Chrysler/Plymouth Voyager-Dodge Caravan Real World MPG

Replying to: delquattro (Feb 07, 2008 4:54 pm)

I think Jay's post was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that he didn't believe my post regarding the jump in my fuel economy following the head-gasket replacement job I did on our 3.8 liter 1998 DGC last summer. Said another way, I don't actually think he was claiming that the fuel economy on either of his vehicles changed one bit.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• xwesx (Feb 08, 2008 8:24 am)
  • jay81 (Feb 08, 2008 5:16 pm)
    • xwesx (Feb 08, 2008 6:14 pm)

Replying to: shipo (Feb 07, 2008 8:57 pm)

Yep, you can never please everyone's sense of doubt. Frankly, I see no reason why a well aged, well maintained engine should not provide better efficiency than one that is green. People spit out the word "van" like it is contemptuous, but these are not big, boxy Econolines that push more air than they let pass. *rolls eyes*
 
Funny enough, I never even noticed that post (by jay) prior to now. Really, it added that much to the topic.

Replies to this message:
• jay81 (Feb 08, 2008 5:16 pm)
  • xwesx (Feb 08, 2008 6:14 pm)

Replying to: xwesx (Feb 08, 2008 8:24 am)

Replies to this message:
• xwesx (Feb 08, 2008 6:14 pm)

Replying to: jay81 (Feb 08, 2008 5:16 pm)

Well, you are on a rant, but that is okay. You can be on a rant and speak facts simultaneously.
 
One thing about the Dodge vans that has come to light this winter is that they are not equipped with cold-weather friendly lubricants. At -40F, it takes an annoyingly large amount of effort to get my van to move simply due to the viscosity of the lubricants in the drive train. As this van is 10 years old and lived here during its entire service life, I would have expected the fluids to be changed to the climate. Apparently not, so I will do that this spring/summer.
 
For the record, my economy is about 13.5 this winter - pretty awful compared to the 19.5 experienced during the summer. But, my old '96 Subaru Outback used to dip down to 16-18 mpg in the winter compared to 24-25 in the summer, so I suppose it is not so bad, but at least the Outback would move with relative ease in the extreme cold.
 
Aside from maintenance concerns, driving conditions make all the difference to fuel economy - one person's city driving is not the same as the next, necessarily. Vintage. Hahahaha; I have a "vintage" van, a '69 Ford Econoline. Your mileage beats it.

I cannot believe the mileage that the two of y'all are getting. The absolute worst city mileage I've been able to conjure in either of our 3.8 liter DGCs is high 17s in the winter and just a hair over 20 in the summer. I just filled up this afternoon after running errands all over the Boston area for the last couple of days, and the mileage was a relatively decent 18.7 mpg. A few weeks back I took our 1998 on a nice easy road trip up to Okemo Mountain in Vermont for a little skiing; with the cruise control set at a fairly conservative 72, I recorded 21.6 mpg for the entire trip (which included a fair amount of tooling around town). Sounds pretty reasonable for a van with over 154,000 miles on the clock.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• jay81 (Feb 08, 2008 11:32 pm)
  • shipo (Feb 09, 2008 12:03 am)
    • jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 9:45 am) and 2 more...
    • xwesx (Feb 10, 2008 7:40 pm) and 1 more...

Replying to: shipo (Feb 08, 2008 10:15 pm)

Replies to this message:
• shipo (Feb 09, 2008 12:03 am)
  • jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 9:45 am)
    • shipo (Feb 09, 2008 10:20 am) and 1 more...
  • xwesx (Feb 10, 2008 7:40 pm)
    • shipo (Feb 10, 2008 8:07 pm)

Replying to: jay81 (Feb 08, 2008 11:32 pm)

Yeah, we get the oxygenated winter fuels here too, unfortunately, now that the infrastructure is in place (as of about a year ago), we get winter fuel all year round. Regarding my mileage, I have a complete log of every fill-up both of our vans have been given, going right back to the day they rolled out of the showroom (which totals some 259,000 combined miles). Needless to say, I have a pretty good idea of how far they both go on a gallon of fuel.
 
