[News Feed]

Dodge Dart gas mileage with the automatic transmissions has been released to Canadian dealers. Gas mileage in Canada is calculated differently, with imperial gallons and a different testing method, but we can make rough estimates of US miles per gallon from Canadian figures. (This method assumes differences in testing methods will scale in a linear fashion).  These estimates (in pink, below) are based on the proportions of known US mileage figures to known Canadian mileage figures. Overall, the computed numbers tell us what we can see from the official Canadian figures: that the dual clutch automatic has similar city mileage, but loses ground on the highway; and that the conventional automatic used with the 2.0 engine loses ground on both city and highway, as one would expect. Given the large size of the Dart's interior, these figures seem reasonable, though not top of class. (Thanks, oh2o, for the gas..

View the original, full post

 

[jennyhubby]

I am not surprised but I guess I'm a bit disappointed, especially with the 2.0. I know the Camry gets 25/35 and is a bigger car with a 2.4 liter engine. I guess we need to wait for the 9 speed.

 

[JoshMHam]

In terms of front driver/passenger room, the Dart and Camry are almost identical (Dart is slightly larger in hip, shoulder, and leg room). Camry has more in the rear. The Camry might have a little bit more power, but it also starts about $7K higher.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

The Sonata 2.4 with the same automatic gets 24/35.
The Sonata 2.0 with the same automatic gets 22/34.

 

[guyverfanboy]

I am rather curious what the mileage figures will be with the ZF 9-speed.

 

[Dave Z]

Camry does cost far more and when you drive it, it seems cheaper and slower. There's a lot less responsiveness. I'm guessing Dodge guys tuned this car to feel more responsive and "quick," avoiding Camry/Cruze's "rubber band" feel.

 

[hinterlander]

My wife's 2011 V6 200 Limited easily gets 27 city/combined and 31 mpg highway at 75 mph, yet it has all the power we will ever need and a larger cabin. We considered a Dart, but it's looking like the 200 is a better compromise between power, space and economy.

 

[Stratuscaster]

It's not "the same automatic." It's similar. Just saying - model numbers are different.

And until we get the actual US numbers, I'll withhold any judgement.

 

[SE Charger]

Camry does cost far more and when you drive it, it seems cheaper and slower. There's a lot less responsiveness. I'm guessing Dodge guys tuned this car to feel more responsive and "quick," avoiding Camry/Cruze's "rubber band" feel.

I have driven the Cruze as a rental a few times and I am niot sure if you mean the rubber band feel as the herky jerky feel when you get on and off of the gas pedal? The car drove pretty good, had plenty of power and cruised down the highway pretty good, I got 33.5MPG combined and saw mostly 40-47MPG on the highway at speeds of 70-85+. The in town driving really dropped the MPG's but it was a good highway driver. It handled better than the Altima I had driven. The cruze sounded good when I jumped on it while the Altima sounded like a broken type writer (2 different cars) I am hoping that the Dart is more comfortable than the Cruze, out accelerates and handles as good. I can live with a few less MPG's if it is a better car overall.

 

[Moparian]

My wife's 2011 V6 200 Limited easily gets 27 city/combined and 31 mpg highway at 75 mph, yet it has all the power we will ever need and a larger cabin. We considered a Dart, but it's looking like the 200 is a better compromise between power, space and economy.

Even babying my 200 S I am lucky to average 22 combined. Highway i can get close to 30 at ~70mph.

 

[GlennInWinnipeg]

I am surprised the Canadian testing is SO much higher. Wow.

Maybe someone can clarify for me. When the 9-Speed comes out .. which engines will have it as an options? Do they all get it (1.4 and 2.0 .. 2.4 is a limited time offering as I understand).

 

[mentalicca]

I would say to take this with a slight grain of salt. I noticed up to a 4-5% deviation when doing the "linear conversion" from canadian mpg to us mpg. I think we can safely surmise that the automatic will lose between 1-4mpg city and highway, and that the dual clutch will have similar city mileage and between 0-4mpg less on highway. Even then we are making assumptions. Just my two cents.

 

[Dave Z]

Canada still uses older test methods (lower highway speeds, less or no a/c... I don't recall the details) and Imperial gallons are, well, Imperial.

Nine speed -- nobody knows yet. I'd assume it would go wtih trim level. 1.4 might be DDCT regardless.

I noticed up to a 4-5% deviation when doing the "linear conversion" from canadian mpg to us mpg

Here's the very simplistic way it was done: rough average of conversion factor for both engines applied. It's a different conversion for city and highway. It will, as noted in the article, be a very rough estimate because of the difference in how measurements are made. There is no possibility of a simple linear scaling with different gear ratios and power curves.

 

[Mike V.]

It's not "the same automatic." It's similar. Just saying - model numbers are different.

And until we get the actual US numbers, I'll withhold any judgement.

Exactly... Compared to the Hyundai there is different tuning and possible different ratios.

Mike

 

[Seagondollar]

I'm with Stratuscaster and the article clearly states these are extrapolations from Canadian numbers, so the YMMV rule can be inferred until EPA numbers come out.

But on the other hand, I notice about a 3 mpg improvement on the manual tranny for the 2.0 and the 1.4. Just another reason to appreciate "rowing you own".

 

[CherokeeVision]

Our 2009 Malibu with the 2.4 and 6 speed auto gets 22/33.

 

[Sir Moses Wellington]

I'm so dissapointed if the Dual Clutch gets less than the manual in the US, in the Giuliette in the EU, the Dual Clutch gets better mileage than anything including the manuals.

Only thing that does do better are the diesels, but from what I remember, they're not hooked up to the TCT, and there diesels, so I'm leaving them out of the mix for economy since I'm only talking gasoline engines here.

 

[JoshMHam]

I am surprised the Canadian testing is SO much higher. Wow.

Maybe someone can clarify for me. When the 9-Speed comes out .. which engines will have it as an options? Do they all get it (1.4 and 2.0 .. 2.4 is a limited time offering as I understand).

I don't think we know for sure. Most likely, it will be a direct replacement for the 6-speed auto on the 2.0 and 2.4. There is no reason that it won't also find its way to the 1.4 turbo. That would really go with the customization attitude they are trying to portray.

 

[Moparian]

I don't think we know for sure. Most likely, it will be a direct replacement for the 6-speed auto on the 2.0 and 2.4. There is no reason that it won't also find its way to the 1.4 turbo. That would really go with the customization attitude they are trying to portray.

The 1.4T is only going to be offered with the DDCT as the automatic option. The 6-spds will be replaced with the 9 spds.

I still want to see the mileage for the R/T

 

[mentalicca]

Canada still uses older test methods (lower highway speeds, less or no a/c... I don't recall the details) and Imperial gallons are, well, Imperial.

Nine speed -- nobody knows yet. I'd assume it would go wtih trim level. 1.4 might be DDCT regardless.



Here's the very simplistic way it was done: rough average of conversion factor for both engines applied. It's a different conversion for city and highway. It will, as noted in the article, be a very rough estimate because of the difference in how measurements are made. There is no possibility of a simple linear scaling with different gear ratios and power curves.

I understood that, but was just trying to ensure that the others who didn't get that were reminded before they went too far down the rabbit hole . Thanks.