Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just got back from a 3,000 mile road trip in the R/T six speed. Drove from Michigan to Naples, Florida for spring break.

Calculated my own mileage, and averaged 27.4 MPG for the whole trip.


Highway speeds were maintained around 80 mph. Used the cruise control as much as possible.

Running in sixth gear, 80 mph showed 1,800 rpms. 75 mph was about 1,700 rpms.

Always ran 91 or higher octane gasoline.

Very happy with the results, we spent over $400 in fuel.

My only complaint so far is the lack of visibility in the blind spots of the rear quarters when passing.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Exxxxxxcellent! Great to hear a number so high. I have yet to take a road trip, but that was the purpose of my R/T purchase. Very exciting to hear 27 mpg. I'm a classic car freak, but in the environmental field, so I was hoping for fuel mileage that I could find respectable. 27 sounds great, good job, and thanks for reporting! What's the word on the octane, buy the higher grade for better mileage? I've heard mixed thoughts so far, but haven't researched it well yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
glad to see I also have great results on long trips just got home yesterday from mopars at the strip 2211 miles raced the car in pony and new hemi ran 91 also avg. 24.1 that is with 18 passes down the track!! six speed 5.7 stock. I ran about 83mph on I-15 MT. to NV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
Just got back from a 3,000 mile road trip in the R/T six speed. Drove from Michigan to Naples, Florida for spring break.

Calculated my own mileage, and averaged 27.4 MPG for the whole trip.

Highway speeds were maintained around 80 mph. Used the cruise control as much as possible.

Running in sixth gear, 80 mph showed 1,800 rpms. 75 mph was about 1,700 rpms.

Always ran 91 or higher octane gasoline.

Very happy with the results, we spent over $400 in fuel.

My only complaint so far is the lack of visibility in the blind spots of the rear quarters when passing.

I tell people at work who are gettting 12-15 mpg they need a 4200 pound car with a gas guzziling v8 that way they can get 27 mpg highway.

Whats the point of driving a 4 cylender when it gets 32 mpg and is much slower?

My SE got 27 mpg highway, so whats the point of a V6 when it gets the same mpg, but has less hp? My R/T also gets the same city mpg as the SE did, so why do they waste the time building a v6?

The key is not speeding, and easing up to 70 and locking in cc.

I get 26-27 in my 5 speed, but the rpm is a bit over 2000
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
517 Posts
I'm confused; in the first post you say you have a 6 speed, but your signature says you have a 5 speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I tell people at work who are gettting 12-15 mpg they need a 4200 pound car with a gas guzziling v8 that way they can get 27 mpg highway.

Whats the point of driving a 4 cylender when it gets 32 mpg and is much slower?

My SE got 27 mpg highway, so whats the point of a V6 when it gets the same mpg, but has less hp? My R/T also gets the same city mpg as the SE did, so why do they waste the time building a v6?

The key is not speeding, and easing up to 70 and locking in cc.

I get 26-27 in my 5 speed, but the rpm is a bit over 2000
One point to remember: Yes, the Challenger is capable of mid 20's and higher on the highway, but that mileage is usually much lower in mixed and city driving, which is what a lot of people drive daily. Many 4 cyl. cars are capable of significantly higher mileage when driven in mixed/city conditions. For instance, my Scion will return about 35 mph at a steady 65 mph on the highway, but will also return 30-32 when driven mostly city/mixed.

If you drive mostly city/urban, a smaller engine will generally net much greater mileage than the Hemi. I can barely get 15 driving in the city/mixed driving, and I am a very conservative driver.

Just food for thought. As a daily urban commuter, the Challenger (Hemi) is a poor performer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
I'm confused; in the first post you say you have a 6 speed, but your signature says you have a 5 speed.
He doesnt have a signature
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
One point to remember: Yes, the Challenger is capable of mid 20's and higher on the highway, but that mileage is usually much lower in mixed and city driving, which is what a lot of people drive daily. Many 4 cyl. cars are capable of significantly higher mileage when driven in mixed/city conditions. For instance, my Scion will return about 35 mph at a steady 65 mph on the highway, but will also return 30-32 when driven mostly city/mixed.

