[Stratuscaster]

Until the actual Dart owners respond, I'll share this.

Looking at the few "real world" numbers posted at fueleconomy.gov by those that bothered to take the time, I see a range of 23.5 - 33.3 for combined MPG on the 1.4/6AMT (with 6 folks participating), and 29.0 - 36.8 for the 2.0/6auto (with all of TWO participants.)

 

[JoshMHam]

I have a 1.4/Auto Dart and I have been right around the EPA numbers (I have about 17,000 miles). My lowest tank ever was 26 MPG, and my highest was 36 MPG.

The 1.4 really depends on how you drive it. If I wanted to be extra careful, I am sure that I could be get it above 40 on the interstate (keep the speed at or below 70, windows up, no A/C). The same is true in town, if you drive carefully, getting 30 in the city is possible. The problem is, that isn't any fun. When that turbo gets going, the car really moves. Unfortunately, so does the fuel gauge.

There doesn't seem to be much differnce in the fuel either. 91 is recommended, but 87 is acceptable. 91 seems to get a little better economy, but the $/mile comes out about the same.

There is some sluggish acceleration at points (typically at low speeds), but once you learn what causes them, they are easy to avoid (especially with the Autostick). If you get a test drive of the 1.4, accelerate from a stop to about 15 mph then coast for a second and try to accelerate again. You should be in second gear with very low RPMs. That is the most severe sluggishness I have had, but a quick down shift with the Autostick (or keeping it in 1st to begin with) completely eliminates that problem.

 

[JohnCM]

So which combo will give the best MPG in Real World driving.I am trying to deciede which combo to get. Many poster of "other" forums rely on the computer numbers which I have found to be way off especially on highway driving. Based on what I am reading above. it appears that the 2.0 with 6speed DDC will give the same results as the 1.4 engine using the same transmission.
I tend to drive within 5mph of speed limit which suggests that I don't need the turbo.

 

[Stratuscaster]

Regardless of the input here, I would certainly encourage you to take a test drive in both.

The operation of the DDC is somewhat foreign and unexpected for some. If one is used to traditional automatics and likes that style of operation, a DDC may not be the right choice.

Since it's impossible to consistently replicate real-world driving to perform a comparison, you could easily find yourself making a decision that, for you, turns out to be wrong.

 

[TWX]

I just did a side-by-side comparison with EPA's fuel economy website, they call the annual difference between the two, based on 15,000 miles per year driven, 55% of the time in stop-and-go traffic 45% highway, $150 per year.

One can customize the tool for more or less miles, more or less percentage stop-and-go traffic. For me, where I drive more like 10,000 miles per year, 30% stop-and-go traffic, 70% highway, it's a dead-heat, no particular difference in fuel cost between the two models.

It looks to me like they expect about $13/month difference in fuel costs between the two with their default settings on their mileage and traffic.

 

[Paul J. Reed]

EPA added 2.4 Automatic numbers either yesterday or early today... 21 City / 30 Hwy / 24 combined.

 

[Bob Lincoln]

Which is almost the same as the Chrysler 200 with that drivetrain.

 

[Paul J. Reed]

Or even better (or worse?) practically the same as the 200 with the 283hp V6... Starting to wonder if its a copy/paste problem... I can't believe it's that low. So much for the MA2...

 

[Dave Z]

In practice, I've found that the 200 does far better with the four cylinder, but my experience is far heavier on city-cycle. I just did 240 miles around Detroit, mixed, and got 28 mpg from a four cylinder 200. Most of that was highway but it's still not bad at all for a relatively large, very quiet midsize. Indeed, it's about as good as I got in the Nissan Versa last time, and it was FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more comfortable and confident and peppy and convenient.

Stereo was not good on FM but the iPod "aux input" was very good. Don't know what that's all about. I noticed our own car's satellite radio sounds dull -- it chops the high end off -- but regular FM is fine.

 

[Christopher]

My brother called yesterday to tell me he got a new high of 46.2 mpg in his 1.4L Dart. Last I heard, his average was 34.3 mpg.

 

[JohnCM]

I recently took a 3rd test drive of the DART SXT w/6 speed auto. This test drive convinced me that this is the car I should get. It seemed to do as well as my 2012 Avenger 2.4 with 6 speed as far as accellaration from a dead stop goes and if the Darts computer is accurate, it showed me getting 28 mpg mixed driving which the Avenger cannot get even close with. Keep in mind, I was driving 30 mph city and about 60 mph highway with 2 others in the car with me and the A/C going full blast.
The car had a good ride and was quiet inside. It handled well as i took turns fast to test the suspension.

To say the least, I was convinced to buy one and it will be Red with black interior, 2.0, auto 6-speed with A/C. the 8.4 touch screen and the floating bezel (interchangable instrument panel) and back up camera plus many other features for the SXT. This car was not on the lot yet but ordered and on some train heading for Albany NY. I hope to see it next week. I look forward to becoming an new DART owner.

 

[Dave Z]

Yup, Dart 2.0 is pretty nice in city driving. The automatic lets it wind up without your being quite as aware of it

 

[JavelinAMX]

In practice, I've found that the 200 does far better with the four cylinder, but my experience is far heavier on city-cycle. I just did 240 miles around Detroit, mixed, and got 28 mpg from a four cylinder 200. Most of that was highway but it's still not bad at all for a relatively large, very quiet midsize. Indeed, it's about as good as I got in the Nissan Versa last time, and it was FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more comfortable and confident and peppy and convenient.

Stereo was not good on FM but the iPod "aux input" was very good. Don't know what that's all about. I noticed our own car's satellite radio sounds dull -- it chops the high end off -- but regular FM is fine.

Wife and I had to rent a car due to crummy dealer requiring our non-chrysler, used car overnight. That was in April 2012.

It was a then new 2012 Chrysler 200 with the 2.4L Four-cylinder.

We loved it. The powertrain was powerful, quiet, responsive and smooth - it just worked very, very well. The seats were darn good and I don't remember there being any egregious blind-spots.

I don't recall the fuel mileage, but it wasn't great but it definitely wasn't horrible. My son and I tested it out; my wife drove it the other 90+% of the time. We all agreed we'd like to keep the car and leave our used van there. Weren't prepared for a commitment to buying, though.

Because of our good experience with that rental, a month or so later our friends purposely rented a Chrysler 300 to go out to California ( 400-odd miles one-way from Phoenix, AZ ). They're a Four-member family of die-hard Chevy owners. They loved the 300 and spoke of it in positive terms a few times afterward.

 

[fsvoboda]

I recently took a 3rd test drive of the DART SXT w/6 speed auto. This test drive convinced me that this is the car I should get. It seemed to do as well as my 2012 Avenger 2.4 with 6 speed as far as accellaration from a dead stop goes and if the Darts computer is accurate, it showed me getting 28 mpg mixed driving which the Avenger cannot get even close with. Keep in mind, I was driving 30 mph city and about 60 mph highway with 2 others in the car with me and the A/C going full blast.
The car had a good ride and was quiet inside. It handled well as i took turns fast to test the suspension.

To say the least, I was convinced to buy one and it will be Red with black interior, 2.0, auto 6-speed with A/C. the 8.4 touch screen and the floating bezel (interchangable instrument panel) and back up camera plus many other features for the SXT. This car was not on the lot yet but ordered and on some train heading for Albany NY. I hope to see it next week. I look forward to becoming an new DART owner.

This sounds pretty similar to the Dart my son bought, with which he is much pleased. I was driving it on the highway last night and it was very nice: good acceleration and quite stable. With 2500 miles he now is averaging 36.5 mpg over all, about 40 when on the highway. You'll likely find yourself using the digital speedometer function in the changeable instrument panel, btw. The analog speedo is really hard to read. The 8.4 touch screen is nice, with backup physical controls for important functions.

 

[JohnCM]

This sounds pretty similar to the Dart my son bought, with which he is much pleased. I was driving it on the highway last night and it was very nice: good acceleration and quite stable. With 2500 miles he now is averaging 36.5 mpg over all, about 40 when on the highway. You'll likely find yourself using the digital speedometer function in the changeable instrument panel, btw. The analog speedo is really hard to read. The 8.4 touch screen is nice, with backup physical controls for important functions.

I noticed that the Speedo on the car I test drove was off to the right almost hidden behind the steering wheel. I was not crazy about that. The speedo should be in the middle like my Avenger has.

 

[fsvoboda]

I noticed that the Speedo on the car I test drove was off to the right almost hidden behind the steering wheel. I was not crazy about that. The speedo should be in the middle like my Avenger has.

Yep . . . and the markings are very stylized to the point of unreadability. Whoever allowed the design to see production probably should not be getting a bonus this year. The location is to free up space for the central display, and if you've got that set to the large digital speedometer the unreadable analog speedometer won't be a problem.

 

[Stratuscaster]

I have to agree - the gauge graphics on the current Dodge product is very "less-than-readable". It's very similar to the typeface Pontiac was using on their gauge faces in the 2000's.

 

[JA Cumbo]

I noticed our own car's satellite radio sounds dull -- it chops the high end off -- but regular FM is fine.

I thought it was just me that noticed that.

 

[Bob Lincoln]

I have noticed that much of the satellite radio content has audio that is too compressed - sounds like listening underwater. It's not specifically the high end only, but certain chunks of the bandwidth are missing due to compression. Mostly it's older songs that were converted from analog. Newer content sounds better. Very noticeable.