By on March 26, 2014

2015-chrysler-200-10

While Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has yet to announce fuel economy for the new 2015 Chrysler 200, the Environment Protection Agency inadvertently leaked figures for one configuration, the V6 AWD model.

Autoblog reports the figures — found on the U.S. Department of Energy’s FuelEconomy.gov — were obtained through the Pentastar V6/nine-speed automatic/all-wheel drive combination found in the 200C and 200S, which returned 18 mpg in town, 29 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg combined. The figure also matches the outgoing 200, though it was front-drive only and possessed a weaker Pentastar V6 than the current 295 horsepower and 262 lb-ft of torque the 3.6-liter engine delivers.

As for where the 200 stands in the AWD midsize sedan fuel economy game, it’s ahead of the Subaru Legacy’s 18/25/20 rating from its 256 horsepower, 247 lb-ft torque boxer, yet behind the Ford Fusion’s 22/31/25 rating in spite of the 2-liter EcoBoost’s 240 hp/270 lb-ft torque four-pot.

FCA says the front-drive version of the new 200 may deliver an estimated 35 mpg highway rating through its 2.4-liter Tigershark four cylinder, though the EPA has yet to validate the figure.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

92 Comments on “Chrysler 200 Earns EPA Rating Of 18 MPG City, 29 MPG Highway...”


  • avatar

    AWD and the V6 engine with the BEST INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM on the entire market.

    For less than $36,000.

    ALREADY a better deal than the MKZ. ($51,000 similarly equipped).

    This car is going to sell and I’m going to drive it – video it and advertise for it. Maybe even have my siblings buy one so I can enjoy it.

    • 0 avatar
      Tomifobia

      I will love it and squeeze it and call it George.

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      Are there really enough brand loyalists out there to support a company that most buyers won’t even consider? Or are they trying to capture the cheapo market now that Hyundai and Kia have gone, erm, upscale?

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      did i just wake up to someone contrasting 36 grand as a bargain?

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Hey man, this is a LUXURY car, n’ stuff. And Chrysler is a good marque, with um prestige. Yeah.

      • 0 avatar
        romanjetfighter

        It’s a “bargain” if you compare it to the most overpriced vehicles in the segment. These will go with huge discounts and rebates, though, after the novelty of the new vehicle wears off.

        • 0 avatar

          Overpriced???

          Point me to another $36,000 (or less). Loaded vehicle with:

          The best infotainment system on the market.

          AWD

          A V6

          Looks this good…

          YOU CAN’T!

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Dude, $36k is the start of the Lexus ES, which has 100% more prestige and 100% less past bankruptcies.

            And yes I know you’ll need a package to add the sat nav.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’d also mention ES will have nice resale and Chrysler [insert model] can’t compare to it.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Oh I forgot about that part as well, good point. The ES also has generations of reliability and history, and is well-known. The 200 is/was a Sebring, which was kinda a Mitsubishi, and errbody know it.

          • 0 avatar

            “Dude, $36k is the start of the Lexus ES, which has 100% more prestige ”

            I stopped reading at “Dude, $36k is the start”

            For the 200, $36,000 is THE END.

            LOADED.

            Without that STUPID Lexus mouse infotainment crap.

          • 0 avatar
            ponchoman49

            It looks like a current 2014 ES350 with real wood, memory package for seats and wheel, real leather and nav and the required HIDs is well over 40K and that doesn’t include AWD and 295 HP. The Camry supplied 3.5 still makes 268 horses. The Lexus is roomier but neither is memorable to look at. Still if the 200 turns out to be reliable it does make for a good case on why it is necessary to spend 40-50k on a luxury model.

