Vancouver to Whistler and back this week (around 151-152 Miles). The fuel guage shows 3/4 of a tank left, but needle was way above full at the start (as is on all cars) so I took the conservative calculation based on 1/3 tank used rather than 1/4. This may mean I've got better MPG than the calculations above, but i'm happy with them. 
|
|
|
Replying to: cerberus300 (Oct 24, 2005 4:00 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
After a journey this weekend from Portland, Oregan to Vancouver, B.C of 324 miles stopping in Seattle for a break and walk about, the needle on fuel guage was resting exactly over 1/4 tank (68 litre tank) so guessed at 51 litres to refill. Pumped in 51.292, so guage is quite accurate allowing for a little fuel in the pipe. This equates to: 23.9 MPG (US gallon) or 28.7 MPG (Imperial gallon). Not too shabby as the car was fully loaded with 5 people and all their luggage. Can anyone out there clarify which is the Worldwide "Official" MPG calculation, if there is one - US gallon or Imperial gallon?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chrysler 300/300C/300C SRT-8 Chrysler 300/300C: MPG-Real World Numbers
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Chrysler 300
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
