Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Post Your Van Gas Mileage Here

1666769717292

Comments

  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    No an instant readout is not necessary, but neither are leather seats, air conditioning, cruise control, automatic transmissions etc. etc. The car will run fine without those things - actually better with less weight and less parasitic loss to the engine.

    If people bought cars they needed - SUV's sure would be rare, as would most large and/or luxury vehicles. :)
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    agreed (except the part about AC). two true stories:

    1). once upon a time i lived in the northeast. bought a black jetta gli (manual) and specifically told dealership to find one without AC (didn't really need it in the NE). i loved driving it (i already mentioned it had both short-term and long-term MPG estimates). anyway this vehicle never gave me any trouble. several years later i found myself in atlanta. oh that was fun trying to get somewhere in the summer and arrive at my destination dry. ;)

    2). wife had a small mitzubishi (sp?) hatchback (also manual), without AC... one day after work in ATL, making my way to the home we just purchased (going a new way), i zoned (combination heat and intersection unfamiliarity), made a left on green when i thought all trafic was yielding to turn right, and got spun like a top.

    lesson for me: AC is not an option. now if someone made a mini-van with a stick, both my wife and i would have favored it. we realize we are in a minority. we believe a manual provides us more vehicle control and responsiveness. however, it is also true that in much of ATL traffic, a manual forces one to do more work. with an AT, i find myself arriving at my destination a bit less frazzled when traffic is very heavy.

    speaking of less weight and smaller size, if i could have purchased one of those older model odysseys based on the accord, i would have done it.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...now if someone made a mini-van with a stick..."

    Have you looked at the new Mazda5?
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    The 2002 T&C LX with 3.3L gets better gas mileage "in the real world driving" than the 2002 Odd EX 3.5L. ;)
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    thanks. i had not. just went to the mazda site. looks very interesting... will have to check the specs and take a test drive. we liked the MPV very much (good road feedback (more honda- and vw-like), good turning radius, good visability), sized better than the sienna and honda for our particular needs...only complaint i had was the engine and transmission seemed mis-matched for the vehicle and seemed underpowered with my wife and i and three kids riding in it.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    Did the MPV you test drove have the anemic 2.5L or the modern 3.0L that has good performance that gets better gas mileage than did the original smaller (marginally adequate) 2.5L? :confuse:
    All VW minivans that I have ever driven were grossly underpowered and handled about as poorly as any vehicle made... :sick: Gas mileage with the wheezing, anemic 4 cyl engine and manual transmission was MUCH lower in the VW minivans (VW Bus, Vanagon, etc. ) than the T&C with a powerful, modern 3.3L V6.
  • bob57bob57 Posts: 302
    My '01 with the 2.5L (they changed to 3.0L '02) is fine for me. I don't think it's anemic by any means. It will blast off when the light changes and cruise with the big boys at 75MPH on the freeways (I call them managed parking lots..).
    I presently have almost 90K miles, run with the a/c on all the time (it's 75 right now in Texas) and I'm getting 22mpg consistently. Ok - Houston is flat and I'm on the freeway 90% of the time but 22mpg is respectable in my opinion under the my circumstances.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    The new VW's handle very well, have decent power and are huge inside (larger than minivans). Those old ones were pathetic though - engine was always at full throttle.
  • user777user777 Posts: 3,341
    the modern 3.0L i presume. it was late 2003. i test drove 3 MPVs. comming from decades driving VWs: scirocco, rabbit, jetta, mazda 323, toyota corolla, honda accord, the honda exhibited most familiar and desireable drivability / handling / responsiveness characteristics to us of the three models we considered: the MPV, the Sienna, the Odyssey.

    we did our shopping before the MPV TCM re-flashes. i experienced confused shifts and the transmission gearing and engine combination just did not seem appropriately matched to me. that is why i test drove three MPVs.
  • squestsquest Posts: 25
    I drove my 2004 Quest 15,384 miles in 2005, and overall average was 21.576 MPG.
    I live in the mountains of North Ga. This included trips to Florida, Maine, and mostly suburban driving. Not too much city stop and go.
  • If you were to ask me, I think the "so called" computer readout of "Instant MPG" is nothing more than a Vacuum guage, with the inches of Vacuum replaced with MPG readouts. You could get the same result with a simple Vacuum Guage.
    I tend to agree with user777, somethings are nice to have for comfort, and some are just gizmos & gadgets to distract you from the main task of driving.

