How Efficient Is The Chrysler 200?
The EPA has not yet listed the 2011 Chrysler 200’s MPG rating at fueleconomy.gov, but based on this screen grab at Chrysler.com, the Pentastar boys know what to expect. Which is a good thing, because their claimed mileage numbers are definitely a bit confusing. For example, why does ChryCo’s 2.4 liter 4-banger base engine get the exact same rating (21/30) with a four-speed auto as with a six-cog slushbox? And while we’re at it, why does the “model overview” section of Chrysler.com show the 200 getting 20/31 MPG with the four-banger? Plus, how does the convertible have the same rating as the sedan? But perhaps the most confusing part of all this is the fact that the “new” four-cylinder 200 still gets worse fuel economy than Camry (22/32), Accord (23/33) and Sonata (22/35). The 200’s available all-new Pentastar V6 fares only slightly better, rated just below the Accord V6 (20/30) and Sonata Turbo (22/33), about the same as Camry V6 (20/29), and better than Malibu (17/26) and Fusion (18/27). In short, the aspects of the 200’s efficiency rating that aren’t confusing are just plain disappointing.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
Looks to me like the real story is the horrible mileage in the Malibu and Fusion 6s. The 200's mileage looks quite good compared to those pigs. But I guess this site can never miss an opportunity to bash Chrysler.
I've got a bone to pick regarding these EPA numbers, though I'm not sure whether it's with the EPA or with GM. Based on the current information at fueleconomy.gov, my work commute (largely secondary, partially rural) roads has left me averaging towards the upper end of the EPA range. I had a 5-speed 1998 4wd Blazer with the 4.3, rated 14/19, and I averaged between 18 and 19. I have a 2004 Mountaineer with the 4.0, also rated 14/18, and I get about 16.5--still on the upper half, but not great. I had a 2002 Mazda Millenia with the 2.5, rated 17/24, and I averaged about 22. Again, in the upper half at least. Well I also now have a 2010 Malibu with the 2.4cyl and 6-speed auto, with 22/33 as being the rated mileage. The car now has over 10k miles on it, so the engine is broken in. However, I average about 25 on my work route. Better than the others, sure, but I was expecting to be more around 29mpg or so on average. This is the only vehicle where I am closer to the city rating. It seems to me that the highway numbers are extremely difficult to get for this vehicle, whereas in the past it wasn't so hard. And this is not due to the new EPA formula--this new formula applies to my old vehicles as well on fueleconomy.gov. I don't think my Malibu could really get 33 unless one starting the rating while coasting down the highway with the engine already warmed up, with no hills and no wind, going 60mph, which doesn't indicate real-world use. I'd be interested in seeing some real-world evaluations, apples-apples, on cars in this field to see which ones really are pulling the stated highway mpg's. I hear good things that the Sonata actually does, but I'm not sure about the others.
Maybe all the available development budget went to improved appearance with no money left over to fine tune the drivetrain. Shows how hard it is to play catch up in a very competitive market. Edward, I think you may be using the fuel economy numbers for the AWD version of the Fusion, not the FWD version.
First I'd heard about the Chrysler 200. If it looks that good in real life (aka not just a hot concept car) then I might put up with the 1-2 mpg penalty. Sell it to me with a manual tranny and a good four cylinder. And as a wagon. Love those wheels. I fear it'll reach the streets looking like automotive margarine though...