Chrysler Pacifica Real World MPG

fred222 · April 2006

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.

zarba · May 2006

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.

qbrozen · May 2006

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).

zarba · June 2006

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.

qbrozen · June 2006

hmmmmm... heck, i'm not sure OUR pac has AWD badges on it. I never looked for them, though. Now I'm curious.

zarba · June 2006

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.

fred222 · June 2006

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.

qbrozen · June 2006

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.

nuruc7 · June 2006

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!

Won't do that again.

qbrozen · June 2006

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?

nuruc7 · June 2006

Nope it is a 23 gallon tank.

b25nut · June 2006

I think you'll forever be the unchallenged record holder at 22.652 gallons! The most I've put in was just over 20 gal and at that my Pac said I had only 7 miles of range left.

sandyl · August 2006

Just got a brand new pacifica touring FWD. I am getting between 16/17 mpg doing all surburbia driving. Since it used to be that stick shifts got a bit better MPG, is that the same for autostick if I am careful to shift up between 2500 and 3000 rpm? Or am I better off just using Drive on the flat roads.

I cant wait to use autostick on a mountain road. Our old ODY sucked on mountain rds. I found it difficult to downshift.

qbrozen · August 2006

the autostick in the pac is horrible. It doesn't really care when you tell it to shift, it does what it wants. I gave up on it.

fred222 · August 2006

Just got a brand new pacifica touring FWD. I am getting between 16/17 mpg doing all surburbia driving. Since it used to be that stick shifts got a bit better MPG, is that the same for autostick if I am careful to shift up between 2500 and 3000 rpm? Or am I better off just using Drive on the flat roads.

I cant wait to use autostick on a mountain road. Our old ODY sucked on mountain rds. I found it difficult to downshift.
A couple of comments.
I have a 1999 Intrepid purchased new with the Autostick and my wife has a 2005 Pacifica AWD with autostick. My experience with autostick is that it is best used to slow down on steep hills and for quick bursts of acceleration such as merging onto the highway. For the latter I usually start in drive and get on the gas pretty hard and then pull the auto stick towards me after the shift to second has happened. This effectively locks the gear in second. I then continue to accelerate in second as long as I want and then shift back into drive and let the auto take over. I do not think the autostick works quite as well in the Pacifica as in the Intrepid. The shifts do not seem as quick or as hard and in the Pacifica you must read a small number to determine which gear you are in. In the Intrepid there is a separate number for all four gears and a little box moves from one to the other as you shift. It is much easier to tell where the box is than to read the little number.

We also have a 2006 Odyssey. This van is faster and more fun to drive than either the Intrepid or the Pacifica. It has a 5 speed auto with the shifter on the dash. There is a button on the shifter which is under your right thumb which is a shift to third button. This works really well for using the engine to slow down or for excellent bursts of acceleration. If you need more, you can move the transmission shifter down one which gives you second gear. This gives phenomenal braking and acceleration. Once you get used to this system is is easier and better to use than the autostick.
Of course, nothing is like a real manual transmission which I wish all of the vehicles came with!

sandyl · August 2006

glad to see they made the ody shifter easier to use.

qbrozen · August 2006

my big complaint about the PAC autostick is that it assumes you are using it for aggressive driving rather than economy. It will not allow you to shift into higher gears before a predetermined speed or rpms (i forget exactly what since i gave up on it so long ago).

Without the specific numbers, I'll just have to give you an example of what I mean for the purposes of explaining my point better. So, for instance, I take off from a light in first and quickly shift to 2nd. But when I try to shift to 3rd, the tranny doesn't respond. I flip the shifter several times, but nothing happens UNTIL I pass 2500 rpms, THEN it shifts to 3rd. Its very frustrating. So my advice is put it in drive and forget about it.

bapriebe · August 2006

You should have a chat with your dealer about this. Perhaps Chrysler changed the software recently, but my 2004 AWD does not have this problem. It will cheerfully allow me to shift into 3rd or even 4th at low RPM. Lugging the engine will cause the tranny to slip, raising RPM by up to 500RPM, but it does shift.

qbrozen · August 2006

Ok. So after bapriebe's post, I decided to try the autostick again this weekend. Here is what I found: it will indeed shift to 4th gear at low rpms, but ONLY if I have my foot off the gas.

If I try to hold the gas steady and flip through the gears, it will not allow me to go to 4th until i hit 2500 rpms in 3rd. But, if I lift off the gas (and not just a little, but take my foot COMPLETELY off), then it will allow me to go to 4th. And, to complicate matters, if I get back on the gas too fast after switching to 4th, it will automatically kick back to 3rd! I have to wait a second or so before hitting the gas to keep in in 4th. Once again, I became so annoyed by this process that I gave up on it and just kept in in Drive.

So ... can anyone confirm this process for me? Is this normal or do I need to take the PAC for some service work?

qbrozen · August 2006

we're kinda getting off topic as far as the headphone thing goes. Anyway, i have another niggling complaint that i'll post in the problems board.

PF_Flyer · August 2006

Fear not, I've moved the headphones posts tothe Chrysler Pacifica: Audio & Entertainment Systems discussion and youcan pick up the converstaion there.

thimmaker · August 2006

It shifts to third to try to keep the engine from lugging along under load! Why would you want to idle along in 4th. anyway. Any car will get better mileage when the engine is working EASY. Third with a few more RPM's is much easier on the engine AND the pocketbook.

lamronh49 · August 2006

Any 3.8s out there? That was MY 2005 only, on the base model. It's rated at 18/25, I'm wondering what real world numbers with the 3.8 are. From what I read it's supposed to be the base engine for 2007. Thanks,

qbrozen · August 2006

why idle along in 4th? for better mileage. If you are on level ground (or even going downhill) and crusing along easy, then the lowest rpms is the best mileage.

The experts report that accelerating full throttle while short shifting results in the best mileage. Of course, this is easily accomplished with a stickshift. I'd be much happier with the autostick if it responded in the same way.

Some autosticks out there will do exactly what you command of it. Others have a mind of their own. I, of course, prefer those that actually perform as advertised and allow you to control the tranny. The Pac's autostick is obviously not one of those.

alafan1 · August 2006

I love everything about my 2006 Touring FWD except the MPG. I have 5000 miles on it and am averaging 18 MPG combined highway & city. My city driving is probably 40% of driving. When I am on the HWY, I usually set my cruise control at 70 MPH. I ask other PAC drivers when possible & many say they get 21-24 MPG. Any input, ideas or suggestions? :confuse:

b25nut · August 2006

21-24 has to be highway only. 18 mpg combined is about right.

qbrozen · August 2006

sounds low to me on a FWD. We get 18 combined with our AWD model.

by the way, as a general update for the board. We've now been averaging around 19 mpg. We've had a high of 20 and a low of about 17 since we've owned our Pac.

sandyl · August 2006

I do mostly "city" driving, and I am getting around 15. I have 800 miles on my touring FWD version. I did go on the hwy once after just filling up and on that trip got around 22.

primetime2628 · September 2006

Drove through 2 tanks of gas this weekend and drove 95% on interstate. 19.3mpg was the best I could get. I'm used to a 33mpg Hyundai so this is gonna hurt. My wife is driving the Pacifica for work and they give her .41/mile. Doesn't leave a lot for tires and etc.
Love driving this car though.

rodut · November 2006

No, yours doesn't suck at all, because it's too new. City driving is not relevant, because the stop&go percentage is different for each of us.

If you got 22mpg on the highway (like we used to get too, when our FWD was brand new), you will get 25mpg in the future for sure. Just keep driving !

saludvax · November 2006

I average 18 in city driving..16 as a low and 20 as a highl..I'm talking 7 traffic lights. and and six stop signs in a 2 mile stretch on a daily basis...on the highway I have gotten up to 27 a few times but that was shortlived. If my husband drives he'll average 14. I have definitly changed my style of driving since buying my pac 2 months ago.He tries to drive it like he's in his crossfire.

billwfriend · November 2006

Anyone seeing better MPG with the "base" engine?

nadouble · November 2006

On 11/9/06, after I nearly emptied out the gas that came with the car from the dealer w/ 150+ miles on it, I filled it up with 93 octane fuel to see what would happen even though 89 is what's recommended.

I've gotten to 100 miles at half tank whch is about 8.6/mpg. All city driving. Specfically commuting from the Bronx to Manhattan. A far cry from Chrysler's stated 17/mpg!

I thought I would get better gas mileage from the Pacifica than my 1997 Mercury Sable wagon with 187,000 miles on it but it's about the same.

On 11/18/06 I filled up with 89 octane. Let's see what happens in a week or so.

mas1169 · November 2006

We have a 2005 base AWD. Started out with about 18.5 combination city/hwy. We now have 11,000 miles on it and the mileage just keeps improving. We now avg 20 city/hwy and have gotten a high of 23.5 on a trip with cruise set at 70 mph. We always use the 89 octane per the owners manual.

bapriebe · November 2006

You've found the same thing I did with my 2004. Don't use more than 89 octane in the 3.5L or you risk absurd MPG numbers.

If you wait about 8,000-10,000mi and use 89, your MPG numbers will markedly improve.

new_2_board · January 2007

Can anyone provide real-world numbers for the 2007 Touring FWD? We are considering taking the plunge. Want to know what to expect once it's ours.

