Chrysler 300/300C: MPG-Real World Numbers
This topic is for 300 owners to share and compare their actual MPG.
"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
0
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Flash program # 04275086AB / labor operation # 08-19-47-93 {Reprogram Powertrain Control Module}. This a recal to improve Fuel economy for European NA1 emissions. I have noticed that the high MPG {24-27}speed has shifted up to about between 65 & 75 MPH. This may help many of you freeway commuters get better MPG. Ask your service tech if you will benefit from this TSB.
As a side note, the key fob is complete shite - stopped working 1 mo. in, unscrewed the small screw holding the parts together, noted that the fob pressboard and parts are coming apart at the seams. New vehicle. Not covered, and they want 300 bucks to replace it. Not a good start. This car is probably going by - by. Hell even a Mercury Marauder (easier to get into and out-of for my 6'4 frame) gets apparently 17 city, and is peppier (lighter) according to reviews.
The steering wheel controls for volume etc. are cracked at the edges, and I barely ever use them - they feel cheap and about-to-break when used. For tall people, the ingress and egress is horrible - which is not readily apparent when you first test drive - but rather reveals itself after many entrances and exits as a true pain in the [non-permissible content removed] - I feel so low to the ground on the driver side that I'm about to kneel, then stand when exiting. Ducking into the car isn't that bad, but my head is damn near behind the pillar making seeing oncoming traffic a pain as well without leaning far forward.
Once seated, the car is of course a joy - but the nagging thought of $ per mile of driving goodness dampens ones' spirits wile driving.
Overall I feel duped, and let down. Probably going with a Marauder pending verification of headroom and actualy 17 MPG city.
We just purchased our Chrysler-Certified used '05 300C with 14.6k miles about 2 weeks ago. We had rented a loaded Touring 300 in the summer to "decide" if we liked the car... we did! Our used vehicle was in mint condition as far as we can tell. There is no wear or tear on the steering wheel controls.
Are you saying your 300C is NOT peppy? Yes, it's heavy, but the Hemi should move it as if it were something lighter. Is your mileage assessment based on actual calculation or the information center in the dash (not sure I would trust that). Our mileage (info center) hasn't average 17 for the city, but it does appear that it will generally be between 15.5 and 16.5 mpg. We've only put one tank of gas in on our own (87 grade vs. 89), the first tank (however full from the dealer) gave about 15.8, and right now we're sitting at 16.1 at 100 miles or so into "our" tank. This weekend we're going to take our first "trip" to view fall colors in our WV mountains, so we'll get a read on the highway performance and actual mileage calculation. Eventually, we'll try to 89 grade for a while to see if it makes a perceptible difference.
Sorry to hear about your key fob. I think fobs are finicky in general. We've had a Chrysler van for 11 years... my fob quit long ago... the wife's still work just fine.
How do you set your outside mirrors for visibility? I set both outside mirrors wider than most folks. Can't see the side of the car unless I lean close to the window on my side, or over toward the passenger seat on the other. I find this gives me the best combination of coverage overall (less "blind") in combination with the rear-view mirror. It took some getting used to at first... but once you configure this way for a while, I think you might like the greater visual range to either side in passing or lane-change situations.
Wow! Don't drive nearly as much as you do... at the height of our high school hauling kids around we regularly hit 20k/year, but life is slowing down now.
This summer we rented a "loaded" 300 Touring with the 3.5L V6. Had plenty of pep and rode like a dream. It was what convinced us of buying the 300 and thinking of the 300C (which we now have). Mileage with the rental (per info center calc.) was 26-28 mpg until we got into Minnesota and decided to try the much, MUCH cheaper E-85 fuel (i.e., about 15 percent ethanol). It was about $1.50 vs. $2.35 for 87 grade. We checked the owners manual before using the fuel, and it said use of alternates (gasahol) was acceptable.
We observed/felt no change in operational performance. No smoke out the back, etc. Acceleration was fine, etc. However, info center calc. of mpg went to 20 or less! By 1/8 into the second tankful of E-85 the engine light came on! That was a bit scary, but since we could detect no engine problem (other than mpg), we decided to start replacing the E-85 with normal gasoline again. Put in quarter tank of premium (engine light remained lit), then a half tank of 89 grade (engine light still lit). Engine light finally went out before getting below half tank the second time. Mileage improved, and on final full tank of 87 grade info center was indicating back in the 26-28 mpg range.
I've detailed our limited mpg experience in our "new-to-us" 300C in a separate post above.
Oh she's peppy alright. Plenty of passing power, and then some. But if ever there was a car that makes you pay for even minor goosing of the pedal - this is it. I switched from a Suburban to this vehicle (part of the ingress/egress dilemma I am sure) and the Sub got far better MPG, which is ludicrous.