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            Had the new ES as a loaner yesterday. Liked it more than the older one. Agree on the stupid mouse, it’s hateful. New, I’d have to get the ES over this, the “stripper” ES is still nice. Used, they’re not in the same price range once they’re used so it’s not a fair comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            Swedish

            I agree it isn’t overpriced loaded at 36K but one can buy much better quality cars with a reputation for long term durability for 36K perhaps with less features. I believe a Volvo S60 T5 AWD can still be had for 36K.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @ Corey:
            The best comparison I can make gives me a difference of about $8000 between the Lexus and 200.

            I just optioned up a ES and top of the line Chrysler 200, each with nav and a sunroof. Rounded up or down to the nearest $1000:

            ES350 with nav: $43000
            200 with V-6 and pretty much every option available (I left out the fancy wheels or trick paint jobs): $35000

            If you want AWD, that’s another $2000 or so on the 200; the Lexus doesn’t offer it.

            Valid points about the 200′s unknown resale, and Lexus brand virtues, but I’d say that eight grand is a pretty substantial price difference. As far as resale is concerned, I just found several 2013 ES 350s in my area optioned up the same as the $43,000 2014 model for $35-38,000 or so, and that’s the asking price. Looks like Lexus’ resale ain’t what it used to be, at least on this particular model.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Fair point on the brand not competing with Lexus, perhaps the Avalon would be a more direct competitor.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Also, as much as I like Chrysler, it’s worth pointing out that the Lexus is a full size-and-a-half larger. The ES now uses the Avalon’s wheelbase instead of the Camry’s, while the 200 is barely mid-sized. It sort of occupies a space between compact and mid-sized, where the previous Cadillac CTS models, Suzuki Kizashi, Volvo S60 and Buick Regal lay. I’m sure the Chrysler’s rear accommodations (or lack thereof) will be a deal-breaker for many.

          • 0 avatar
            Carfan94

            @ FreedMike:
            The fact that you get can such a good deal on a 1 year old ES 350 just makes it that much more appealing than the chrysler. Plus you get a roomier interior, more prestige, and RELIABILITY.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @carfan:
            “The fact that you get can such a good deal on a 1 year old ES 350 just makes it that much more appealing than the chrysler.”

            OK, but since when have we come to expect poor resale like this from a Lexus? If an ES350 that went for $43,000 a year ago is going for $35,000 now, with 13,000 miles, that’s the kind of resale hit that Lexuses are NOT known for. It sure surprised me.

            That spells trouble (at least for that model, anyway).

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            A Charger SXT Plus AWD?

        • 0 avatar
          Carfan94

          I would take a Lexus ES (new or used) any day over this chrysler thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Wraith

      For anyone reading that $36k figure, a 200S w/ AWD and the larger UConnect/nav stickers for about $32k (including destination).

      Or 300C for $32.6k. That’s about the same as the Fusion (after $750 incentive they’re running), which has Sync/MyFordTouch, but nav is another $800.

      • 0 avatar

        Sorry. I said $36,000 because I saw it as a “price as tested”.

        It’s cheaper than $36,000 making it an even better purchase than some RIDICULOUS lexus (no caps) that “starts at $36,000″.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          Again, I don’t really think that the ES is comparable to the 200 from a size standpoint. I think (despite being RWD) that the Chrysler 300 makes a better comparison to the ES, since both are entry-level-luxury cars that are close in size. Ditto for the Hyundai Genesis (although the new 2015 one might have transcended that label).

          • 0 avatar

            Kyree – I agree to the comparison.

            Thing is:

            #1 I feel that instead of comparing cars based on size and class, in some circumstances, they should be compared based on price (what can I get for $35,000).

            #2 The Chrysler 300 is still a better car than the Lexus when comparing features-for-dollars

            Many people will jump to criticize my comment, but I’ll make it even easier for them:

            If I really felt Lexus was “better”, I’d have written a check to Lexus instead of Chrysler.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            And that’s just it. It’s all a matter of preference. I honestly don’t know which one I’d rather have (between the 300 or the ES).

    • 0 avatar
      fredtal

      By that logic you should be buying a Kia because it has the most options per dollar of any car.

