[Sir Moses Wellington]

So Chrysler randomly sends me a $500 cash allowance and a brochure. It has info for the R/T model, listing mpg at 24/34. Not bad for a "high zoot" performance car.

Hmmm...is this EPA numbers or Chrysler numbers? Are the numbers for the automatic or the manual model? Can you upload a picture of these numbers.

 

[browens1534]

There you go! Thats with the Automatic andn it is IN FACT the EPA numbers...

Boom goes the dynamite!

 

[Sir Moses Wellington]

That's great, thanks for putting up the pictures. There not EPA published numbers yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see for sure. But 34 with an automatic and best all around engine? Pretty darn good for Chrysler. Maybe that 250 hp 2.4L is the 2.4L when it's in the Chrysler 200? Or hopefully that's the motor if you get a stage 1 pack for the R/T (no turbo, just exaust, engine re-map, etc.).

 

[srt4evah]

Sorry, I must have missed it but what 250HP 2.4L are we talking about? The intake/exhaust/re-map for the 2.4L that was shown off in the GTS 210 makes 210hp, there's no way they're going to squeeze another 40hp from a naturally aspirated, 200k, streetable application of that motor.

Not bad for the mileage numbers, would love to see how it does with a 6-speed manual. Unless the SRT-4 is just amazing, I think an R/T with the GTS 210 upgrades would make a fantastic premium compact sports car. Might have me looking for one soon...

 

[Sir Moses Wellington]

The 250 version is on the engine 5 year plan (there also looks to be a 300 hp variant of the motor). I would also assume that they would have DI on that motor, but I'm not sure that's good for the kind of HP gain by itself without it being built a little heavier (and may need to be to handle the DI to maintain reliability). I'm not an engineer or professional engine builder, so I don't know, it's just my thoughts.

 

[browens1534]

Denile is a river in Egypt. 24/34 is the published EPA numbers... They aren't on fueleconomy.gov as of now but they are in fact published... And sorry 250hp isn't doable out of a N/A I-4... 200, yes anything really above? That's just either peaky and useless...

 

[Stratuscaster]

NATCC Stratus used an NA 2.0L I4 and made 300HP. Just saying.

Published in the marketing slick isn't "official" - published on fueleconomy.gov is.

With the recent Hyundai/Kia 40MPG "scandal" - they might just start looking at those numbers a bit more closely. Note that the EPA doesn't test every vehicle themselves - there's a formula in place used to estimate MPG, and the automakers submit those estimates.

And, as always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Dave Z]

Odd that the 2.0 and 2.4 have the same mileage.

 

[browens1534]

Maybe it's Multi Air 2 that helps? Idk. That's what my brochure says. I'd like to get an R/T manual to replace my Sebring, but insurance is already outrageous as is...