The Chrysler Minivan Fan Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'd never gotten my 3.3 on the highway since I bought it. I would average 17 in the city. 15 in the winter.

Just drove 1000km with plenty of weight in the back and snow tires still on through the Rockies. averaged 27mpg. i was amazed. The rated highway is 23. I have been using Marvel mystery Oil in the last few tanks but i doubt it had any impact. Does help smooth out idle though.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,757 Posts
Imperial gallons? You must have been going down hill both ways. :)

Marvel mystery oil ....... good/bad for your engine ....... I don't know, it's a mystery. :) Lots of discussion here on MMO:

What's in MMO?
It is composed primarily of petroleum distillates, including mineral oil (60-100%), mineral spirits {10-30%}, tricresyl phosphate (an antiwear and extreme pressure additive in lubricants, 0.1-1.0%), ortho dichlorobenzene (a softening and removing agent for carbon-based contamination on metal surfaces, 0.1-1.0%), and .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
I don't believe it. I'm always skeptical of people's mileage claims, especially when they're literally 50% better than best-case experience. I have a '05 short wheelbase base model 3.3, and on flat ground at 55 mph, with nothing in the car it would never get more than 21-22 mpg over any extended interval of driving. Last few hundred miles it's at around 18. There is no science or magic that's going to let a heavily loaded vehicle like this driving in the mountains get 27mpg. I'd love to see you post an image of the computer readout showing 27mpg. I don't mean to come off as insulting, but like I said, there's no magic that lets one vehicle get 50% better mileage than an identical vehicle under a more demanding scenario.

I've heard so many mileage whoppers over the years it's ridiculous. My favorites are the guy I worked with years ago who owned a well-worn '74 Ford Galaxie...he swore it got 34 miles a gallon. Then there was the guy who told me that a '68 Toronado (my first car) should be getting 20-30 miles per gallon, and if it wasn't, I was "going too fast".:rolleyes:

MMO is snake oil, at least in 99% of use cases. This stuff was designed to unstick valves on engines back in the 40's, before detergent oils existed. It has very little legitimate use in modern times. I haven't seen a stuck valve on an engine in literally 40 years.
 

·
Registered
2009 GCV SE
Joined
·
289 Posts
Great job! I actually got mine down to 8.0L/100km (EDIT 29.4MPG), but this was all the downhill stretch I believe to revelstoke? Somewhere along there, there is a very long downhill stretch that you don't add any gas along a 30-50 kilometre stretch, I drive really economically, in fact for me it is a game to have the best fuel economy anywhere I go, so that is always on my mind. I reset the fuel economy before i leave for the trip, then leave it until i get back home.

Again, totally possible going downhill on longer stretches. I also have the 3.3L. Otherwise, in city driving I normally have around 11-13 l/100km. (EDIT 21-18MPG)
 

Attachments

·
Registered
2009 GCV SE
Joined
·
289 Posts
I don't believe it. I'm always skeptical of people's mileage claims, especially when they're literally 50% better than best-case experience. I have a '05 short wheelbase base model 3.3, and on flat ground at 55 mph, with nothing in the car it would never get more than 21-22 mpg over any extended interval of driving. Last few hundred miles it's at around 18. There is no science or magic that's going to let a heavily loaded vehicle like this driving in the mountains get 27mpg. I'd love to see you post an image of the computer readout showing 27mpg. I don't mean to come off as insulting, but like I said, there's no magic that lets one vehicle get 50% better mileage than an identical vehicle under a more demanding scenario.

I've heard so many mileage whoppers over the years it's ridiculous. My favorites are the guy I worked with years ago who owned a well-worn '74 Ford Galaxie...he swore it got 34 miles a gallon. Then there was the guy who told me that a '68 Toronado (my first car) should be getting 20-30 miles per gallon, and if it wasn't, I was "going too fast".:rolleyes:

MMO is snake oil, at least in 99% of use cases. This stuff was designed to unstick valves on engines back in the 40's, before detergent oils existed. It has very little legitimate use in modern times. I haven't seen a stuck valve on an engine in literally 40 years.
Well, downhill stretches in the mountains are really easy to get that, also, From Calgary and going west, Calgary is at an elevation ~3,500 feet, and going west you actually get closer to sea level. Along the trans Canada highway (going through the rockies) west, you get to places like revelstoke which as an elevation of 1,500 feet. So all that way you are actually overall going downhill. On the opposite side, obviously it goes in the other direction :) My trip there was 8.0 L/100 km (30MPG) at revelstoke, and going the opposite direction I got 10.5 L/100km (23.5MPG) And I only reset the fuel economy before i left for the trip, then I reset the economy after i got back home. I probably could have gotten insane numbers if i reset it before the only braking downhill part. I will do that next time and get back to what crazy number i get!
 

·
Registered
2009 Chrysler Town & Country
Joined
·
8 Posts
In my old 2003 Grand Caravan at 55 MPH I could do 27-28 MPG on flat ground and 29-32 MPG downhill

I just bought a 2009 Chrysler Town & Country, on my highway test drive @ 60 MPH on a 10 mile trip I hit 26.5 MPG before I ended up my trip, on both flats and hills. I'll be making a 35 mile trip in the near future, I'll let some photos. I'm looking forward to seeing if I can get it higher.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
The beat HWY I ever saw was 27 MPG in the 160k miles I drove our 2002 3.3L shorty. Usually we ran 24-25 MPG. The mountains were your friend on that trip!

I’m more of a Seafoam fan, but use it for winter storage more than regular use. I debated about putting a can in each of my cars tanks during this pandemic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
--UNKNOWN MEMBER--
Joined
·
11,566 Posts
I just laugh at those claiming their vehicles do a lot better than EPA rated fuel economy for that vehicle.

