Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Chrysler Pacifica Real World MPG
0
Comments
Highway: (vacations, etc.) 23 mpg, averaging 65 mph
You can get the official numbers if you drive it kindly (engine RPM at lower than 2500 RPM).
11mpg town
22-25 hiway
16 overall average
MPG on mine a/c on cruising @ 70mph. is 23.2 On rush hour heavy traffic with a/c on is 10.6 I do used 93 octane. I noticed I burn more gas with windows open, it kinda gives a parachute effect.
One more question maybe it's a stupid question but I bought my pac @ $26,700 it has 17k on it. All the options and runs very nice. You guys think it's a good price?
As for the price you paid for your pac, I think its a fair price, but you may want to ask the people who are on the 'Prices Paid' board.
really nice
16-17 mpg - Mixed City/Highway
22-24 mpg - Highway Only
We just returned from our trip and although we had a great time, our average gas mileage on super highways was only 18.8 mile/gal @ an speed of 75 MPH. It is beginning to look like we will be averaging much less than the dealers posted MPG. When we purchased the Pac, we expected less than the posted numbers but not this low. With the cost of gas on the rise, we would like to find ways that will improve our consumption. If you are aware of options, please feel free to suggest. Although we are let down with our miles/gal, we still remain pleased with our purchase. The DVD option took a good amount of stress out of our trip.
My worst check was 17.8 MPG and the best 23.9 MPG. I use 87 octane gas.
After reading some of the low MPGs from others, I am quite satisfied with these figures.
Nuru
Silver 2005 Touring AWD
28500k and climbing!
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No complaints !
I bought a used Pac 15,000 on the clock. Now just over 20,000. I live in southern Cali and commute 90 or so miles a day. Was running 87 from Costco with no AC and mostly freeway. Getting usual 21.5 to 23. Tried Costco 91.Mileage went down to 19.1.Now with summer beach traffic I am taking more back roads and tried running Mobil 89 per manufacture spec. Back road twistys and ac full blast getting 23.5!! Mobile is about thirty cents more a gallon for the mid grade than Costco and the as Costco super. But I can see the diff. Maybe Costco is just that. Cheap Gas!
My name is Miguel and I am a Marketing Representative with the Chrysler Information Center. To clear up any confusion, I’d like to provide you with information on the EPA’s estimated fuel mileage ratings for the Chrysler Pacifica together with the respective speed at which the highway fuel rating is derived. In addition to that, I can provide you with some helpful tips on how to lower fuel consumption. Do you mind if I join the conversation?
Thanks in advance,
Miguel M.
The EPA’s estimated fuel mileage ratings for the 2005 Chrysler Pacifica are as follows:
Pacifica 3.8L SOHC 24V V6 engine with 210hp @ 5,000rpm
2005 EPA estimated mpg (city/hwy)(FWD, AWD) 18/25
4-speed transaxle w/AutoStick®
Touring/Limited 3.5L SOHC 24V V6 engine with 250hp @ 6,400rpm
2005 EPA estimated mpg (city/hwy)(FWD, AWD) 17/23, 17/22
4-speed transaxle w/AutoStick®
All vehicles are tested in a laboratory utilizing a dynamometer – a machine that simulates driving environment(s). These test(s) are performed by a professional driver who “drives” the vehicle through two tests – known as schedules – to simulate a “typical” driving experience. Driving statistics for every schedule are monitored on a computer screen located to the left of the driver. Essentially, the vehicle undergoes two major schedules that mirror city and highway driving respectively. The schedule for city driving, which starts with a cold engine, is representative of urban rush hour traffic with a high level of stop and go’s. The second schedule/test is for highway driving and is performed with a warmed-up engine at an average speed of 48mph. This test/schedule does not include any stopping or idling.
Now, to the tips!
There are many factors that play a role in optimizing your vehicle's fuel efficiency. Sometimes the markedly small differences can improve your vehicles overall fuel economy. For example, using the correct/recommended octane level of gas, refraining from using the proverbial "heavy foot" as much as possible and changing your vehicle's engine oil at or a little before the recommended interval are all valid factors that can sometimes be overlooked because of increasing gas prices, aggressive driving habits etc. In addition, one must also consider road and weather conditions as these things will in fact play a role.
Maintaining your vehicle at the posted speed limit (I know that sometimes we all tend to run a little late). Observing the speed limit not only saves you money, it can save much more. Trying to remove unnecessarily heavy weight from your vehicle. Excess idling is also a concern; although seemingly harmless, how many miles per gallon do you get while the vehicle is just sitting there? And last, but not least, using your vehicles cruise control system whenever possible. Combining all of these variables together will undoubtedly boost your vehicles overall fuel efficiency. If there are any other questions that you may have, I would be more than happy to help!
Miguel M.
Anyone have any ideas on how to improve my gas mileage?
16 MPG city (ugh)
21 MPG highway (not L.A. highways - the open ones)
Good thing I love the car.
I have a question what is the Chrysler position on using synthetic oil? Can we run 6000 miles on the synthetic oil? :surprise:
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.
LOL Maybe if I lost a few pounds, take the lint out of my navel, maybe I could add another .15mpg.
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?
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
and on 87 octane ... that's great! How many miles on your vehicle?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.