Why does PT foglight come on with right turn signal?

I stand by what I said re: fuel mileage. Just for the hell of it, I went to the AllPar site (here's the link :

I mean think about my '94 Acclaim getting high 20's (2.5 with no o/d). That Acclaim was not unusual as the public utility co. I work for used to have a whole fleet of those Acclaims and Spirits with the 2.5 and 3 speed automatic and they all got that kind of mileage. Those cars were

BTW, I'm 56 and have had ChryCo products since the 60's, even before Uncle Sam gave me a free all expense paid trip to Southeast Asia. After I got out I used my mustering out pay and bought a new '71 Road Runner (which still sits in my garage today along with a '69 GTX and a '71 Demon 340). I've owned so many hi-performance MoPars I have literally lost count. I've always turned my own wrenches on them and have rebuilt a half dozen big blocks and a couple small blocks in the past 20 years, along with T-flites, 833's, and 8 3/4 rear ends. I know real well what ChryCo cars and trucks are capable of. For example I remember a '66 Belvedere I had with a 383 4 bbl and 833 4 speed and 3.23 rear end that would get nearly 20 mpg all day long on the Thruway (as long as I kept my foot out of the secondaries). My buddies were running around in big block Chevies and they never would believe me regarding my gas mileage.

Well, Ron, god bless you, but I had to go to a more efficient Chrysler product, it would be very strange to have two "lemons" on gas mileage, from two different years, from two different dealers, with two different engines. I, myself, am 55 years young, and proud to drive Chrysler products. I also forgot to mention my step-dad's 61 Dodge Phoenix with a 318, it got great mileage for that era. I forgot to also mention my 73 Fury Suburban, 360 that would eat you out of house and home even when gas was around fifty-three cents: 10-12 city/15-16 highway. As I mentioned, I am no stranger to Chrysler products. Road tests are so subjective: I remember Uncle Tom's test from Mechanic's Illustrated. He would run those like "scalded cats" and he admitted that those were not real world figures. You said that you came up through the world of muscle cars, I came up through a family that prized the old flathead sixes, and the only eight my grandfather had was a straight one in an old Chrylser. So, I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree about the PT Cruiser mileage. If they would put the smaller 2.0/CVT combo in there, or better still, the diesel option that is in the European PT, then I think we would all be driving them! Last night, filling up the Caliber, only have had it three weeks, it got 26 around town. My

I'm beginning to think that there's something inherent in the Chrysler engine control designs that is responsible for such variations from one sample to another of the same vehicle.

I have seen many, many posts showing discussions of similar relatively huge unexplainable variations in fuel mieage on the 300M Club over the years. Certain people do everything suggested including checking codes, replacing O2 sensors, cleaning throttle bodies, replacing air filters, etc., etc. There are just too many owners of certain 300M's scratching their heads for it to be due to driving habits that they are not admitting to or differences in terrain.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Bill, I read your very informative posts and have gotten some good information from them. I am glad that someone besides myself on this particular thread is starting to see that no matter what one does to a particular engine/transmission combo, as I did in my two PT Cruisers, they just cannot get the mileage to improve! I have told Ron that I am not a "lead foot" nor do I jackrabbit around town. My 2003 Sedan and 2005 Convertible were getting terrible mileage figures, not even meeting the EPA sticker figures. I also mentioned that on a 2007 PT Sedan rental, I only got 26 with cruise going 60 on I-10 and around

Well thanks!

I also believe that for a given vehicle with atypical (for that vehicle) bad fuel mileage, there has to be some component (or timing tolerance, or computer anomaly) that is causing it. All I'm saying is that there has to be a reason. We (and dealers and their diagnostic equipment) just don't have the smarts and infinite time/money to narrow it down to that particular component. The best we can do, in the absence of some obvious clue, is hit all the usual suspects (plugs, throttle body, exhaust. sensors, PCM firmware and hardware, fuel quality, timing belt, etc.), and a few shots in the dark, and hope to luck out before the money and/or our patience run out. Fortunately for me I am blessed with two Concordes - one a 2.7, the other a 3.2 - that both are on the high end of the typical mileage numbers.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I had an 88 New Yorker with Mitsu 3.0 that easily got 32 mpg highway. Our 2000 3ooM will get up to 28 mpg highway if I make sure the tires are properly inflated. The n/a 2006 PT Cruiser automatic can barely get 24 mpg highway with a rare 25 mpg.

Lets go back to basics.. Is there anything impacting airflow into or out of the engine that would reduce mpg ?

Early 3ooM mods included playing with cat back dual exhaust systems using after market camaro mufflers, which increased highway mpg by 5 mpg under most tests.

Does the PT Cruiser have exhaust or intake restrictions ? Is the intake air too hot ? Is the catalytic convertor too restrictive ? Are the factory tires use a tread pattern or compound that lowers mpg ? Are there too many internal losses in the automatic transmission ? Are there better design intake manifolds that will fit in that tiny engine bay ?

A taller tire will imporve *real* mileage, but not as *calculated* using the odometer or the overhead computer (if the pinion factor is not corrected for the tire size change).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit, al>

Bill, I forgot to say that in all the talk about the PT Cruiser mileage, I went to a 65 series tire, the largest that would fit running it at 35 lbs. It only made the car ride smoother over those terrible, Eagle standard size tires that came on my 2003 and 2005. As stated, I finally gave up the ghost on the PT and went with the Caliber, whose larger 215 17" tires give a very smooth ride, almost as good as my

I have to ask you how you figured your fuel mileage with the larger tires. You do realize that the odometer would not read correctly - that with a larger OD tire you would have been getting better milage than you would have read or calculated from any of the vehicle's milage calculating systems or odometer?

Also, I don't know what the factory tire size was, but the 65 probably wasn't more than a couple of percent different in OD and mileage effect than the factory size tires.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I agree it's low, but I see one thing that could be a significant factor in the low PT Cruiser MPG that appears common. Poor streamlining; the front, steep rear and particularly the NON FLAT sides.

BTW the EPA HWY mileage figures are measured at much less than a steady 65MPH, so poorer streamlining would show more difference at a steady 65MPH.

I consistently get 29MPG HWY at 65MPH with my '95 3.3L Concorde.

Just compare the VW new Beetle 2.5L 23/31 mpg New Beetle Convertible 2.5L 22/30 mpg of the same engine. The convertible has not as smooth a roof and is likely slightly heavier, resulting in slightly lower EPA mileage. The difference would be greater at a steady 65MPH.

The '07 PT Cruiser 2.4L I4 150HP is rated at 22/29 mpg.

How about this for an all around FAST compact car for $23k! Caliber SRT4 2.4L turbo 285HP 22/28MPG.

I agree that the overhead is not as accurate as the odometer in a given situation with the correct tire size. But average over a tank would be fairly consistent on a given vehicle. But yes - I agree that the overhead is not the most accurate.

So you're saying you'd go by the odometer? It definitely would not reflect any improvement in mileage from a larger OD tire without either correcting the pinion factor or putting a correction factor into the calculations. The odometer does not know the tire is bigger. Any improvement in mileage from a bigger tire will not come out in the calculations (and may even result in a decreased *calculated* mileage due to the slight extra load - but only because the odometer reading does not reflect the extra distance traveled due to the larger tire - once that is factored in - yes - the calculation will reflect the positive effect of the larger tire).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

philthy wrote: