I hate to agree with our resident troll but Chrysler's feat is especially impressive when you consider that diesel fuel costs more than gasoline. The only positive thing about the car was that for a fake suv it was able to do a bit of off road work.
18 mpg from a four cylinder diesel on a compact platform? I don't get it.
> How did Chrysler manage to do it? Does the five speed automatic have
> something to do with high fuel consumption? I thought the more speeds the
> merrier, right?
>
> This engine has the new constant pressure rail electronic injection > system.
> That's supposed to make mincemeat out of the old variable displacement
> mechanical pumps fitted to those outdated, obsolete diesels of yesteryear. >
> Another vindication for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" view of the
> world. Every improved model Chrysler makes sets it back another year. >
> I expect a car the size of a Jeep Liberty to get 35 mpg all around,
> combined city and highway. In fact, 35 mpg is not too much to expect from
> a steady 65 mph on level roads (standard conditions). It gets about half
> that. I am beginning to wonder if there aren't GM and Ford moles in D-C
> sabotaging their operation.
>
> C.R. also said the car is full of hard, cheap plastic. And etc.
>
> Its incredible to note the competition all get better fuel economy from
> gasoline engines with more pep. The stockholds should give all the top
> management the boot for this failed project.
>