Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chrysler Pacifica Real World MPG

24

Comments

  • About 39K. It's an AWD 2004.
  • How many miles do you guys get on a full tank?
  • I generally drive from Chicago area to Lexington ,Ky. and buy gas there which is about 400 miles and it usually takes 17 1/2 to 18 Gals. to refill it.
  • nelson33nelson33 Posts: 100
    05 AWD PAC TOURING. I'm getting 16.5mpg. I drive about 10miles one way about 80% HW 20 city. Unfortunately, I encounter some traffic on the highway that hurts my mpg. Long Highway? I'm getting 22mpg at 65mph w. wife, 2kids and stuff.
    Getting better mpg has now become my new driving game. Keep the speed steady and low, try not to hit the breaks or accelerate too hard, taking out all non essentials to decrease weight. Although I must say, since I did that, my numbers went up. I was getting 14mpg before, driving that same route.
  • b25nutb25nut Templeton, CAPosts: 199
    With 42,000 miles on my '04 AWD Pacifica, for the past month of driving every day in mixed highway/city driving, I have averaged 19.3 mpg. On the highway, I am rarely under 70 mph. I use 89 Chevron gas.
  • nelson33nelson33 Posts: 100
    I would be happy w. 19mpg on my Pac. You must have a little more highway time than I do to get 19mpg. Who knows, I only have 2000 miles on the odo. Maybe it will improve. I tell you what, high gas prices have sure made me a better driver. I notice alot of SUV and pickup owners driving a little slower and smoother since the fuel prices went up. Next thing you know, automotive fatalities might drop. You never know.

    LOL Maybe if I lost a few pounds, take the lint out of my navel, maybe I could add another .15mpg.
  • nelson33, that's hilarious...........I agree, after we jettison all of the excess weight out of the Pacifica, we have to start working on the driver/passengers themselves.........maybe there will be an alarm that goes off when your 300 lb coworker gets in for a lunch ride.....you can collect some sort of tariff calculated by the Pacifica as you drive.........
  • lorne3lorne3 Posts: 1
    I would be very happy with 19 MPG.
    I have been getting between 12 and 13 consistently for the first 6000 miles.
    As the car checks out ok on various diagnostic machines I am told these is nothing wrong with it but it appears to me that there definitely is a problem.
    Lately it was moved up to 14/15 MPG so perhaps 'breaking in' is happening?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    we're at about 1200 miles or so on our '05 AWD and we've been averaging a hair over 19 mpg in mixed driving (around 70-80% hwy).

    Not outstanding, but I'm hoping for some improvement as it breaks in more. We used to get 20-21 average in our Pilot, so its not far from that, and, in its defense, the Pac weighs about 400 lbs more. So, really, pound for pound, the Pac is running VERY close to the Pilot's mileage, so I honestly can't expect any better ... I'll just hope. ;)

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • axr6axr6 Posts: 42
    Been doing mostly highway driving. This last tank included a total of 454.5 miles and I fill-up took 18.59 gallons of 87 octane. That works out to 24.4 MPG. Tank was still almost 1/4 full. Looks like I could easily make 500 miles between fill-ups. The trips included about 32 miles of winding, hilly, two-lane driving, maybe 10 miles in-city driving with the rest being freeway mileage, driven at around 68 MPH, mostly on cruise control.

    It is an 05 Touring. Been getting 21-22-23 MPG up to this point. Difference being that the previous tanks included some stop and go traffic, as well.

    Needless to say I am quite happy with such MPG for such a big, comfy car. :D
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    That's AWD, right?
    and on 87 octane ... that's great! How many miles on your vehicle?

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • axr6axr6 Posts: 42
    No it is a FWD Touring. Vehicle has 21,000 miles. My very last tank fill, yesterday, was 23+ MPG with some more in-city driving.
  • rodutrodut Posts: 343
    FWD vehicles mileage is a lot better than AWD vehicles mileage, during the WINTER.

    During the summer they should be comparable, because the AWD rear transmission is not that cold.

