Chrysler PT Cruiser
 

For the size, it probably has the worst MPG. I hate it!

300 miles on a 15gal tank is what I aim for, but manage to only get 275 plus or minus 20miles.

IMO, They should have made the PT's with 5 or 6spd autos and perhaps put alot less weight into the car!

Anyone else?

That is awful mileage. My antique Buick gets that kind of mileage. Are you sure that there isn't something wrong with the car?

-Jay

Take it to AutoZone or something and have them check for codes. I'm doing better in my van "Green".

Nothing is wrong with my car...Oil changes are up to date, I have a drop-in K&N Air Filter...Getting new spark plugs in the near future. The PT Cruiser is about as aerodynamic as a brick. Check any PT forum you can find any they talk about the mileage and how it's no good etc..

I just filled up my car, and by using some of the techniques listed on the website I hope to see an improvement.

PT cruiser is part of a select group of cars that are more aerodynamic going backwards than forward. Does Chrysler even own a wind tunnel?

EPA says 19 city, 24 highway but the average owner only gets 20.5mpg.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...umn=1&id=22371

What really makes me wonder though, is I can easily hit 25 MPG driving The Big White Hooptie on the highway (Cruise on 65 and A/C). Its a 1981 Buick with a 231 V-6 and a computer controlled 2bbl carb that hasn't worked right in 6 or 7 years. Its as aerodynamic as a brick as well, is heavier, bigger, and as I said earlier the carb hasn't worked right in years.

https://www.gassavers.org/garage_imag...dc7lpyqm6z.jpg

I don't have a doubt in my mind that they don't own one. Its ridiculous but I won't complain too much as it's my first car and I love it. People have gotten 30MPG or better with the car, it's the way you drive it I guess....

Today will be my first real day of using techniques to save fuel...We'll find out in a few days what kind of improvement the PT can offer on Fuel Economy.

Just to add my $.02, I used to own an '02 PT Cruiser, and I absolutely loved everything about that car except the mileage. It was fun to drive, could hold a boat-load of stuff, (the front, at least) was roomy and comfortable, and it was very easy to put car seats in and out of as well.

But, I was lucky to crack 19MPG, usually got 18ish. My record was 21.

I traded it in on 2002 Volkswagen Jetta TDI (and got 37-40 on diesel).

Both cars were automatics.

More aero than an Astro and about 800 lbs lighter.

Good luck with the hypermiling, hope you destroy my van's numbers.

The PT (New Beetle, Prowler, Thunderbird, Mini) weren't intended to have maximized aerodynamic properties. Get over it. These were styling exercises that put primary emphasis on the exterior appealing to the expected tastes of the intended purchasers.
Trade the PT in for a Neon (Golf, LH sedan, LS, or what ever it was that prompted the mini).

I fit fine in my 01' PT as I stand 6'7" and being comfortable without my knees in the dash and head through the sunroof is my priority. I've made my PT the thing I enjoy most..Adding things to it every now and again just makes it look different and I like the car because of the aftermarket for it.

They (Chrysler) could have however, made a different tranny for the vehicle to help it with gas mileage...with a low automatic speed transmission and aerodynamic properties similar to a brick, it's a lose-lose. They could have made it better.

I guess it's no so bad, Im sure it could be worse... :-) I still enjoy my PT.

I thought the hunchback version was out of production now ;)

Using typical FE techniques, despite running pig rich Stage I tune, running larger rims and tires, stereo, etc - I manage to pull 25 mpgs consistently. It helps, however that my commute is something like 30/70 city/highway.

Comparing your mileage to EPA, looks like you're doing just fine. EPA for the manual transmission version of your car is 20 mpg combined town and highway. The new one is a bit better...23 mpg combined. And if you're otherwise happy with the car, then just do what you can to improve your mileage and enjoy!

I've rented PTs on three different occasions, and have never averaged more than 17-18mpg. No, I did not "drive it like I rented it" (even though I did rent it). Poor aerodynamics alone cannot be blamed for such horrible mileage. My Evo, driven in the same manner, consistently gives me 22-23mpg, and Evos are not known for their fuel economy.

Hell, the F150 I rented gave me almost 17mpg....almost.

I used to REQUEST the PT when I rented and the Neons were all out in the field. I'd get very high 20's, nearly 30 mpg in either the Neon car or PT truck versions of these common parts bin vehicles. Good ergonomics, clever interior design, not too bad a ride or seating position, and for $40/day, unlimited mileage, not a bad deal at all.
Would I buy one? No. I'd have to walk the last 100 yards home every night. My wife wouldn't let me park such a fugly truck in the driveway. I'd have to leave it down the street out of sight.

When I rent I almost always get a Mercury Grand Marquis. I can reserve one through my Credit Card company for ~$30/day unlimited mileage and I get nearly 30 MPG out of them. Comfortable, lots of room, and as I always say "When in Florida, drive what the Floridians drive". My friends always ask if the old man I carjacked is still in the trunk, but when it comes time to drive somewhere it always seems that my car is the one chosen to go. Nobody wants to be in the back seat of a compact car or Taurus. Last time I rented I made a mistake though. I figured I wasn't going to drive it much, so I just asked for the cheapest car possible. They gave me a Mitsubishi Lancer, and I got exactly what I asked for. I was not happy in that car at all, even though I only drove it for one day.

-Jay