For both of our vans, their worst fuel economy was logged during the first 1,000 miles (geez, our 1998 got 17.2 on a road trip when it was new ), and their best fuel economy was recorded after there were six figures showing on the odometer. So far, the best the (heavier and more powerful) 2003 3.8 has been able to do on a road trip was 26.3 mpg while the 1998 3.8 managed that one 500+ mile tank last summer (immediately following the head gasket replacement job) that worked out to 28.2 mpg.
 
As for the weather and the oil that I use, here in New Hamster we've been seeing morning temperatures that range between just below zero to a bit above freezing; and to keep everything nice and lubricated I've been running both vans on Mobil 1 0W-40 for several years now (0W-30 before that, and in the case of the 1998, 5W-30 before that).
 
Regarding the mileage that other folks get, hmmm, well I'm fairly active on other Chrysler Minivan forums, and to be quite honest, neither of our vans are considered all that unusual by the other members. There is always a group that gets crap mileage (and complain about it a lot), a group of "hyper-milers" that make my numbers look pathetic, and then everybody else who manages to get decent but not stellar mileage from their vans (my category).
 
So, the question remains, "Why does your van get such lousy fuel economy?"
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 9:45 am)
  • shipo (Feb 09, 2008 10:20 am)
    • jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 10:36 am)
• xwesx (Feb 10, 2008 7:40 pm)
  • shipo (Feb 10, 2008 8:07 pm)

Replying to: shipo (Feb 09, 2008 12:03 am)

Replies to this message:
• shipo (Feb 09, 2008 10:20 am)
  • jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 10:36 am)

Replying to: jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 9:45 am)

He-he, no, I'm not an accountant.
 
I think you've identified your problem (at least to a certain extent). Urban cycle trips of less than five miles are guaranteed to produce crappy mileage results, even on a new Civic or other car of that ilk. Even still, I find your mileage lower than I would expect. Could it be that you've been driving those short trips for so long that you've actually unseated the rings due to running rich all of the time?
 
Regarding the digital read-out, yes, both of our vans have it too (although for 2003 Chrysler dropped the "instant" mpg display), and I have seen very low readings, however, I cannot remember a time when I saw less than 10 mpg with a fully warmed up engine, errr, unless I was at full throttle in first or second gear climbing a mountain. FWIW, I live on a street with a 7.5% grade and have a 12% grade in my long driveway, and when the engine is cold I've seen as low as 4 mpg displayed, even under light acceleration.
 
Regarding our fuel, up until about a year and a half ago, we were getting 100% gasoline in the summer months and gasoline laced with MTBE during the winter. Now that New England has the necessary infrastructure to support ethanol, all of our fuel is E10 (10% ethanol) year-round. Needless to say, I noticed an instant drop of between 5% and 8% in the fuel economy of our cars. That said, I do admit that for my record fuel economy run last summer, I filled up in rural Michigan (about 20 miles southwest of Port Huron), which is an area where I believe they still use 100% gasoline. I then proceeded to wait in a line queue to pay the toll at the Blue Water Bridge, and then in another for Canadian customs. Following those two long delays (with lots of engine idling), I managed to get almost all of the way to Hamilton before road construction conspired to slow me to a bumper to bumper crawl (with lots of episodes of no movement at all) for about 12 miles. Then came U.S. customs in the Buffalo area, a toll booth or two, and then finally the NY Thruway.
 
Even with all of the stop-and-go stuff and all of the idling, I managed to get over 500 miles on that tank. The weather conditions were mid to high 80s, moderate humidity, and little or no wind. I kept the windows open, the A/C off and the cruise control at about 67 for the entire trip. I'm thinking that I might have gotten at least one more mile per gallon (maybe even two) if I'd been able to set the CC and go the entire distance with no stops.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo

Replies to this message:
• jay81 (Feb 09, 2008 10:36 am)

Replying to: shipo (Feb 09, 2008 10:20 am)