Thanks,
New_2_Board from IL

Jason5 · January 2007

Evening "New 2", hope the information on pricing was helpful. I'll share with you, and the board, my experience thus far with 1200 miles on my FWD Touring. Using 89 octane, I average @19.8 on my first tank (town and highway), @ 24.1 on my second tank (almost all highway) and roughly 19.5 thus far on my third tank (mostly in town and highway work commute). I'm NOT a "speed limit" driver on the highway but I have been driving gently when starting out (no jackrabbit starts, etc.). Frankly, I'm very pleased with the mileage thus far. That looming "16" city rating had me concerned, but nothing close so far.

new_2_board · January 2007

J5,

Yes, both your posts on price and MPG have been very helpful. Thanks! The Pacifica would be "mine" since I work from home and my wife drives 70 miles round trip to work 5 days/week. I'm mostly concerned with in town MPG numbers.

We have decided to wait until the auto show hits St. Louis (usually the 1st weekend in February) before making a purchase decision. I'll post more about that in the prices paid section.

Thanks again,
New_2_Board in IL

arrie · February 2007

Just made a long haul trip with four adults and their luggage in the car.

1950 miles. Filled up and recorded mileage each time.

Driving on Interstate highway at speed 77 mph 70% and 72 mph 30% of the distance.

Car's MPG display said 20 MPG but the actual correct value was 19.25 MPG.

I used regular fuel other than two tank fulls of mid grade that owners manual recommends. By the cars MPG display my MPG went down to 19.9 with mid grade fuel and stayed there for those two tank fulls until I filled up with regular grade fuel again.

I must say that I expected a little bit better MPG value as this represents only one MPG better than what my '04 Tahoe gets with the same driving conditions. Pacifica looks much better against wind resistance than Tahoe but seems awfully small difference in real world numbers.

Arrie

qbrozen · February 2007

so you get 19 mpg in your Tahoe, which is rated at 14/18, while driving ~75 mph with 4 adults and luggage? That's pretty impressive! Chevy's are notoriously good on the highway due to extremely tall overdrive gears. Unfortunately, it is not a trait the Pac has.

arrie · February 2007

qbrozen,

Let's do the math again. I said my Pac displayed 20 MPG but I also said that the actual value was 19.25 MPG.

19.25 MPG - 1 MPG = 18.25 MPG, which is what I usually get about with my Tahoe with the same driving conditions that I stated in my post for the Pac trip.

Arrie

qbrozen · February 2007

thanks for the clarification. that's still pretty good, i think. like i said, chevy's are notorious for that. no need to get testy.

we're not thrilled with our Pac's mileage, either. Our Pilot did quite a bit better.

bevo2 · March 2007

'06, 3.5L, FWD Touring, 16K - only at 17.8MPG and looking for a little increase. Previous Pathfinder was similar (maybe a touch less) and I was hoping for a little more out of the Pac.

Jason5 · March 2007

Still managing to make mid 20's when ALL highway driving (last trip of 600 miles was 24.2MPG at fairly high speeds). In mixed driving to work (about 5 miles in town and 15 on highway), making about 18.8. I have never gotten close to the 16mpg city listed. Perhaps in town, in summer with AC on I'll get closer to that.

locnard · March 2007

I have a 05 fwd touring with the T package. Bought used Carfax stated it was a rental. Checked the computer and saw average mpg was just 16 and freaked. But that was a rental and only had 15K on the clock.I now have had it for nearly two years and have 55K on it. Consitently get between 21 and 23.5 mpg. I seldom run the 89 usually 87. Found the car does not like 93 so dont waste the money. Most of my driving is freeway I have a 100 mile a day commute.With bad traffic I drop to 19 but thats rare. BTW this is in Southern(very hilly)California.

bigjohn10 · March 2007

For 2007 I see that they added 2 extra gears and a new engine. How are mpg's on this versus the 4 speed tranny and smaller engine?

mr_anton89 · August 2007

Has anybody noticed a difference in MPG by using midgrade over regular? or a performance increase? I just read off the internet that midgrade is recommended but not required.

kkodal · August 2007

you would not notice a big change on the MPG BUT!!! on the performance there is a noticable change between 87 and 89 octane.
as far as the gears on the new pacs made a big difference on both MPG and performance.you can feel the quickness with the 6 speed.

farout · August 2007

We have just said yes to the dealer on a 2007 touring AWD. It comes with the 4. L engine. Is the 89 octane what needs to be used? Is this engine better than the 3.5?

farout

nuruc7 · January 2008

I just traded my 05 touring in on an 07 base AWD with the 4.0 L engine. I had 89500 on my 05, and it stayed at 19 - 20 mpg. I got a good deal on this car so I am also hoping that the improvements on the 07 are as good as they say.

:confuse:

Chrysler Pacifica Real World MPG

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles