Why does PT foglight come on with right turn signal?

i'm thinking a 383 4 speeder is way better than my rt dakota as far as milage
goes turns 4500 r's at 60 in drive, thanks for od it goes to 2500 r's at 60 12
mpg is best i get
my brothers 66 396 dual quaded chevelle gets 28 on the highway at 60 as long as
like you said! keep your foot out of it and that still amazes me
"Ron S." wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:16:56 UTC, "Ron S." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> m> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >>>>>>>in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >>>>>>>month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >>>>>>>store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >>>>>>>designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >>>>>>>looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >>>>>>>overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >>>>>>>six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >>>>>>>different engine/transmission combination.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>200 miles a week
> >>>>>>x5 weeks in a long month
> >>>>>>1000 miles
> >>>>>>add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>1200 miles
> >>>>>>/15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> >>>>>>80gals gas per month
> >>>>>>X $3 a gallon
> >>>>>>$240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You better buy a locking gas cap!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Steve B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Steve,
> >>>>>I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
> >>>>>$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
> >>>>>"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
> >>>>>Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
> >>>>>expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
> >>>>>think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
> >>>>>can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
> >>>>>we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
> >>>>>we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
> >>>>>is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
> >>>>>antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
> >>>>>our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
> >>>>>So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
> >>>>>$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
> >>>>>month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
> >>>>>Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
> >>>>are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
> >>>>get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
> >>>>
> >>>>I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
> >>>>and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
> >>>>PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
> >>>>350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
> >>>>all that gas.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve B.
> >>>
> >>>Steve,
> >>>We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
> >>>mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
> >>>mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
> >>>Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
> >>>in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
> >>>straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
> >>>forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
> >>>mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
> >>>mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
> >>>22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
> >>>getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
> >>>oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
> >>>filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
> >>>a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
> >>>Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
> >>>town, so something is very wrong here.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both
> >>ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife
> >>uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not.
> >>Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a
> >>turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15
> >>mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else
> >>something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot.
> >>I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work
> >>. It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in
> >>mixed driving.
> >
> > Ron,
> > I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's
> > both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My
> > driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal
> > with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could
> > not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack
> > rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what
> > they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the
> > tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One
> > month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the
> > usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
> > 10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back,
> > we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable.
> > As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940,
> > with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then
> > I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such
> > as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since
> > the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51
> > Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart,
> > 86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You
> > stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the
> > difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a
> > manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid
> > Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were
> > serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the
> > transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were
> > immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem
> > to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if
> > you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant
> > sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here,
> > not the old days.
> >
>
> I stand by what I said fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went
> to the AllPar site (here's the link : www.ptcruizer.com/cruize.html) and
> looked at their road test of an '02 PT. Check it out, at the begining of
> day 3 he refilled the tank and was getting 30 mpg. Also, there's a
> couple guys in our car club (with an '04 and an '06) and they get
> slightly less mileage than ours (27-29), but we chalked it up to the
> automatic.
>
> I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d).
> That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used
> to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3
> speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were
> 15 year old tech with no o/d's and throttle body fuel injection. I would
> expect new 4 banger tech with o/d's to at least deliver fuel mileage to
> match.
>
> BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before
> Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After
> I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner
> (which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71
> Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally
> lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt
> a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years,
> along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what
> ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66
> Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that
> would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept
> my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big
> block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage.

