Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2012, 05:21 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,515,251 times
Reputation: 8075

Advertisements

The fuel economy of the 2.4L Chrysler 200 with 6 speed auto is 20 city and 31 hwy. the 3.6L Chrysler 200 with same transmission is 19 city and 29 hwy. why such a small difference?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2012, 06:01 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57728
Because if the size and weight of the car, the little 4 cylinder has to work harder to move it. RPMs = fuel consumption. The 6 has more power and
runs at lower RPMs so they almost balance out. With that difference I don't know why anyone would buy the 4. Not worth it to save $10 on the one or two spark plug changes over the life of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Summerville, SC
3,382 posts, read 8,645,966 times
Reputation: 1457
Small engine doesn't always mean better mpg. It's about a balance of gearing and power, and how they relate to NORMAL driving. Not what the EPA thinks is normal.

The 200 you might just cruise up on the highway going no higher then 3k rpms.

Same car smaller engine you may have to rev out to 5500 to get the same acceleration.

That's revs per minute. So 3,000 x 6 cylinders equals 18k times the injectors fired, and they fired at a lower fueling schedule not hitting peak power.

Now 5500 x 4 cylinders equals 22,000 times the injectors fired. Also they fire at peak or near peak performance so potentially using more fuel.

It's about a good balance in a car. Did you ever see the top gear video where a 300+ BMW M3 got better fuel mileage then a Prius.

I personally in a 2001 Corvette got low to mid 30s mpg on the highway. Reason being low drag coefficient, the gearing had me at like 700 rpm at about 70ish. That is almost idling. The Corvette has enough low end torque to move all of this easily.

Sent from my autocorrect butchering device.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 07:23 AM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,773 posts, read 18,379,327 times
Reputation: 12004
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustangEater82 View Post



I personally in a 2001 Corvette got low to mid 30s mpg on the highway. Reason being low drag coefficient, the gearing had me at like 700 rpm at about 70ish. That is almost idling. The Corvette has enough low end torque to move all of this easily.
I'm detecting a little exaggeration on this part of your post or miss typing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
30,708 posts, read 79,764,742 times
Reputation: 39453
Is it a heavier engine? It may be the same engine with different pistons.

*****
ON THE OTHER TOPIC:

In my 1995 Camaro Z28 I get around 26-27 highway. That is because it has an extremely high overdrive gear ratio. In the City I get anywhere from 8-15 depending on how I drive. It is a huge difference.

I can see the corvette doing better, it is much lighter and more aerodynamic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,159,468 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
Is it a heavier engine? It may be the same engine with different pistons.

*****
ON THE OTHER TOPIC:

In my 1995 Camaro Z28 I get around 26-27 highway. That is because it has an extremely high overdrive gear ratio. In the City I get anywhere from 8-15 depending on how I drive. It is a huge difference.

I can see the corvette doing better, it is much lighter and more aerodynamic.
The 2.4L is a 4 cylinder. The 3.6 is a V6.

No one makes a six cylinder near 2.4L today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:46 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,668,651 times
Reputation: 14622
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
I'm detecting a little exaggeration on this part of your post or miss typing.
I'm thinking it was a typo. I know for a fact a manual trans, non-performance rear ratio Corvette with standard tire sizes of that vintage is turning around 1,700 RPM at 70mph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
30,708 posts, read 79,764,742 times
Reputation: 39453
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
The 2.4L is a 4 cylinder. The 3.6 is a V6.

No one makes a six cylinder near 2.4L today.

Oh yeah. I did nto read that very well did I?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 07:01 PM
 
8,777 posts, read 19,852,893 times
Reputation: 5291
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
The fuel economy of the 2.4L Chrysler 200 with 6 speed auto is 20 city and 31 hwy. the 3.6L Chrysler 200 with same transmission is 19 city and 29 hwy. why such a small difference?
Evolution?

The 2.4 debuted in '07. The 3.6 debuted in '11.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Summerville, SC
3,382 posts, read 8,645,966 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD View Post
I'm detecting a little exaggeration on this part of your post or miss typing.
No... 6-speed ls1 on the highway. Look around on the web wouldn't be the only one.

Same car ran 13.2 with like a 2.4 or something 60 ft. It was my dad's trip was from Orlando to ft. Lauderdale. My dad told me it did that on the highway of you take ot easy on the highway. I didn't believe him.

Don't worry in the city around 20 mpg, and when you romped on it, much worse.

His 07 isn't as good on the mileage.

Sent from my autocorrect butchering device.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Brand-specific forums > Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top