Thursday, March 27, 2014

2015 Chrysler 200 MPG

The base 2.4 model is officially rated at 23/36MPG.
While the V6 gets 19/32.
(These are for the FWD versions.)

Not the best numbers but still very good.
These "official" numbers don't mean that much anyway. Since all mid sized sedans seem to be getting similar results in real world driving.
I usually get more than the official number on the freeway, and a bit less around town.
And never get over 18 around town with  big V6 like the 3.6 Liter in the Chrysler.

On another note, I was told that the 200 EV pictures I posted a while ago are actually of the Plug-In Hybrid upcoming version. Not a pure EV.
And after seeing the new 200 in the streets, I can say it looks  less like a Ford Fusion in the Flesh.

But most reviews I have seen still complain about the 9 speed auto (Which I think is a stupid idea in the 1st place)
And about the base 2.4 Liter still not being as smooth as the competition. Which could be bad for the 200 since they expect this engine to be in over 70% of the cars sold.


Anonymous said...

I rented a 200 a couple of weeks ago. I had not been in a Chrysler for years. To my amazement the 4 cylinder was quite peppy at higher RPMs, although a little sluggish to get going. Steering and handling were above average. Yes, the interior looked like semi crap, but after a couple of days it grew on me. Professional reviewers look for problems sometimes just to justify their role. Same thing happened to me when I got a Q50 loaner. It was the base model, steering was absolutely satisfying and when I checked the add on options, to my surprise it had the adaptive steering that everyone is crapping on. So if the new 200 is so much better than the old one, based on my experience of the old, I will be very curious to drive it. Reliability is the only factor keeping me back.

Anonymous said...

This thing has 'next gen Hyundai Sonata' written all over it. Terrible

Anonymous said...

All of that stuff won't matter. It's a great looking car. As long as it gets above average reliability ratings, people will buy it.

Les said...


What's stupid about a 9 speed? It wasn't that long ago that cars this size barely got 25 mpg highway.

I used to run a Jetta turbo diesel that got 39 highway, and now you can get 36 from regular gas in a much bigger car with 3 times the horsepower. What's not to love?

Anonymous said...

At the auto show, it was the only ALL NEW car on exhibit that NO ONE was looking at. It's totally invisible.

Vince Burlapp said...

The 9 speed idea is stupid because NOT needed for good mileage.
The 5 speed manual Jetta I drove a few weeks ago was getting 43MPG in real life HWY driving. With 170hp.

The larger CVT Altima easily got 40MPG on the HWY as well.

9 speed to get 36 MPG is just a bad, overly complicated solution to a problem that has already been solved.