SEMA fuel economy - a question.

[ponaboy]

I love my Cruiser and wouldn't want to drive around in anything else. It (almost) embodies everything the car industry has NOT been for the past umpteen-or-so years... It is innovative, forward-thinking, nostalgic, functional, and so many more things.

The only thing it is not is fuel efficient. The Cruiser's conception, production, and history are totally unblemished except for this _one_ thing. Chrysler, in order to side-step SEMA's strict guidelines on what is acceptable for fuel economy, registered the Cruiser under the "truck" category. While it has many things in common with the definition of a truck, I think we can ALL agree it is _NOT_ a truck.

...snip...
Truck: Motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.
...snip...

I don't think most of us use our Cruisers for hauling property (other than ourselves) or whatever "special purpose equipment" is. In my estimation, this classification of the Cruiser as a truck is just another underhanded sleight on the part of Chrysler to avoid having to develop more economical powerplants. That said, they are certainly not the only company who engages in this practice. It tarnishes the otherwise-perfect history of our Cruisers a little bit.

My question to our group here is: What do YOU think about this? Should Chrysler have stepped up to the plate and re-designed the powerplant for the Cruiser as well?

If you want to do some quick reading on the SEMA guidelines visit: http://www.sema.org/fmvss/nhtsanew.cfm

-PONA-
Taupe 28F

[lisa]

Well, I just want to let you know that with my cruiser, they more miles I put on her, the better my fuel economy is getting. I have not changed anything on the car intake or exhaust wise, and I am getting almost 30 miles to the gallon. I got 28 miles to the gallon on the highway on the way back from Jersey, and that was with construction and stop and go traffic on the road-not to mention the wind coming at us. I am not disappointed with the fuel economy at all and if classifying it as a truck does something for cruiser production then I am all for it-these are great little cars (or trucks?).

[MX-5]

I think it's fine.

It gets 4 times the mileage in town from what I'm used to.

My last 'Cruiser' got 5 city / 9 highway and it was just as fun to drive.
It runs 13s in the 1/4 mile, compared to 18.1 with the PT.

[Silver Man PT]

ponaboy,

The story I got from working at DC headquarters in Auburn MI is that the reason the PTC is classified as an SUV is that DC was going to produce a Large SUV that would have a very low MPG. The PTC was created to help offset this MPG to bring up the average of the overall SUV line. Since then, the SUV was dropped and the PTC was placed in production. The loophole DC used to get it classified as an SUV is the amount of cargo area the PTC has. This classifies the PTC as a SUV.

[PTAdmin]

Okay, here's the scoop.

Chrysler is likely classifying the PT as a truck at SEMA to maintain consistency with how the PT is classified by NHTSA for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).

NHTSA calls the PT a truck based on the PT's ability to have a flat load floor from the rear of the vehicle all the way up to the backs of the front seats. This is one reason why the PT has removable rear seats (to get that flat floor).

Before you start thinking that the PT is unique in this regard, realize that NHTSA also counts minivans as trucks for exactly the same reason.

I certainly would not condemn Chrysler for trying to be consistent as they can.

[ponaboy]

Don't everyone rush to think I'm trying to be an ogre on this topic!!!

I'm just trying to say that very little is being done by the industry at-large to promote greater fuel economies or resource conservation. I'm not a pinko-commie-treehuggin liberal by bringing it up, I just wonder what's going to happen when we run out of petroleum resources and everyone starts to point fingers...it won't be pretty.

If we read the latest forum article about the new Cruiser variants, some of them are just pure fantasy. DC is going to have a tough-enough time selling the convertible that I want to get so, so, so, so, (okay you get the picture) badly. It was one thing to get the Cruiser classified as a "truck" but it'll be something else entirely to get a convertible to pass muster the same way. The panel van variant, on the other hand, is a perfect fit.

-PONA-
Taupe 28F

[PTAdmin]

You bring up a great point about the convertible and the truck classification.

From what I hear, the main stumbling block that might keep the convertible out of production is that NHTSA would have to be calling one model of a vehicle a truck while another is a car. This is because the convertible could not have the flat load floor/removable seats of the standard PT.

Apparently, Chrysler has gotten some assurances from NHTSA that they will allow the dual classification. The rumors I am hearing is that the convertible is, therefore, a go for production in the 2004/2005 model year.

I don't think anyone would argue with you that fuel economy is important. I wish the PT got better mileage. This is a problem Chrysler has historically had and stems as much from transmission losses as from any failing of the engines themselves.

I believe firmly that this could be the one benefit of the Daimler Chrysler merger. New, more efficient transmissions.

Keep your fingers crossed.

[UT_CRUZZZ]

I think you have some valid points. However, for most of us they are now moot points. We have what we have and we are left to deal with that. This car is more fun to drive and gets better gas mileage than my old Jeep Cherokee with a V6 engine. The auto transmission is one of the smoothest I've ever owned.

Do I wish it got better gas mileage? Sure. I'm not complaining though. I didn't buy it to be an economy car. If I wanted something that got super gas mileage I could get a Metro or a Neon. But how much fun would that be to drive? I'd rather Cruise thank you.

[bbsandiego]

Unfortunately, Chrysler is not alone in this. I just read an article about new cars coming out for 2002. It said that on average, the new 2002 models have gas mileage 1-2 mpg lower than 2001 models. (Can't remember where I read this -- sorry, I read a lot.) It seems that fuel economy just isn't that big a deal to people, because they keep buying huge gas-guzzling SUV behemoths. Why should the manufacturers spend money developing lower mpg cars when the consumers don't seem to care?

I must admit, my previous car got 30+ mpg, compared to my new Cruiser which is getting about 19. But, I knew that before I bought the car and I bought it anyway, so I guess I can't complain. I do wish gas prices would go down, though! }