Ron, I don't want to get into an emotional discussion here, my two PT's both had the 4 speed automatics, air, power windows, seats, etc. My driving habits are the same ones that I use on my 1940 Chrysler Royal with Fluid Drive, very conservative. I got as low as 17mgp, but could not get higher than 22, that is not a lie, my wife does not "jack rabbit" either! As I stated, I went on forum after forum and did what they suggested, the K & N which upped it to about one mpg, kept the tach as close to or below 2,000 rpms as humanely possible, etc. One month ago, we flew into Pensacola and rented a 2007 PT Sedan, with the usual equipment, non-turbo, the highest we got was 25 on Interstate
10, driving a steady 60mph with the cruise control on. Coming back, we upped it to 65 with cruise and got 23mpg. That is not acceptable. As I stated, I love the car's design, the utility, etc. When my 1940, with 3 speed overdrive can get 20mpg with a 108hp, flathead six, then I think that Chrysler should use a different engine combination, such as in the Caliber. I and my family have driven Chrysler cars since the 40's: 46 Windsor, 47 and 48 Plymouths, 49 Windsor, 49 Plymouth, 51 Dodge, 55 Dodge, two 64 Dodge Darts, 67 Plymouth Fury, 70 Dodge Dart, 86 Dodge Lancer, etc. so I am not a Chrysler basher, far from it. You stated that you had the five speed manual, well, if that makes the difference, then that must be it. The only time that I can drive a manual is when I have to use the clutch once/twice to get the 40 Fluid Drive into gear, then it stays there. The engine on both PT's were serviced every three thousand miles with synthetic Mobil 1, the transmissions were serviced by the Chyrsler dealer, so these cars were immaculate. If you want to really discuss why these cars do not seem to get the mileage, then fine, but I can match you mile for mile if you want to go back 60 years or more. BTW, the Darts, had 225 slant sixes and got over 30 on the highway, but we are talking 2007 here, not the old days.