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 06:06:56 UTC, "Ron S." >
wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:16:56 UTC, "Ron S." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:49 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:01:11 GMT,
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:06:59 UTC, Steve B. > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:21:15 GMT,
> m> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I agree with all that you say about the safety, the style, the
> >>>>>>>reliability, etc. The gas mileage was killing us: what with gas here
> >>>>>>>in South Florida at $3 and sometimes over, it was costing us $400 a
> >>>>>>>month just to commute 200 miles a week, not counting going to the
> >>>>>>>store or to eat locally. I am saying that the PT should have been
> >>>>>>>designed with an engine that gets better mileage to go with its great
> >>>>>>>looks. I also own a fully restored 1940 Chyrsler Royal coupe with
> >>>>>>>overdrive,and it can get 21 on the road with a 241.5 c.i. flathead
> >>>>>>>six. I would have purchased another PT if it would have had a
> >>>>>>>different engine/transmission combination.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>200 miles a week
> >>>>>>x5 weeks in a long month
> >>>>>>1000 miles
> >>>>>>add in a couple hundred miles for the store and stuff
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>1200 miles
> >>>>>>/15mpg if you drive like a maniac
> >>>>>>80gals gas per month
> >>>>>>X $3 a gallon
> >>>>>>$240 for an absolute worst case month with a maniac driver.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You better buy a locking gas cap!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Steve B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Steve,
> >>>>>I am not complaining about the PT. However, what you didn't know is:
> >>>>>$500/month payment on the turbo PT, yea, my wife wanted her first
> >>>>>"expensive" car, gas running close to $400 bills a month, in South
> >>>>>Florida, you don't go anywhere without a car and gas is the most
> >>>>>expensive here in Palm Beach and Martin County, maybe because they
> >>>>>think that just because Tiger Woods lives on Jupiter Island, we all
> >>>>>can pay high prices. Last night, just to meet friends for a weekend,
> >>>>>we had to drive to South Broward, that was 70 miles one way,of course
> >>>>>we didn't have to do that. So, I hope that where you live, that a car
> >>>>>is not so important. As I stated, we really only have one car, the
> >>>>>antique has been around for a long time and is used for car shows and
> >>>>>our club hobby, only driven to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive.
> >>>>>So, when you add up my figures for the PT, it was getting close to
> >>>>>$900 a month just to drive the thing! Now with the Caliber, $141 a
> >>>>>month less, and our gas bill has been cut, so far in half. If the PT
> >>>>>Cruiser had that mileage and payment, I would still be driving one.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>My point was that you are either driving a lot more than you said you
> >>>>are or you had an issue with gas theft as there is no way you could
> >>>>get a PT to use that much gas in so few miles.
> >>>>
> >>>>I agree that mileage on a PT sucks. I drive a '95 Fleetwood for work
> >>>>and regularly get better mileage than my friend gets out of their two
> >>>>PT's. My car weighs twice as much and has an LT1 higher performance
> >>>>350 in it so I just can't figure out what the heck a PT can do with
> >>>>all that gas.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve B.
> >>>
> >>>Steve,
> >>>We seem to be getting into agreement here on the fact that the gas
> >>>mileage on the PT sucks big time. There was no gas theft, and the
> >>>mileage I stated that we drove was correct. The 180hp turbo Touring
> >>>Edition was supposed to get better than the 150hp standard that I had
> >>>in my 2003, but did not! I drove a 1949 Chrysler with a 135hp
> >>>straight eight and got better mileage! I, and many others on PT
> >>>forums cannot understand how the car will just not get the gas
> >>>mileage. I realize that it is an "emotional" buy and not one for pure
> >>>mileage, but come on! A 2.4 four cylinder that cannot get better than
> >>>22! Just refilled my Caliber today, got 28.115mpg, now that is
> >>>getting some good mileage! I used and am using Mobil One synthetic
> >>>oil in all my cars, except the 1940, and even used the K & N air
> >>>filter in the PT's because I read that it did increase the mileage by
> >>>a little bit, which it surprisingly did, but not much. I had a 1992
> >>>Lincoln Continental V-6 that would get 30 mpg on the road and 24 in
> >>>town, so something is very wrong here.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>All I know is that both of our PT's had 5 speed sticks in them and both
> >>ALWAYS get 30 to 31 MPG with mostly highway miles (which is how my wife
> >>uses it for going to work). It doesn't matter if the A/C is on or not.
> >>Even city driving only drops it to the to high 20's. We don't have a
> >>turbo, just the standard 2.4 and 5 speed. I'm seeing something about 15
> >>mpg ??? I don't believe that. Even the 21 mpg sounds wrong, or else
> >>something is wrong with the engine or someone has a lead right foot.
> >>I have an old '94 Plymouth Acclaim that I use for back and forth to work
> >>. It has the 2.4 and auto and even that thing gets around 28 mpg in
> >>mixed driving.
> >
> > Ron,
> > I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's
> > both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My
> > driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal
> > with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could
> > not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack
> > rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what
> > they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the
> > tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One
> > month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the
> > usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
> > 10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back,
> > we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable.
> > As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940,
> > with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then
> > I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such
> > as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since
> > the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51
> > Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart,
> > 86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You
> > stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the
> > difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a
> > manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid
> > Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were
> > serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the
> > transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were
> > immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem
> > to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if
> > you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant
> > sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here,
> > not the old days.
> >
>
> I stand by what I said fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went
> to the AllPar site (here's the link : www.ptcruizer.com/cruize.html) and
> looked at their road test of an '02 PT. Check it out, at the begining of
> day 3 he refilled the tank and was getting 30 mpg. Also, there's a
> couple guys in our car club (with an '04 and an '06) and they get
> slightly less mileage than ours (27-29), but we chalked it up to the
> automatic.
>
> I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d).
> That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used
> to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3
> speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were
> 15 year old tech with no o/d's and throttle body fuel injection. I would
> expect new 4 banger tech with o/d's to at least deliver fuel mileage to
> match.
>
> BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before
> Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After
> I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner
> (which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71
> Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally
> lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt
> a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years,
> along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what
> ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66
> Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that
> would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept
> my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big
> block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage.
Well, Ron, god bless you, but I had to go to a more efficient Chrysler
product, it would be very strange to have two "lemons" on gas mileage,
from two different years, from two different dealers, with two
different engines. I, myself, am 55 years young, and proud to drive
Chrysler products. I also forgot to mention my step-dad's 61 Dodge
Phoenix with a 318, it got great mileage for that era. I forgot to
also mention my 73 Fury Suburban, 360 that would eat you out of house
and home even when gas was around fifty-three cents: 10-12 city/15-16
highway. As I mentioned, I am no stranger to Chrysler products. Road
tests are so subjective: I remember Uncle Tom's test from Mechanic's
Illustrated. He would run those like "scalded cats" and he admitted
that those were not real world figures.
You said that you came up through the world of muscle cars, I came up
through a family that prized the old flathead sixes, and the only
eight my grandfather had was a straight one in an old Chrylser.
So, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree about the PT
Cruiser mileage. If they would put the smaller 2.0/CVT combo in
there, or better still, the diesel option that is in the European PT,
then I think we would all be driving them! Last night, filling up the
Caliber, only have had it three weeks, it got 26 around town. My
1940, which goes out on sunny Florida days got 15 just driving it
slowly around Jupiter Island and some stop and go. Took it out on the
highway for an old-fashioned "clean out" with the overdrive engaged
and it got 20.45mpg, not bad for a 241.5 flathead six with a whopping
108 hp, maybe I could have gotten more if I had the high perfomance
head, 112hp!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
sample to another of the same vehicle.

