By on December 31, 2010

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.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

17 Comments on “How Efficient Is The Chrysler 200?...”


  • avatar

    Welcome to my life. There’s a reason I’ve left the 2011 Chryslers for last when entering features and specs into TrueDelta’s database–their info is always a mess. This has been the case for at least the last five years.
    This said, aside from the inconsistency between the two pages these numbers are possibly correct. The EPA ratings usually only vary for different bodystyles if there is a large difference in their curb weight, and someetimes not even then. And if the six-speed automatic doesn’t have a much wider ratio spread it might improve driveability and performance more than it does efficiency.

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-X

      The EPA ratings are a twisted mess; they are the IRS tax-form maze of unneccessary steps, the long-way to an inferior result.  It’s likely that Chrysler refuses to play the EPA game where you can pump up the number based on juggling a number of parameters. (Like reducing the fuel tank capacity to save a few pounds on the curb-weight rating.) Or, it could be they just aren’t that good at it.

      As for the 4-speed vs 6-speed transmission, yes, it’s possible to make a 6-speed perform less efficient than a 4-speed; the same goes for a four cylinder vs. a six.

  • avatar
    Windshield

     I think the fuel econ numbers are good, if not class leading.  It a powerful and big engine fo the mid size sedan segment.

  • avatar
    AJ

    I’d certainly go with the Pentastar for a lot more hp. MPG is about the same.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Maybe the 6-speed isn’t intended to improve fuel economy, but rather performance.  But that would be out of step with today’s eco-trends.

  • avatar
    mjz

    200 Touring with the Penatastar V-6 will be a sweet deal for around $24,000.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Horror of Horrors!
    My daughter’s driver’s ed car is a Sebring.
    “Dad, how come your car goes where it’s pointing?”
    If they solve the steering problem with the 200, then I guess we can’t complain too much about the transmissions.

  • avatar
    Flwhored

    Man… uhhhh, (sound of water bong) I’m so confused right now…

  • avatar
    jimble

    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.

  • avatar
    NN

    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.

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      I’m guessing that the gearing in your 6spd auto is unusually tall to get the highway ratings.  I’ve run into almost the same thing with our new-to-us 2006 Odyssey with the 5spd auto.  In suburban driving on not flat but not “hilly” 2-lanes with a 40-45 mph speed limit the thing hangs in 4th and hesitates to lock up.  Driving faster, 47-50, will get it into 5th locked up.  I have found that by exceeding the 45mph speed limit it gets better mileage because it stays in top gear more.  My suspicion is that you’re doing essentially the same in your Malibu, and by ensuring that you accelerate all the way until you can get it into top gear without it hanging up in a lower gear you will get better mileage.
       
      Our first tank with the Ody was 18 mpg, after figuring out what’s going on with the trans we’re up to about 20.

  • avatar
    George B

    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.

  • avatar
    joeaverage

    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…

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Dave M.: That big ol’ GM fuel “gage” where a tach should be cracks me up. As does the blank gage on the bottom left....
  • ToolGuy: I now *don’t* think the square term applies for a ‘point’ weight (such as a wheel weight...
  • ToolGuy: Math error – the 2.5 ounce weight would need 0.13 ounces to offset, or *half* the little guy....
  • Inside Looking Out: Lie2me is lying.
  • Jeff S: Having had a 73 Chevelle they were decent cars with a 350 V8. My 73 Chevelle Deluxe was the perfect sleeper a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber