Rated miles per gallon is total BS!

what is the weight for your 98 van. I thing my generation is heavier ,
around 4000 lbs

"Dave Gower" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TOM KAN PA" > wrote
>
> > Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.
>
> My 98 Grand Voyager 3.3 is rated at 21mpg city and 32 mpg highway Canadian
> (Imperial). On mostly country road and suburban driving I get around 26-27
> mpg Imperial (about 22 U.S.). I don't hot-rod but I don't hold up traffic
> either. There seems to be something wrong with either your driving habits
or
> the condition of your vehicle.
>
>

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
> I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
> 30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
> I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
> 4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.

You say nothing about how its driven. If it never gets out of the city
and never gets above 35 mph between red lights or stops in highway
traffic jams, consider yourself lucky to get 17 mpg. If this is highway
mileage, fix whatever is broken and causing such poor performance.

The last 3 new cars purchased in my extended family (92 Dakota, 93 Eagle
Vision, 2001 Durango) all EXCEED the EPA estimates in true highway
driving, and match them in combined driving.

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
> I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
> 30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
> I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
> 4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.

You say nothing about how its driven. If it never gets out of the city
and never gets above 35 mph between red lights or stops in highway
traffic jams, consider yourself lucky to get 17 mpg. If this is highway
mileage, fix whatever is broken and causing such poor performance.

The last 3 new cars purchased in my extended family (92 Dakota, 93 Eagle
Vision, 2001 Durango) all EXCEED the EPA estimates in true highway
driving, and match them in combined driving.

"Dave Gower" wrote:

>"TOM KAN PA" > wrote
>
>> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.
>
>My 98 Grand Voyager 3.3 is rated at 21mpg city and 32 mpg highway Canadian
>(Imperial). On mostly country road and suburban driving I get around 26-27
>mpg Imperial (about 22 U.S.). I don't hot-rod but I don't hold up traffic
>either. There seems to be something wrong with either your driving habits or
>the condition of your vehicle.

My '96 T&C LXi 3.8 is rated at 17 city and 24 hwy and currently averages around
15 city and 22 hwy (87 octane). Of course I do have to use the "California
Reformulated" fuel six months of the year, the van does have 184,000 miles on
it and the city driving does consist of Los Angeles city/freeway driving so I
really can't complain. My wife averages 16.2 (89 octane) after a year and
21,000 miles on the Pacific AWD and we haven't averaged hwy driving yet. The
Pacifica is rated at 17 city and 22 hwy.

I should point out (especially for TOM KAN PA) that even though these two
vehicles are rated as stated above the sticker for the T&C says the majority of
vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 14/20 city and 20/28 hwy.
The sticker for the Pacifica says 14/20 city and 18/26 hwy. And both stickers
indicate "actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving
habits and vehicle's condition".

RP

"Dave Gower" wrote:

>"TOM KAN PA" > wrote
>
>> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.
>
>My 98 Grand Voyager 3.3 is rated at 21mpg city and 32 mpg highway Canadian
>(Imperial). On mostly country road and suburban driving I get around 26-27
>mpg Imperial (about 22 U.S.). I don't hot-rod but I don't hold up traffic
>either. There seems to be something wrong with either your driving habits or
>the condition of your vehicle.

My '96 T&C LXi 3.8 is rated at 17 city and 24 hwy and currently averages around
15 city and 22 hwy (87 octane). Of course I do have to use the "California
Reformulated" fuel six months of the year, the van does have 184,000 miles on
it and the city driving does consist of Los Angeles city/freeway driving so I
really can't complain. My wife averages 16.2 (89 octane) after a year and
21,000 miles on the Pacific AWD and we haven't averaged hwy driving yet. The
Pacifica is rated at 17 city and 22 hwy.

I should point out (especially for TOM KAN PA) that even though these two
vehicles are rated as stated above the sticker for the T&C says the majority of
vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 14/20 city and 20/28 hwy.
The sticker for the Pacifica says 14/20 city and 18/26 hwy. And both stickers
indicate "actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving
habits and vehicle's condition".

RP

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
> I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
> 30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
> I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
> 4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.

Interesting, I almost always get close to the highway mileage on cars I
own and have owned in the past. A lot depends on your driving habits.


Matt

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I just read a post and several replies about poor gas mileage in a Neon.
> I have a '01 PT Cruiser with 30,000 miles on it. I just did the "recommended
> 30,000 miles spark plug replacement".
> I still feel lucky if once in 50 fill ups I get 17 mpg.
> 4 cylinder, auto, sticker rated at 22/27 mpg.
> Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.

Interesting, I almost always get close to the highway mileage on cars I
own and have owned in the past. A lot depends on your driving habits.


Matt

"cosza" > wrote in message ...
> what is the weight for your 98 van. I thing my generation is heavier ,
> around 4000 lbs

I believe about 3850, or almost the same.

"cosza" > wrote in message ...
> what is the weight for your 98 van. I thing my generation is heavier ,
> around 4000 lbs

I believe about 3850, or almost the same.

"Dave Gower" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TOM KAN PA" > wrote
>
> > Bull****!!! I never came close to achieving these mile per gallons.
>
> My 98 Grand Voyager 3.3 is rated at 21mpg city and 32 mpg highway Canadian
> (Imperial). On mostly country road and suburban driving I get around 26-27
> mpg Imperial (about 22 U.S.). I don't hot-rod but I don't hold up traffic
> either. There seems to be something wrong with either your driving habits
or
> the condition of your vehicle.

Why would you calculate your mileage in Imperial miles per gallon when your
fuel is measured in liters, and distances in kms?