    I remember an old saying ......

    A Little Gas... A Little Oil.
    A Little Spark... A Little Coil.
    4 Little Wheels... & A Running Board
    It might have been a Model T Ford....

    Boxwrench
  • I have a question. They say if you drive over 60mph(which all of us do on the freeway) then you get progressively worse mileage. Well I don't understand. My 2005 Dodge Caravan with 21k on the clock got 24 on the way to Flagstaff from Phoenix and then got 28 on the way back for an average of 26 mpg. That was one way going up and up and up from 1000 feet to over 7000 feet and then back down. Loaded with family and all luggage with average speed about 75mph. Does that mean that I can go 60 the entire trip on average and get like 33-35mpg or what. I can keep my tach below 3000 and be doing over 90mph in the 3.3l engine. Explain this.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    You could very well get that kind of mileage if you drive 60 and there is no wind, or hills etc. Try it and let us know!
  • crissmancrissman Posts: 145
    Just traded in my 2000 MPV with 112K miles. Throughout its relatively trouble-free life it consistently returned 21-22 mpg in a 50/50 mix of driving. Best highway only number was about 24 mpg. I can agree with bob57 that the 2.5 engine can keep up with the flow. It's my impression that it was more reliable than the 3.0 has been.
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    What did you get to replace it? Thanks. ;)
  • crissmancrissman Posts: 145
    We traded for an '05 Volvo V70. The dealer still had some '05's, marked down to within a couple grand of our other choices (Saturn Vue and Mazda 6 Wagon). The '05's come with 3yr/36K free maintenence, but not the '06's. Figured that was worth at least $500. It was a demonstrator/loaner, so they'd knocked the price down to slightly below Kelly Blue Book value.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Congrats on the purchase. I've always like the design/shape of the recent Volvos.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 2002 T&C LX with 3.3L gets better gas mileage "in the real world driving" than the 2002 Odd EX 3.5L.

    Let's hope so, the Odyssey is a larger engine with 60 more horsepower and 32 lb-ft more torque. If it got better economy too (and I can't say it's much different, but if it was for you, I have no reason to doubt it), Chrysler would have egg on its face, for a triple loss. In all fairness, we always got EPA in town our 2000 model Odyssey EX, occasionally more on the highway (26-27 on trips to the beach at 80mph wasn't uncommon).
  • hansiennahansienna Posts: 2,312
    2001 Odd EX 3.5L has 205 Hp 217 Lb-Ft torque with unleaded regular while the 2001 T&C LX 3.3L has 180 HP and 210 Lb-Ft Torque.
    Do the Math: Odd has 25 more HP and a whopping 7 Lb-Ft more Torque. Even with premium unleaded, the 2001 Odd has 210 HP and 229 Lb-Ft...a difference of 30 more HP and 19 Lb-Ft Torque....

    Please do not exaggerate the Odd engine output. :sick:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm sorry, the vehicles referred to were 2002 models. NOT 2001. Please do not try to mince my words. :sick:

    I'm kind of tired of you accusing me of lying. If you will just READ the statement I made, you VERY OBVIOUSLY referred to the 2002 models of both. So did I. IF YOU DO THE MATH, you will see that the 2002 Odyssey garners 240 horsepower on regular gasoline, as well as 242 lb-ft of torque.

    I'm not sure why you enjoy trying to make me look bad, because it just makes me call attention to your lack of credibility.
Sign In or Register to comment.