dodge caravan fuel consumption

I have a 2003 dodge caravan with the 3.3 engine and the fuel consumption seems a bit high to me based on my previous experience with two caravans , I have been using about 15 litres per 100 kilometers which comes in at under

20mpg , have any other caravan owners seen this and have they improved things with a visit to the dealers , any help would be appreciated ,

geoff

Reply to
geoff stanley
Loading thread data ...

"geoff stanley"

| I have a 2003 dodge caravan with the 3.3 engine and the fuel consumption | seems a bit high to me based on my previous experience with two caravans , I | have been using about 15 litres per 100 kilometers which comes in at under | 20mpg , have any other caravan owners seen this and have they improved | things with a visit to the dealers , any help would be appreciated ,

I have the same experience. I have a spanking new Grand Caravan with a 3.8 L engine. Long haul highway mileage is on the order of 17.5 mpg tops. In town is much much less. I'm attributing this to new engine break in.

the ones I rented last year (02/03 models all with 3.3 and 3.8 L engines consistently gave 20-23 mpg at the same speeds over the same roadway. ( travel this route every 4-8 weeks all year long)

Reply to
Not Me

Reply to
jdoe

In a mixture of various types of commuting, both slow in-town and slightly faster A-road use, my 3.3l UK specification Grand Voyager gives me about

15.4 miles per US gallon or 19.25 miles per UK gallon. Motorway use returns 23 miles per US gallon or 28.75 miles per UK gallon if I drive reasonably gently.

Regards

Gerald

Reply to
Scrags

Winter driving doesn't help. My 1997 Grand with the 3.3 typically gets about

18-19 mixed and 24-25 highway in the summer time. The max I ever got was 28 on a trip to Myrtle Beach (flat terrain). Got over 500 miles on that tank and still had a quarter of a tank left. Knock off about 2MPG in the winter. Short trips are the worst in the winter as well...
Reply to
James C. Reeves

What are your driving conditions and habits? I drive mostly highway with some in town driving and get about 23 in the summer and 21-22 now that it is cold.

If you drive mostly short trips, in cold weather or in town, then 20 isn't out of the question at all, IMO.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

Is there an oversized tank available on these? I think the tanks in both of my Grands are 20 gallon (I have a 96 and 03). 3/4 a tank at 28 MPG would get me only 420 miles. I've never heard of a van with a larger tank.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

| > Winter driving doesn't help. My 1997 Grand with the 3.3 typically gets about | > 18-19 mixed and 24-25 highway in the summer time. The max I ever got was

28 on | > a trip to Myrtle Beach (flat terrain). Got over 500 miles on that tank and | > still had a quarter of a tank left. Knock off about 2MPG in the winter. Short | > trips are the worst in the winter as well... | >

| >

| | Is there an oversized tank available on these? I think the tanks in | both of my Grands are 20 gallon (I have a 96 and 03). 3/4 a tank at 28 | MPG would get me only 420 miles. I've never heard of a van with a | larger tank. | | | Matt |

I think the most I've ever put in the tank is about 18.x gallons, so it isn't any larger than normal. They used to offer a larger that standard tank (14gals standard I think back then) back in the 80's, but I don't think they did in

1997.

The gauge was registering around 1/4-full at fillup. Went from near Baltimore to North Myrtle Beach and drove around North Myrtle Beach for a day or so without getting gas. What ever the fillup numbers were (and that was 5-6 years ago, so don't remember) the mileage came to around 28 point something. Never got that again, so was a anomaly. I was packed full gear with three kids and running 70-75MPH. Go figure. I will say that, for what ever reason, I almost always get better numbers on the vehicles I've driven than the "ratings" state. That doesn't happen for most people.

The biggest point though is that this time of year is very hard on mileage...especially if most trips are under 10 miles. The engine probably doesn't even get 10-12MPG during those 1st 2-3 miles of a trip when the temp is

10 degrees.
Reply to
James C. Reeves

Our 2003 TC EX 3.8 gets consistantly 19mpg-US 20K mi on the odometer. Maybe 20 - 23 on a hwy trip. The EPA sticker said 20city25hwy. Just put in a K&N filter and hope this helps improve things a little bit.

Reply to
Wantomeeto

We have a 2001 Grand Caravan 3.3 L engine. While I don't have specific consumption figues, I too believe this is one thirsty beast, even on long highway trips. Thought it was just our van, in a way, glad it's "normal".

Reply to
Derek

If I only had half of the imagination that ole Nomen has..............

Denny

Reply to
Denny

Couldn't the same uneven wear pattern apply to an engine where the spark plug is not positioned exactly over the center of the piston?

The compression ring section, closest to the "heat source" must endure higher temperatures for longer periods, than the section on the opposite side of the cylinder? (uneven wear).

Is the piston pushed down "straight", or does it wobble slightly as pressures in the chamber eqalize over a very brief period of time, in an engine where the spark plug is off set?

I guess there are many factors regarding bore wear, beyond just the orientation of the cylinders. The ultimate contradiction engine was the VW Beetle (flat 4). While one could expect excessive wear on the bottom of the bores, during cold starts, where +/- 90% of wear takes place, the bottom of the bore is still coated with oil as it hasn't anyplace to drain off.

An interesting subject, my 2 cents worth.

Reply to
Derek

Yeah, I'm sure those few hundred grams the piston weighs are a REAL dominating effect compared to the way the connecting rod shoves the piston against the wall in response to the hundreds of pounds on every square inch of the piston crown from the combustion process forcing the piston down while the rod is at an angle. And we should see evidence of the passenger's side bank of a V8 wearing out MUCH faster than the driver's side bank, right? I mean after all, the side loads from the connecting rod are acting against gravity and the weight of the piston on the drivers side, but working WITH gravity to wear out the passenger's side, right? Those cylinders on the driver's side should last FOREVER! And my GOD what about those horizontally opposed and radial airplane engines?!?

We can tell that immediately simply by the fact that its BS.

Actually, that little gem proves you didn't think of anything yourself. That same stupid criticism was levelled at the slant six by ignorant people in 1960, too.

Reply to
Steve

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.