If you drive mostly city/urban, a smaller engine will generally net much greater mileage than the Hemi. I can barely get 15 driving in the city/mixed driving, and I am a very conservative driver.

Just food for thought. As a daily urban commuter, the Challenger (Hemi) is a poor performer.
In worse case driving short trips stop and go, 8 minute commute, I get 15 mpg city in my challenger, and my 2.4L 1000 pound lighter car, AND 15 is what I got in my SE. The only difference was the 2.4L gets up to speed slow, with weak torque, the SE was ok but slow ish, and no power at full throttle, and the 5.7L has low end torque at 2000 rpm, easly beeting the 2.4L at WOT.

Yes the 2.4L gets 20 city with more driving and my wife in the car, but the Challenger can get pretty close to that.

On the highway the 2.4L gets 24-26, 5.7L about 26.

If I use wot from nearly every start, yes mpg goes to about 10 with the 5.7L

Thing I notice is if you take a car that offers a 4 or v6 the mpg is about 1-2 different, if a car offers v6 or v8, its again 1-2 mpg different. For me that 2-4 mpg difference to go from 170-400 hp is well worth it, and my 5.7L exceds my 2.4L on the highway.

Look at the SRT-8 100 hp over the R/T and you only loose 1 mpg? Add a super charger for +100 - +125 and most see same or in some cases better mpg (assuming no wot starts) so now your talking 570 hp for 1 mpg less than the 370 hp r/t? Why would you want a 172 hp 2.4L when this 6.4L 570 hp engine only looses 1-2 mpg?

Lets say your hiring workers to build a house. Its $30.00/hr for one person, or $37.00 /hr for 4 quality workers, why woudnt you want the 4 workers?

The only case a 4 cylender makes sense is cars like the scion, prias, yaris, or 2000 pound cars, and when they use a 1.0-1.5L, they you truely get better mpg, but when you look at a decent size car with a decent size 4, you have nearly identical mpg as a v6 in the car, and you loose so much torque, its not worth it.

My 3200 pound 2.4L 172hp 0-60 10 second caliber gets 15 mpg city(going to work), and 24-26 highway at 70 mph

My 250hp 3.5L SE got 15 mpg city, and 27-27.5 mpg highway with 8 second 0-60

My 4300 pound 400+hp 5.7L gets 15 mpg city, and 26-27 mpg highway with a 5.0-5.5 second 0-60 (traction issues)

All 3 are driving the same path, same way. Highway is easing up to 70 and driving with cc flat at 70. The city is short trips to work.

I see no advantage in this situation to having anything less than a v8. If you want better mpg, they should produce an aluminum 3.5L DOHC v8 with headers, and MDS. Thats your echono car, a replacement for the V6 AND 4 cylender.

The SE should use somethign like the 318 back from the 70's but with modern electronics, aluminum, etc, but with the v8 you still have the low end torque, and with mds you have the increased mpg, and with a 5 speed, or the new 8 speed thats comming theres your fuel echonomy.

They should have took the pentistar technology and put it on a 3.5L v8 and put that in ALL 4 cylender and v6 cars. I bet that would make the caliber get better than 15/25 like I get, AND they would all have power to. The nearly 300hp SRT-4 gets better mpg than the 172 hp version, so I say a 3.5L 300hp all alluminum pentistar with multi-air and mds and the 8 speed, would not only have low end torque, but also get better mpg than the 2.4L 172 hp engine, despite the fact its about 200 pounds heavier.

Top gear did a test comparring the 45-50 mpg rated prias flat out on the track vs 400hp v8 bmw. The big heavy, luxery gas guzzling v8 BMW's job was keep up, or provide same level thrust as the prias. Gues which is more effeciant? highest mpg car on the market providing slow performance, or a big heavy v8 providing the same level power but doing it with little effort?

Prias got 17 mpg on the track, thats right, 45 mpg rated car got 17, bmw got 19 providing the same level performance.

This shows how when you over work a small engine its not as effeciant, and is why the v6 version of a v8 car only gets 1-2 mpg better sticker, and in realty for some only 1 mpg, but the v6 does it by getting up to speed slower.

I would love to have an SE pace me to work, while I dont excede 2500 rpm, most of the time 2000 rpm, and see what the SE gets mpg. First of all the SE is going to need a lot of throttle to keep up with the 5.7L even at 2000 rpm, so its going to be less effeciant. No disrespect to the SE, for many 8 second 0-60 is plenty fast, and they dont care about power at wot, but to me I like having torque at 1500-2000 rpm, and not needing 3500 rpm to feal like Im actually moving, or the occasional wot to keep up is important.

I drive the 5.7L on trips if for nothing else because it gets 1-2 mpg better highway mpg at 70 mph than my 2.4L does. The 5.7L is my echono car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
One thing to keep in mind is that there are plenty of cars with small displacement engines capable of achieving much better mileage than your Caliber. You quoted 15 city? That is terrible.

Again, my Scion achieves mid 30's easy highway, and I have never returned less than 30 mpg over 5 years of driving.

I see all your points, and they are well taken. If you are looking for a larger sized automobile then a smaller engine is not necessarily the best choice, for the reasons you stated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
One thing to keep in mind is that there are plenty of cars with small displacement engines capable of achieving much better mileage than your Caliber. You quoted 15 city? That is terrible.

Again, my Scion achieves mid 30's easy highway, and I have never returned less than 30 mpg over 5 years of driving.

I see all your points, and they are well taken. If you are looking for a larger sized automobile then a smaller engine is not necessarily the best choice, for the reasons you stated.
I have an 8-10 minute commute, lots of stop and go, my 2.4L Caliber R/T gets 15 mpg driving slow, my 5.7L Challenger also gets 15 mpg driving 2000-2500 rpm, and gets there fast.

Yes my Caliber R/T gets 15 mpg, driving to work, short trip stop and go, not enough time for engine to warm up.

So that scion is getting mid 30's highway, so 35? My 400+hp 4400 pound Challenger seating 5 gets 27 mpg highway at 70 mpg. True the scion is better, but not by a lot, and no disrespect to the scion (they are cool) but its a totally different car, and peformance is quite a bit different to. For all the hp you lose, and the huge difference in weight, I would want more than 8 mpg for such a massive difference in engine and car.

So for about 8 mpg less, you go from about 125 hp to 400+ and what 3000 pounds to 4400 pounds? 8 mpg is pretty good, but for the massive difference in weight and performance 8 mpg isnt anything.

Imagine what my car would do with carbon fiber body pannels, and other misc weight reduction parts, then the 8 speed transmission thats comming and 1600-1800 rpm at 70 mph with mds.

Again, no disrespect to the scion (its a cool car, and fills a nitch), but Id like to see how it does going the same speed I do to work using 2000-2500 rpm in my car, and see how it compares to 15 mpg city short trips, matching my speed identically.

Many 4 cylenders do better than 15, but again Im talking 8-10 minute drive stop and go, not typical city driving. Id love to drive a yaris for 2 months to see what it would do under same situation, then drive it hard to keep up with my soft throttle on the V8 and see how they compare.

My 5.7L will do nearly 20 mpg city when I drive around the town for more like 30-45 minute trips, and the caliber is about the same, slightly higher by 1-2 mpg.