    Obviously the official tests are done on heated powertrains, that's why the official mileages you read on the car sticker (FWD vs. AWD) are so close.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    Front wheel drive mileage should always be better than AWD mileage. There is so much less powertrain to be moved. I can see additional friction from the cold fluid making things worse. What is the fluid in the trans axel and rearend and can more fuel effecient synthetics be substituted? We have an 05 Pacifica Touring with about 9000 miles on it. This is something that I should look into.
    I personally believe that fulltime AWL is un-necessary and costs Canadian and American drivers far more than it is worth in maintenance and operating costs. Why don't these vehicles have part-time 4 wheel drive that you can engage it on the days (often very few) that you need a 4x4.
  • nuruc7nuruc7 Posts: 98
    That is probably true, it does seem to make the car a lot steadier when I drove both models over rough conditions and icy conditions. However the all wheel drive is heavier and it also, as you indicated have to move more drivetrain. :(
  • rodutrodut Posts: 343
    Also, contrary to the common belief, FWD is a lot safer than AWD, because on snow or ice the AWD will accelerate faster without giving clues about the danger to the driver.

    On multiple occasions our FWD Traction Control System clunk-clunk-clunk let my wife know about black ice conditions. So she adjusted her driving accordingly. An AWD will accelerate faster (without any noise), so the average driver could learn about the dangerous conditions when braking, when it could be too late.

    If you want to play in the snow, there is a button to disable the FWD Traction Control System. ;)
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    I just took a 800 mile round trip in my wife's 2005 Pacifica Touring and kept a close track of the mileage.
    1) Vehicle with me (230 lbs) and a full tank of gas weighs 5000 lbs verified at a waste transfer station weigh scale.
    2) Average weigh of vehicle over trip was probably about 5200 lbs.
    3) OEM Michelin tires at 35 psi, K&N filter, Mobil 1 5W30 oil, 10,000 miles on vehicle, Mobil 1 since 3000 miles.
    4) Trip was from Spokane to Seattle on I-90 and then up to Blaine on I-5. (And return) Spokane is at about 2250'. Blaine is at sea level.
    5) On trip out -all at speed limit (70 mph or 60 mph) except for about 40 miles of snow/ice at 40-50 mph.
    6) On trip back slightly above speed limit (2-3 mph). Similar snow/ice conditions.
    Results:
    Trip out 23.2 mpg, trip back 21.2 mpg, average 22.2 mpg.

    I did this same trip in my 2006 Odyssey EX-L in Oct. and got 28.6 mpg out, 25.6 mpg in, and 27.1 mpg avg.

    Note for this trip driven as stated both vehicles get very close to their EPA highway mileage ratings of 28 mpg for the Odyssey and 22 mpg for the Pacifica.
  • fljoslinfljoslin Posts: 237
    Also, contrary to the common belief, FWD is a lot safer than AWD, because on snow or ice the AWD will accelerate faster without giving clues about the danger to the driver.

    I just drove through Snoqualmi Pass on I-90 East of Seattle in the Cascade mountains in a 2005 Pacifica Touring about 2 hours after the road had been opened due to snow. FWD is great, but if you are in deep snow or slush, you may simply not have enough traction. I came around a corner going up a steep hill at about 45 mph and the lane just ended. Instantly was in about 9" of slush and snow with a semi trailer pretty close behind me. Had it not been for the traction of AWD and the fact that I gunned it immediately I would have been stuck. Later on the down hill section I came around another corner to find a stuck spun out car in my lane (FWD vehicle). I dropped it into second gear and didn't even have to touch the brakes to avoid it safely. Again, the AWD traction really helped.
  • rodutrodut Posts: 343
    You are right. For a good driver, when driving in tough conditions (as those you describe), AWD is safer because you are less likely to get stuck when climbing steep hills and/or deep snow.

    For many lower level drivers though (like my wife), who don't really "feel" the car, and who will never drive in deep snow over those mountains, FWD is safer because FWD will raise the red flag sooner. They won't be able to accelerate fast on slippery roads, they will hear the Traction Control clunk-clunk-clunk, and they will wake up and see the danger. So they will adjust their driving sooner. For them FWD is safer. For you AWD is safer.

    I am not sure you should use engine compression braking on slippery roads with an automatic transmission (AWD or not). I always loved to do that with a manual transmission (that's why I have a manual Accord in my garage). With a manual transmission you can delicately connect the clutch, so avoid skidding. An automatic transmission will suddenly switch into the lower gear, so your front wheels could skid on ice/snow, so you could loose the steering. It's interesting to note that your AWD will send engine braking to the rear wheels ONLY when the front wheels will seriously skid, so when you already lost your steering ability. If no slippage is detected, the AWD will send braking torque to the front wheels only (like a FWD), even if you have AWD. My opinion is that engine compression braking, when using an automatic transmission, is a dangerous game on ice/snow. The best vehicle for that game is a manual AWD, or better a manual full-time 4WD (like a Jeep).

    4WD means that the engine is permanently connected to the four wheels through three differentials. Many crossovers (like Pacifica) have AWD, not 4WD, which means that when there is no slippage the torque is sent to the front wheels only. That's valid both when accelerating and engine compression braking.

    Sorry for the long post. I get excited when I hear about snow driving. That's why I hate Stability Control Systems. With those you can't play anymore.
  • hey you never know sounds like a plan, after all, now they are doing it on airlines. THe biger the bum the more you pay. ;)
  • fred222fred222 Posts: 200
    I am not sure you should use engine compression braking on slippery roads with an automatic transmission (AWD or not).
    I do not understand what the difference is between auto and stick?
    I have had a 1999 Intrepid for almost 7 years. It has the autostick and effectively, when you put it into a gear it stays there. I live at the top of a steep hill with significant snowfall. I always shift down gears in automatic trans vehicles when descending this hill when it is slippery and actually do this most of the time. I also did this with my 1995 Suburban and do it with my 2006 Odyssey EX-L. In all of these vehicles, second gear with no brakes going down this hill would still get you to about 35 mph.
  • zarbazarba Posts: 30
    I just rented a 2006 Pac Touring FWD for a trip. Had 1,300 miles on the odometer. Mostly highway miles, but lots of idling as well.

    17 MPG Average. This may be the result of a green engine, but not anywhere near what I had expected. With the highway miles, I was expecting about 20 MPG.

    Speeds on the highway were 75 mph, A/C on.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    You sure it was FWD? That's more in line with AWD mileage.

    The FWD the dealer lent me a month or so ago returned over 23 mpg. Made me regret buying the AWD (we average 18 in ours).

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • zarbazarba Posts: 30
    It was FWD. I saw no badges indicating All Wheel Drive.

    I've read elsewhere that Pac's, when new, are notoriously bad with gas. It's supposed to improve with time.

    I'd also attribute some of this to "rental car leadfoot". While I didn't drive like a maniac, I didn't drive to maximize mileage, either.

    Other than the poor mileage, I really liked the vehicle. Comfy, sufficiently fast, good handling, roomy. I'd buy one.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    hmmmmm... heck, i'm not sure OUR pac has AWD badges on it. I never looked for them, though. Now I'm curious.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • zarbazarba Posts: 30
    Most of them have an "All Wheel Drive" badge on the back. That being said, I can't SWEAR it wasn't. I HOPE it was AWD, which might explain the mileage.
  • fred222fred222 Posts: 200
    I just rented a 2006 Pac Touring FWD for a trip. Had 1,300 miles on the odometer. Mostly highway miles, but lots of idling as well.

    17 MPG Average. This may be the result of a green engine, but not anywhere near what I had expected. With the highway miles, I was expecting about 20 MPG.

    Speeds on the highway were 75 mph, A/C on.


    I took my wife's 2005 Pacifica Touring on an 800 mile trip last winter across Washington State and back. I took it because it was AWD. Got right at 22 mpg running at 70-72 mph. In town it gets about 15 mpg.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    We've crossed the 10k mile mark, and the last 2 tanks of regular 87 octane have netted us right near 20 mpg in our Touring AWD. That's quite an improvement for us. I'm not sure why it has happened. Could be because its broken in more. Or maybe its the summer gas?? Or maybe the warm weather in general?

    In any case, I've actually been driving it HARDER lately. I used to be so gentle with it trying to eek out all the mileage I could. I gave up that quest and started driving like I always do (fast and hard). Maybe it just likes that style of driving better.(??)

    We're happy, whatever the reason for this increase.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • nuruc7nuruc7 Posts: 98
    AWD, 2005, K&N Filter, 91km+ (56k+ miles), I get 18 mpg street, 20 - 22mpg on the freeway, the longer the trip the better. This is calculated using the amounts put in the tank at fillups. I actually ran the tank down so low the other day (yes this was unintentional, forgot to fill up before I left work), I was able to put in 22.652 gallons! I hope I did not suck sludge into the lines! :cry: Won't do that again. :blush:
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,202
    wow! you got even farther than us. We put just over 20 gallons in the other day and i was shocked. I thought it was only a 20 gallon tank?

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

Sign In or Register to comment.