Hi calamar-

Please don't take this wrong, but are you sure you're calculating mileage correctly? I've read tons of posts on this forum from people who divide the miles driven by the tank capacity, which is something like 14 gallons. The tank size, of course, is irrelevant. Only the actual amount of fuel added to bring it up to the original fill point matters.

Again, don't take offense if you already know this. It's just that it's almost impossible for a car with only 150 cubic inches to use that much fuel. Some possible reasons:

1. You have a super heavy right foot (you'd know that and wouldn't be asking)

2. The car desparately needs a tune-up and runs horribly - and I don't mean a little bit off, I mean really, really bad (again, you'd know this)

3. There's a fuel leak (couldn't miss that one)

4 There are thieves (or practical jokers) in your neighborhood (these can be harder to detect, especially the jokers, if they're good)

Okay, I'm ready to hear all the horror stories of people who get even WORSE mileage. (BTW, my 2003 GT turbo consistantly gets 27+ on the highway and 20+ around town).

Quote:

---

You hit the nail on the head rrickard1. Both my PT's consistently get 27+ on the highway. My '03 GT is certainly capable of getting poor mileage, but it does great when I drive it sensibly.

When you think about it, it 's pretty hard for 2.4L engine to do as poorly as some people report (16-18 mpg or worse) unless there's an obvious and serious problem with either the car or driving style. I'm convinced that most of the people who get lousy mileage fit one of these two models:

1) Lots of people drive like lunatics, full throttle and hard braking at every light. My observation is that it's more likely with automatics, since bangin' gears at full throttle with a stick eventually tears up a lot of other stuff.

2) A lot of folks simply don't know how to figure mileage. One clue is when they mention the size of the gas tank. This has nothing to do with figuring mileage, only the amount of gas required to bring it back up to the original level. Based on some comments I've read, I suspect that they divide their tripometer reading by the tank capacity and think that's their mileage. I'm sure there are plenty of creative ways to mis-figure mileage.

Flame away.

---

Quote:

---

Of course you're right, mean green. That's how the expression "your mileage may vary" came to be. I consider you a major expert on technical matters. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I respectfully disagree with some of your premise.

What I have trouble believing is that a person who is concerned about his mileage doesn't seem to be aware of the effects of his driving style, no matter how old or young he may be. Other possible factors would include extreme road conditions, such as all uphill driving, loaded to the max, etc. I think these would be pretty easy to identify as well.

For sure, all PT's are not identical. But the difference between 16 mpg and and 25+ falls well beyond what would be deemed "normal variation between individual samples" in any modern, mass-produced product. Remember, these are production machines, supposedly built to the same specification (identical to one another). While some variation exists in any process, they shouldn't be that different.

Bottom line: I'd bet the proverbial dollar-to-a-donut that I could get better than 16 mpg with ANY stock PT.

Personally, I've also been in this from the beginning, but I'm only on my second PT. My 2001 got the same mileage as my GT on the road (about 27). When I'm being a street-squirrel, my GT can suck the gas down. When that happens, I'm never puzzled as to why it gets poor mileage.
-Stu

---