Anyone remember the geo of the early 90's? No hybrid, no DOHC, no carbon fiber. Fuel injected yes, 3 cylender small engine, yes, manual transmission yes. 45 mpg YES so 90's technology AND 45 mpg. How did they do it? UNDER POWER LIKE MAD. 0-60 16 seconds. I say if you really want mpg, then get a car the size of the yaris, lighten it up, and put a 35-45 hp engine in it, with a 7 speed manual transmission. Then for the echo version use as much carbon fiber as possible, all body pannels, etc. Use modern technology like DOHC 4v/cylender, hemi heads (like nearly all 4 cylenders use now days) Basically .5L V-tech and put it in a light car with a 7 speed manual transmission. Go back to the 16 second 0-60 with all modern electronics and fuel effeciancies, for get the 8-10 second 0-60 thats a race car speed. Then you will get good mpg, but look at the Honda fit how small it is, and it cannot compete with the geo from 20 years ago, nor does the yaris, such a shame. By comparrison the yaris, and fit are poor mpg cars. 20 years later and the state of the art hibrid prias just slightly exceds the geo, thats sad. Wheres 50-70 mpg ? back in the 90's we had 45 mpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Just got back from a 3,000 mile road trip in the R/T six speed. Drove from Michigan to Naples, Florida for spring break.

Calculated my own mileage, and averaged 27.4 MPG for the whole trip.


Highway speeds were maintained around 80 mph. Used the cruise control as much as possible.

Running in sixth gear, 80 mph showed 1,800 rpms. 75 mph was about 1,700 rpms.

Always ran 91 or higher octane gasoline.

Very happy with the results, we spent over $400 in fuel.

My only complaint so far is the lack of visibility in the blind spots of the rear quarters when passing.
Congrats on your trip, and your fuel mileage. Sorry I let the thread get off track.

Enjoy your car!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
126 Posts
I haven't driven that far (total) in my Mopar 10, but on two shorter road trips I've done 25.2 and 27.0 mpgs. 5.7, VCT, MDS, auto trans and 3.06 gears. I'm VERY happy with this! :)

I also have a 2008 Avenger SXT with the 2.4 and it gets excellent milage, high 20s around town, mid 30s highway, but over 30 combined for me, so I'm happy with my 2.4 Avenger as well...

JS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
The key to any of these big engines (essentially anything bigger than a 2 L i4) is to run them "hard" (but not insane) to get up to speed quickly, and then spend the rest of the time in light loads or light-coasting in mds (if equipped). Go only as fast as needed to pace traffic, and minimize instances where you have to bleed speed down with moderate/heavy braking. When you baby these engines to get up to speed, it actually hurts your avg mpg for the trip because efficiency actually drops during low loads (babying them). It literally comes down to "duh-winning" involves spending the least amount of time on the throttle (regardless of being low or high). In this case, spending a short time at moderate to high throttle to achieve a certain speed works out better than spending a long time at small throttle to achieve the same speed. After reaching the desired speed, you are then coasting down or employing maintenance throttle which uses the least amount of fuel over distance (where the engine can switch to very-lean mode if the octane supports it and/or mds can engage).

I urge everybody to give it a try...called the "punch'it and coast" method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I have the 2010 Mopar 10 with a 6 speed manual and the car has 490km's (appox 305miles) on it. I got 7.13 km's/liter (16.4 US mpg) with the first tank. All city driving so I am looking forward to some longer runs and see how it does. One question for you guys if I may. I dont see a "red-line" in the tach. The engine is the 5.7 what RPM's could I run that engine? When I do the break-in and streah its legs will that governor kick in at 184km/hr (115 mph) like my Cummings did making me think something broke??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
I have the 2010 Mopar 10 with a 6 speed manual and the car has 490km's (appox 305miles) on it. I got 7.13 km's/liter (16.4 US mpg) with the first tank. All city driving so I am looking forward to some longer runs and see how it does. One question for you guys if I may. I dont see a "red-line" in the tach. The engine is the 5.7 what RPM's could I run that engine? When I do the break-in and streah its legs will that governor kick in at 184km/hr (115 mph) like my Cummings did making me think something broke??
As to when you are safe to open her up, that is always speculation. I can, however, answer your first question. No need for a redline as the computer cuts the revs at 5700-5800 rpm. Just run her up to just below the rev limiter cut in and then shift.