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      Seriously? Just don’t see too many folks dropping over 30 large on the butt of a rent-a-car joke, even with a V6 and AWD. Unless you are going to drive it into the ground, the resale on a 200 would just be brutal. TCO, bitches.

  • avatar
    Onus

    Looks like they went with a pretty low rear end ratio. Probably so they don’t have the problem with the Cherokee where you don’t used 9th gear.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s absolutely ridiculous that cars are being forced to have transmissions with this many gears. Who is realistically driving this car between 75mph and 100mph regularly? Most of the buyers will probably never see speeds above 70.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Depends where you live. Some states will stop you for 1 mph over the limit, but others tolerate 85-90 mph on the highway.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        At this many gears, you may as well have a CVT.

        The hunting and inter-shift power losses, combined with the complexity of the unit, should give people pause.

        • 0 avatar
          gearhead77

          Not as much a pause as a CVT, says this Altima owner. 3 years is enough and I’m meh about it. Most of the time, especially on the highway and in flat terrain, it’s fine. City driving and hills are a challenge between the logic and my right foot. No more CVT for me, though nine speeds are a bit much.

          It’s a lot of car for the money, but it’ll lose 20% it’s first year. A shame they couldn’t get it above 20 city, even for the numbers game. 30mpg with AWD and 300hp is still pretty good

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Nobody is forcing anyone to use 9 speeds. Fiat is choosing to do so as the easiest way to improve fuel economy. There are other ways …

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          Ssh…BTSR apparently gets a big part of his self-worth from framing entirely free market market choices as the rebellious consumer vs. the oppressive system. (Though with smaller words and far more caps lock.)

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        You might not live in one, but an increasing number of states are increasing thier rural freway limits. And the enforcement limit is almost always highter…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        I regularly drive 75 to 80 mph within the Dallas-Fort Worth area outside of rush hour. The posted speed limit on much of the NTTA toll roads is 70 mph so this is well within the police tolerance. There are cars traveling faster.

        The speed limit on rural interstates in much of the Great Plains and Mountain West is 75 mph. Traffic flows at about 80 to 85 mph.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    That’s the same city MPG as a comparable V6 AWD Cherokee and 2 mpg better on the highway. If those ratios are consistent, the FWD 4 cylinder should get 22 city and 33/34 highway.

  • avatar
    romanjetfighter

    This won’t sell well, but the 4-cylinder version might be popular. It”s a nice V6 and AWD. Niche!

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    I’d expect better for a modern mid-size, despite the 9-speed gear box, modern aerodynamic (yet highly derivative) styling, ChryslerFiat has effectively duplicated the gas mileage of my dated as heck 4-speed brick-like Volvo.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    So….why even think about this sedan vs the Fusion AWD ecoboost????

    • 0 avatar
      Tomifobia

      Because a lot of people, me included, don’t trust turbos, no matter what fancy name they slap on it.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Agreed turbo = fail in generic auto sedan.

        Commence with the turbo love when ready, B&B.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          OK. Love turbos, but mostly in Saabs. I’m not convinced that every manufacturer will achieve the same balance of million-kilometer potential and great fuel economy. Most of them don’t come close with their non-turbo motors.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not a Saab man but salute Swedish turbos. Turbo, like supercharging, can work but its not a mainstream thing and shouldn’t be used as a crutch.

        • 0 avatar
          Ryoku75

          The picky maintenance that turbos demand turned me off, and the lag, ohh boy the lag, like I need that in something other than my computer.

          Turbos are fine for the right sports car or, if you’re good with maintenance, old Volvos and Saabs. But to toss them into family sedans willy nilly is just silly.

          You have to have the right transmission too, I test drove a Merkur once and turbo was useless for around town, getting on the highway whatever power the turbo gave was crippled by the automatic 3-speed.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      Real world fuel consumption on an NA V6 vs. a turbo 4? The test favors the turbo far more than actual usage does. Also, regardless of MSRP real world transctions should also tilt towards FCA. I’d still pick the Ford for longevity even with the turbo, but I’m not sure that’s backed up by fact. Just my gut.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Because car buyers take more into account when selecting a car than fuel economy alone.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    This generation might be good. If it is, and the next one is good,, and the one after that then people may begin to consider them against the likes of Lexus. This model is a 36k roll of the dice based on the generations that proceeded it. One model does not build a reliability reputation.

  • avatar
    readallover

    $36,000 for about a week. The only question is how big the rebates are.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    That nine-speed transmission would make me wait a couple of model years before considering one. That AWD V6 fuel-economy figure is less than what I’d need from a mid-sizer, but you don’t really need AWD where I live (since it’s not really any more helpful on the ice, which is all we ever get in the winter).

  • avatar
    danio3834

    The published fuel economy for this version of the 200 is actually pretty good when you compare it among other AWD sedans, especially those also equipped with NA V6 engines.

    2014 Acura TL 3.7L 18/26/21
    2014 Lincoln MKZ 3.7L 18/26/21
    2014 Buick Regal 2.0T 19/27/22
    2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6L 18/26/21

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      You know the Q50X with the 3.7 is at 19/27 now. Pretty good considering weight.

      The ATS isn’t great considering size of engine and size of car.

      (And the 2.0T in the Regal isn’t NA) :)

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Yeah, that’s what the T stands for. I just threw it in there because it is very much comparable, and fueleconomy.gov allows you to compare 4 cars at once.

        I didn’t even think about Infiniti since I’m not really familiar with their nomenclature changes.

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit33

      The Chrysler 300 with AWD and the 3.6 gets 18/27 so I am a little surprised that the 200 didn’t get a tick or two better in the city. The 300 is no lightweight.

    • 0 avatar
      Chris FOM

      A 335 xDrive, which is in a similar size class (although obviously vastly more expensive) has a turbo 6 and a far more performance-oriented setup yet still hits 20/30/24. These numbers aren’t atrocious, but with the 9-speed I expected better.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    I recently testdrove the Cadillac ATS. It’s a nice car, but the higher you go in the line, the prices get a bit ridiculous, over $50k for full zoot with AWD. The ATS is a good size for a typical commuter but kind of small for a family car. I don’t see the point of AWD for a car in this class; but then again, I don’t live in Buffalo. There might be room for the Chrysler 200 at the low end of the luxury segment. If so, though, they’ll have to keep the # of $22k base models in check.

  • avatar
    mjz

    Name another state-of-the-art midsize car you can get with AWD and a near 300hp V6 for under $30,000. I just priced a 200S on the Chrysler website, and it came in at $29,690 net price. Quit your bitchin’ dammit.

  • avatar
    timcc23

    If you are looking for a 300+HP V6 engine and AWD for low-to-mid $30Ks right now, it’s hard to beat an Infiniti G37x. I’ve heard of them going for $36K recently. I’m guessing the handling will be much better than the Chrysler 200 and you get the RWD dynamics until the AWD needs to kick in. It may be a little dated, but I think it still looks great and is going to be a lot more fun to drive. You’ll take a little hit on gas mileage, though.

  • avatar
    brn

    I’m confused as to why the EPA rating for the 200 is hitting all the automotive blogs.

    The rating itself is about as expected. Are we now going to blog about every EPA rating for every car?

  • avatar
    Zekele Ibo

    New model or not, the car’s an anonymous blob, it will depreciate like falling masonry, the Chrysler brand is so weak that the fully-loaded models won’t sell and the market will be saturated with base-model 4-cylinder penalty boxes sold to credit-criminals by a crappy dealership network, or sold by the pound to the rental fleets. Nothing worthwhile or aspirational to see here.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Maybe, maybe not. I know I’ll be curious to watch.

      Dart might step in as the FCA rental fodder of choice and Enterprise and the like will look elsewhere for midsizes.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India