That behavior has it's name: Fuel Economy Bragging.

Providing pictures of your vehicle's fuel economy numbers doesn't help either, those numbers can easily be manipulated.

Most fuel economy ratings for new cars are provided by car manufacturers and not by EPA. EPA do confirm just 10-15% of those ratings.

EPA approves manufacturer's ratings if it is with 2-5% of their claim, and manufacturers know that.

Self-reported data is not accurate either as EPA knows most (not all) of self-reported entries showing better mileage than manufacturer's EPA rating are "Fuel Economy Bragging".


People, stop bragging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
I just laugh at those claiming their vehicles do a lot better than EPA rated fuel economy for that vehicle.

That behavior has it's name: Fuel Economy Bragging.

Providing pictures of your vehicle's fuel economy numbers doesn't help either, those numbers can easily be manipulated.

Most fuel economy ratings for new cars are provided by car manufacturers and not by EPA. EPA do confirm just 10-15% of those ratings.

EPA approves manufacturer's ratings if it is with 2-5% of their claim, and manufacturers know that.

Self-reported data is not accurate either as EPA knows most (not all) of self-reported entries showing better mileage than manufacturer's EPA rating are "Fuel Economy Bragging".


People, stop bragging.
Nailed it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
I'd never gotten my 3.3 on the highway since I bought it. I would average 17 in the city. 15 in the winter.

Just drove 1000km with plenty of weight in the back and snow tires still on through the Rockies. averaged 27mpg. i was amazed. The rated highway is 23. I have been using Marvel mystery Oil in the last few tanks but i doubt it had any impact. Does help smooth out idle though.
You are mixing Imperial with US. According to Transport Canada, your 2009 was rated at 27 mpg (Imperial) so you got what it is rated at.
 

·
--UNKNOWN MEMBER--
Joined
·
11,566 Posts
Bragging about an accomplishment is fine, but liars?

Again, pictures can be easily manipulated, so pictures don't help much.

I can post a picture of my EVIC showing 80 MPG average, does it helps?, not at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
None of these claims are based on any science, just the running estimate from the fuel map, which may or may not be accurate. You'd have to actually track miles driven divided by the actual number of gallons filled over at least several tanks to get a real ballpark number. It's well-known from real world testing that the "highway" number on the sticker is hard to achieve under any real world conditions, since it basically involves a steady cruise at 48-50 mph, which is not a realistic driving scenario. In every real world long-term test I've seen, most vehicles get close to their "city" number, sometimes a little more, sometimes less. The last dozen vehicles I've owned have all done exactly that. The fact that somebody gets 27mpg driving downhill for a hundred miles or whatever is meaningless, because you don't spend your life driving downhill.
 

·
--UNKNOWN MEMBER--
Joined
·
11,566 Posts
The fact that somebody gets 27mpg driving downhill for a hundred miles or whatever is meaningless, because you don't spend your life driving downhill.
And, to drive 100 miles downhill first you need to drive 100 miles uphill, but those Fuel Economy Braggers conveniently don't count those uphill miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
I thought the 3.3L wasn't used in the 5th vans, just the 3.8L for a year or two.

I've gotten in the 29MPG zone on two occasions with my 3.3L 2006 SX. However, the best it can average out now is 27.4. There are just too many factors. Seasonal fuel, fuel grades, tires, lubricants, raised engine temps (not crazy levels either), air intake box mods, ignition wires (clean is best and away from other metals), brake pads from dragging, belt tensioner, using the right ATF+4, keeping the ground deflector on the front facia down below, and a bunch of other things.
 

·
Super Moderator
2009 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT (3.8); 2003 Dodge Grand Caravan eL (3.8)
Joined
·
1,957 Posts
I thought the 3.3L wasn't used in the 5th vans, just the 3.8L for a year or two.
The 3.3L was available for 2008-2010, it was paired with the 4 speed transmission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
The 3.3L was available for 2008-2010, it was paired with the 4 speed transmission.
Thanks. I thought it died in gen-4 and only the 3.8L moved into gen-5.

Did the 4-spd help at all with the MPG in gen-5 vs gen-4?
 

·
Registered
2009 GCV SE
Joined
·
289 Posts
I thought the 3.3L wasn't used in the 5th vans, just the 3.8L for a year or two.

I've gotten in the 29MPG zone on two occasions with my 3.3L 2006 SX. However, the best it can average out now is 27.4. There are just too many factors. Seasonal fuel, fuel grades, tires, lubricants, raised engine temps (not crazy levels either), air intake box mods, ignition wires (clean is best and away from other metals), brake pads from dragging, belt tensioner, using the right ATF+4, keeping the ground deflector on the front facia down below, and a bunch of other things.
In 2008-2010 the used the 4 speed 3.3L V6, 6 speed 3.8L V6, and the 6 speed 4.0L V6.

In newer generation (2011 and newer) the 3.8L was replaced with the 6 speed 3.6 penstar engine, and the 3.3L stayed as a 4 speed.
 

·
Super Moderator
2009 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT (3.8); 2003 Dodge Grand Caravan eL (3.8)
Joined
·
1,957 Posts
In 2008-2010 the used the 4 speed 3.3L V6, 6 speed 3.8L V6, and the 6 speed 4.0L V6.

In newer generation (2011 and newer) the 3.8L was replaced with the 6 speed 3.6 penstar engine, and the 3.3L stayed as a 4 speed.
In the 2011's and up the 3.6L Pentastar with 6 speed was the only option.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top