Hope this helped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
IMO to use the single best 5.7L highway only mileage and to compare it to
one of the worst performing 4 cyc cars mileage wise is kinda skewing things.
Plus most people drive city/mixed city.

So the flip side would be comparing my SRT which gets an avg of 12-13 mpg to
the Scions almost 30. Close to 3x's better gas mileage. Find the avg between
this and 5.7/2.4 and that would close to real world. At an avg of 400 miles driven a
week you be looking at your gas bill cut in half for the year. Since I don't pay for my
gas it doesn't effect me personally but I could certainly see it being a consideration for
some.

All that said the 5.7L certainly performs admirably on the highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
IMO to use the single best 5.7L highway only mileage and to compare it to
one of the worst performing 4 cyc cars mileage wise is kinda skewing things.
Plus most people drive city/mixed city.

So the flip side would be comparing my SRT which gets an avg of 12-13 mpg to
the Scions almost 30. Close to 3x's better gas mileage. Find the avg between
this and 5.7/2.4 and that would close to real world. At an avg of 400 miles driven a
week you be looking at your gas bill cut in half for the year. Since I don't pay for my
gas it doesn't effect me personally but I could certainly see it being a consideration for
some.

All that said the 5.7L certainly performs admirably on the highway.
True, but the state of the art 172hp 2.4L 3200 pound car gets 15/25 and the pushrod 5.7L 372hp 4400 pound car gets 15/26 Both doing the same thing same test, same driving conditions, same road. Difference is when the 2.4L is driven at 2500 rpm just like the 5.7L its much slower.

So a 1100 pound ligher 4 cylender basically gett the same mpg as the heavier 5.7L, whats the point in having less power? Why dont they put the 5.7L in the Caliber?

I get a super light scion with a weak under powered 4 vs big heavy challenger thats got a big v8, but light and under powered getting same or less mpg?

The Caliber is a great car and does what it was designed for, it just doesnt get better mpg for the serious loss in hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
714 Posts
True, but the state of the art 172hp 2.4L 3200 pound car gets 15/25 and the pushrod 5.7L 372hp 4400 pound car gets 15/26 Both doing the same thing same test, same driving conditions, same road. Difference is when the 2.4L is driven at 2500 rpm just like the 5.7L its much slower.

So a 1100 pound ligher 4 cylender basically gett the same mpg as the heavier 5.7L, whats the point in having less power? Why dont they put the 5.7L in the Caliber?

I get a super light scion with a weak under powered 4 vs big heavy challenger thats got a big v8, but light and under powered getting same or less mpg?

The Caliber is a great car and does what it was designed for, it just doesnt get better mpg for the serious loss in hp.
Why should a smaller engine burn less fuel anyway, if you are doing the same "work" (pushing the car around)

that said, Caliber is probably a bad example as the fuel economy is terrible. Honda Civic (26/36 vs 15/24 Chally) maybe a better comparison and has a coupe to match Challenger :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
Fuel economy becomes alarmingly similar between big and small engines once they are both propelling similarly large/heavy vehicles. It has become clear to me (despite what gets drilled into our heads by enviro-goons) that it was never big engines that were the problem. It was massive, heavy vehicles that made big engines look bad.

I once did a spreadsheet that normalized the weight of various cars, just to see how the relative fuel economy indices laid out. The results weren't even funny how overwhelmingly favorable it was to big engines. That is, for the sheer bulk they haul around, the mpg of big engines was astonishingly good compared to small engines. Put another way, small engines are real slackers considering the light vehicles they lug around. They get good mpg, but numerically, it should be substantially better considering the lower weight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
559 Posts
I've already done my 'experiments' posted in another thread about 'how to drive the auto stick' based on help from an Ecometer.
What is interesting is the rpms of the 6sp doing 80 mph is about the same as my auto (5sp) doing 70 mph. Thus, on open and flat roads, the lower rpms help proportionately.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top