I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
admitting to or differences in terrain.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:17:05 UTC, Bill Putney > wrote:

> I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
> engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
> sample to another of the same vehicle.
>
> I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
> huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
> years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
> replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
> etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
> their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
> admitting to or differences in terrain.
>
> Bill Putney
Bill,
I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good
information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this
particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a
particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers,
they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I
am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan
and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even
meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT
Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around
21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the
things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil
1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and
still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to
expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got
rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me,
the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too
exciting!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:17:05 UTC, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
>>engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
>>sample to another of the same vehicle.
>>
>>I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
>>huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
>>years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
>>replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
>>etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
>>their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
>>admitting to or differences in terrain.
>>
>>Bill Putney
>
> Bill,
> I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good
> information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this
> particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a
> particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers,
> they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I
> am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan
> and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even
> meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT
> Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around
> 21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the
> things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil
> 1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and
> still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to
> expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got
> rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me,
> the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too
> exciting!
>

Well thanks!

I also believe that for a given vehicle with atypical (for that vehicle)
bad fuel mileage, there has to be some component (or timing tolerance,
or computer anomaly) that is causing it. All I'm saying is that there
has to be a reason. We (and dealers and their diagnostic equipment)
just don't have the smarts and infinite time/money to narrow it down to
that particular component. The best we can do, in the absence of some
obvious clue, is hit all the usual suspects (plugs, throttle body,
exhaust. sensors, PCM firmware and hardware, fuel quality, timing belt,
etc.), and a few shots in the dark, and hope to luck out before the
money and/or our patience run out. Fortunately for me I am blessed with
two Concordes - one a 2.7, the other a 3.2 - that both are on the high
end of the typical mileage numbers.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

I had an 88 New Yorker with Mitsu 3.0 that easily got 32 mpg highway.
Our 2000 3ooM will get up to 28 mpg highway if I make sure the tires
are properly inflated.
The n/a 2006 PT Cruiser automatic can barely get 24 mpg highway with a
rare 25 mpg.

Lets go back to basics..
Is there anything impacting airflow into or out of the engine that
would reduce mpg ?

Early 3ooM mods included playing with cat back dual exhaust systems
using after market camaro mufflers, which increased highway mpg by 5
mpg under most tests.

Does the PT Cruiser have exhaust or intake restrictions ?
Is the intake air too hot ?
Is the catalytic convertor too restrictive ?
Are the factory tires use a tread pattern or compound that lowers mpg ?
Are there too many internal losses in the automatic transmission ?
Are there better design intake manifolds that will fit in that tiny
engine bay ?

one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for
tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to
a taller tire it will improve milage

wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:17:05 UTC, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
> > I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
> > engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
> > sample to another of the same vehicle.
> >
> > I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
> > huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
> > years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
> > replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
> > etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
> > their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
> > admitting to or differences in terrain.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> Bill,
> I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good
> information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this
> particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a
> particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers,
> they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I
> am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan
> and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even
> meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT
> Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around
> 21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the
> things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil
> 1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and
> still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to
> expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got
> rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me,
> the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too
> exciting!
>
> --
> "What do you mean there's no movie?"

philthy wrote:
> one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for
> tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to
> a taller tire it will improve milage

A taller tire will imporve *real* mileage, but not as *calculated* using
the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not
corrected for the tire size change).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:48:14 UTC, philthy > wrote:

> one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for
> tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to
> a taller tire it will improve milage
I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit, along with all
of the other things that I did to try and increase the mileage. You
came up with a lot of good ideas that it takes engineers to work on!

> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:17:05 UTC, Bill Putney > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler
> > > engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one
> > > sample to another of the same vehicle.
> > >
> > > I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively
> > > huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the
> > > years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes,
> > > replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters,
> > > etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching
> > > their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not
> > > admitting to or differences in terrain.
> > >
> > > Bill Putney
> > Bill,
> > I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good
> > information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this
> > particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a
> > particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers,
> > they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I
> > am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan
> > and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even
> > meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT
> > Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around
> > 21-23 going back the same way, same speed, with cruise! I did all the
> > things that the forums suggested and the two items: K & N filter/Mobil
> > 1 only gave me 2 more mpg. I ran the tires at 35, as suggested and
> > still nothing. When I get in my 40 Royal, I know what I am going to
> > expect as far as mileage is concerned. That is why my wife and I got
> > rid of our "emotional buy" PT's and got a practical Caliber. To me,
> > the Caliber reminds me of my older Darts, good mileage but not too
> > exciting!
> >
> > --
> > "What do you mean there's no movie?"
>


--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:47:28 UTC, Bill Putney > wrote:

> philthy wrote:
> > one thing i do see form time to time is somehow the pinion factor setting for
> > tire size gets changed in the pcm and that can affect milage and if you go to
> > a taller tire it will improve milage
>
> A taller tire will imporve *real* mileage, but not as *calculated* using
> the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not
> corrected for the tire size change).
Bill,
I forgot to say that in all the talk about the PT Cruiser mileage, I
went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit running it at 35
lbs. It only made the car ride smoother over those terrible, Eagle
standard size tires that came on my 2003 and 2005. As stated, I
finally gave up the ghost on the PT and went with the Caliber, whose
larger 215 17" tires give a very smooth ride, almost as good as my
1940's 6.50/16!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"