Looking at a low mileage Marauder, they're rare, clean lines, easy to get in and out of, and pretty equal in performance to the 300C as I understand it. This is going to sound odd, but I never even asked (got the vehicle at carmax) if the vehicle was/is AWD - but apparently it is an option, and I think mine is AWD - that might account for the very low MPG. I didn't ask, because I didn't know - and the 'sheet' they give you (with the sticker) doesn't have the specs. I'll call and inquire - that might make it worth it I suppose. :confuse:
I'm getting 11 or 12, yes according to the digital readout
Also, the van with it's higher seating arrangements is more convenient to get in and out, but I don't find the 300C as objectionable as the '97 Subaru Outback which we traded for the 300C. For my long legs, it was much lower and more difficult than the 300C.
If we had stuck with the plan to order a 2006 300C next spring, AWD would have been our choice since our experience with the van has been so good. However, having reviewed the videos regarding the evolution of RWD with ESP and anti-lock brakes, etc., I have far less concerns about drivability this winter than I did before (paritcularly for my wife). No doubt AWD would be even better, but I do think this 300C will handle and drive far better in winter conditions than my favorite high school/college RWD car... the '68 Charger!
Regarding "minor goosing"... Last night I had to make a "quick" trip back to Lowes to retrieve a bag of hardware we had left at the counter. It's about 8 miles one way, half of which is 65 mph freeway. I hit 65 mph before the end of the on-ramp (goosed it a little - ha). The rest is urban 35-40 mph with stop-lights every, or every-other block. I was fortunate to make every light going to the store, but had to stop at every other one on the way back. Made the round trip (including going into the store) in about 35 min. The info center mileage went from 15.8 to 16.1 mpg then dropped back to 16.0 by the time I got back in the garage (remember we're in the first 100 or so miles on our fill of the tank).
Drive one and you'll see this isn't the case. The Marauder will feel weaker pretty much all around to the 300C, especially on the bottom end. In city driving, it will also do just as poorly - it's rated at 17/23 and even requires premium gas. It also doesn't have the stability control of the 300. There are a bunch of other reasons the 300 out classes Ford's "Panther" cars, including the solid rear axle...
By the way I have a 2006 AWD 300C. I get between 14 and 15 MPG in the city (NY) and 20 to 21 MPG highway. Best highway MPG I've seen is 24 MPG.
If that's the case, it sure is silly. That doesn't appear to be the way the mileage calculation in my T&C van functions. If the engine if off and gas consumption is impossible, the fuel consumption calc. should remain static/off. Surely it would be an easy thing to "fix" via some EPROM flash update or the like. These vehicles have been out for quite some time now... I'm really surprised that this hasn't been corrected by now... somehow or other.
The trip computer had calculated 22.8 mpg. Manual calc. at 380 miles gives 23.5, and at 420 miles would be 25.9. After refill, we had about 100 miles more to home base, 20 at 55 mph and 80 at 65 mph, and the trip computer was showing 24 mpg as we pulled into the garage. So I'm thinking the trip computer is underestimating fuel economy by a significant margin. That's too bad. Someone just posted in the Problems and Solutions forum that they completed an 1800+ miles trip between Ohio and Myrtle Beach, etc., and averaged 28 mpg for the entire trip! Don't know whether that was trip computer or actual calc., but I'm going to keep working on my records!
Not going to complain about that... our T&C van averages about 15 and change.
Can anyone out there clarify which is the Worldwide "Official" MPG calculation, if there is one - US gallon or Imperial gallon?
Thanks for your cooperation!
I agree with kevm14 (post #19), if you don't keep track of the quantity of fuel used and the miles driven over a period of time and then calculate MPG the estimates can be quite erroneous.
I think the on-board computer is quite accurate, but you can make the numbers look really good if you reset it when you are driving under those ideal conditions.
The car is amazing and great. I like it very much but 14-15 MPG average kinda bothers me. I will wait till 3000 miles and then ask another dealership to take a look at it.
BTW, oil and filter changes are free of charge for me because of Master Care Plan I purchased when bought the car. 5 years/60 thousand miles are covered with great benefits right from the start.
Before you ask why I purchased a Hemi if I wanted better fuel economy... A) I need AWD and of the only two AWD's that came to dealers nearby in the spring of '05 and both were Hemis. I somehow believed that my results might be at least somewhere near EPA estimates.
Highway: about 24 (a lot of 80 MPH driving)
I'm thinking that that's a good move.
With an intelligent fuel injection system, the increased airflow from reduced air filter obstruction results in the metered introduction of additional fuel to compensate for greater air mass-flow. The engine will make more peak power but will burn more fuel doing so.
Maintenance warnings about dirty air filters negatively affecting performance on EFI engines are quite correct, but the performance parameter that is most affected is power output, not economy. A really dirty airfilter not only significantly reduces power, it can also result in air bypassing the filter altogether, carrying grit into the engine with obvious implications for engine life.