Dodge Caliber

I believe I saw one for the first time yesterday driving past me in a
parking lot. It looked a lot bigger than I was expecting. It was gone
before I could take a second look. It clearly had a Dodge grill and I just
looked at the dodge web site to see if they were making a similar looking
but bigger vehicle but found nothing. Either it was a Caliber or someone is
driving a new design around here.

"Art" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>I believe I saw one for the first time yesterday driving past me in a
>parking lot. It looked a lot bigger than I was expecting.

They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high side
window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds. Their
handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.

I was interested in them when they first came out, but now I think I'll keep
my Focus a while longer.

Dave Gower wrote:

>
> They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high side
> window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds. Their
> handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.

Yikes, you're right! Taking a look at the Dodge website, the Caliber's
estimate fuel economy is 23MPG city/26MPG highway! And this is supposed
to e the successor to the Neon? Mu '05 Neon's fuel economy is 25/32, by
comparison.

And here I was, wishing I had waited a year; now I'm glad I didn't. I
was slightly disappointed by the Caliber's interior and exterior
appearance, but the mileage and handling issues have really turned me
off to it.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Dave Gower wrote:
>
>>
>> They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high
>> side window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds.
>> Their handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.
>
>
> Yikes, you're right! Taking a look at the Dodge website, the Caliber's
> estimate fuel economy is 23MPG city/26MPG highway! And this is supposed
> to e the successor to the Neon? Mu '05 Neon's fuel economy is 25/32, by
> comparison.
>
> And here I was, wishing I had waited a year; now I'm glad I didn't. I
> was slightly disappointed by the Caliber's interior and exterior
> appearance, but the mileage and handling issues have really turned me
> off to it.

Yes, I was planning to buy a Neon for a commuter car, but then found
that they were being discontinued. I bought a 2006 Sonata instead and
am getting 31 MPG with both more performance and more room and comfort
than the Caliber. I think Chrysler really missed the boat on this one.
What does it take for them to see what Honda and Toyota have learned
with the Civic/Corolla and the Accord/Camary. Quality
small/intermediate cars will sell by the truckload. I'm betting that
Calibers won't, but time will tell.


Matt

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:42:09 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote:

> Dave Gower wrote:
>
>>
>> They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high side
>> window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds. Their
>> handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.
>
> Yikes, you're right! Taking a look at the Dodge website, the Caliber's
> estimate fuel economy is 23MPG city/26MPG highway! And this is supposed
> to e the successor to the Neon? Mu '05 Neon's fuel economy is 25/32, by
> comparison.
>
> And here I was, wishing I had waited a year; now I'm glad I didn't. I
> was slightly disappointed by the Caliber's interior and exterior
> appearance, but the mileage and handling issues have really turned me
> off to it.

That's barely better then the 300C which is rated at 25 highway (I've
gotten 24 in my 300C AWD but that was on a very long highway trip). How is
it possible that a little runt of a car like the Caliber can only get 26
highway. The 300C has an excuse, it's a massively powerful two ton car,
whats' the Caliber's excuse?. My old 94 Concorde got 29MPG on the highway,
that's real MPGs not EPA, so what has Chrysler forgotten in the last 10
years?

I'm surprised you get that kind of mileage with the C. Some of the people
I've spoken to have only managed to get 19 on the highway and at 60MPH no
less.

Ken

--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
From Broadway bright the tubes run right
Into the Road of Anthracite"
Erie - Lackawanna



"General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:42:09 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>> Dave Gower wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high side
>>> window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds. Their
>>> handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.
>>
>> Yikes, you're right! Taking a look at the Dodge website, the Caliber's
>> estimate fuel economy is 23MPG city/26MPG highway! And this is supposed
>> to e the successor to the Neon? Mu '05 Neon's fuel economy is 25/32, by
>> comparison.
>>
>> And here I was, wishing I had waited a year; now I'm glad I didn't. I
>> was slightly disappointed by the Caliber's interior and exterior
>> appearance, but the mileage and handling issues have really turned me
>> off to it.
>
> That's barely better then the 300C which is rated at 25 highway (I've
> gotten 24 in my 300C AWD but that was on a very long highway trip). How is
> it possible that a little runt of a car like the Caliber can only get 26
> highway. The 300C has an excuse, it's a massively powerful two ton car,
> whats' the Caliber's excuse?. My old 94 Concorde got 29MPG on the highway,
> that's real MPGs not EPA, so what has Chrysler forgotten in the last 10
> years?

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:23:36 +0000, NJ Vike wrote:

> I'm surprised you get that kind of mileage with the C. Some of the people
> I've spoken to have only managed to get 19 on the highway and at 60MPH no
> less.
>
> Ken

I mostly get 19 on the highway. On a couple of occasions I've done better.
On some 200 mile drives I've gotten 22. My record is 24 when I
drove from Massachusetts to Ontario, but that was 7 hours of straight
highway driving. Vermont has mountains so it wasn't the absolutely best
possible scenario but it's close. I also drove with a light foot although
I did 75MPH most of the way. The key is to not light the afterburners.
When you put your foot down on a C you can watch the gas gauge drop. When
I first got it the temptation to floor it was irresistible, you can go
from 60 to 100 in the time it takes to pass a semi, but if you do that
you'll end up getting 14MPG. If you keep it at a steady speed it drops
back to 4 cylinders and the MPG isn't horrible. It's never great mileage,
as I said earlier my old Concorde got 29 on the highway and when it was
new I sometimes managed to get over 30. On the other hand the Concorde
couldn't do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.

I as expecting Mopar to come up with a Civic/Corolla type vehicle but
unfortunately it didn't happen I had to decide between a Caliber and
another PT Cruiser a few weeks ago. I really wanted to like the Caliber but
is was very slow off the line even and the engine was noisy compared to the
PT. I was really disappointed. I know the gas mileage isn't as great on a
PT but IMHO the PT is a much quieter refined car than the Caliber right now,
plus it offers more for the money if you compare base models. Chrysler did
a great job with quieting the PT and refining the interior for 06. I think
they really goofed on the Caliber.



"General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:23:36 +0000, NJ Vike wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised you get that kind of mileage with the C. Some of the people
>> I've spoken to have only managed to get 19 on the highway and at 60MPH no
>> less.
>>
>> Ken
>
> I mostly get 19 on the highway. On a couple of occasions I've done better.
> On some 200 mile drives I've gotten 22. My record is 24 when I
> drove from Massachusetts to Ontario, but that was 7 hours of straight
> highway driving. Vermont has mountains so it wasn't the absolutely best
> possible scenario but it's close. I also drove with a light foot although
> I did 75MPH most of the way. The key is to not light the afterburners.
> When you put your foot down on a C you can watch the gas gauge drop. When
> I first got it the temptation to floor it was irresistible, you can go
> from 60 to 100 in the time it takes to pass a semi, but if you do that
> you'll end up getting 14MPG. If you keep it at a steady speed it drops
> back to 4 cylinders and the MPG isn't horrible. It's never great mileage,
> as I said earlier my old Concorde got 29 on the highway and when it was
> new I sometimes managed to get over 30. On the other hand the Concorde
> couldn't do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.
>

Maybe Chrysler should start buying small engines from Honda like GM.


"Scott Koprowski" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>I as expecting Mopar to come up with a Civic/Corolla type vehicle but
>unfortunately it didn't happen I had to decide between a Caliber and
>another PT Cruiser a few weeks ago. I really wanted to like the Caliber
>but is was very slow off the line even and the engine was noisy compared to
>the PT. I was really disappointed. I know the gas mileage isn't as great
>on a PT but IMHO the PT is a much quieter refined car than the Caliber
>right now, plus it offers more for the money if you compare base models.
>Chrysler did a great job with quieting the PT and refining the interior for
>06. I think they really goofed on the Caliber.
>
>
>
> "General Schvantzkoph" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:23:36 +0000, NJ Vike wrote:
>>
>>> I'm surprised you get that kind of mileage with the C. Some of the
>>> people
>>> I've spoken to have only managed to get 19 on the highway and at 60MPH
>>> no
>>> less.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>> I mostly get 19 on the highway. On a couple of occasions I've done
>> better.
>> On some 200 mile drives I've gotten 22. My record is 24 when I
>> drove from Massachusetts to Ontario, but that was 7 hours of straight
>> highway driving. Vermont has mountains so it wasn't the absolutely best
>> possible scenario but it's close. I also drove with a light foot although
>> I did 75MPH most of the way. The key is to not light the afterburners.
>> When you put your foot down on a C you can watch the gas gauge drop. When
>> I first got it the temptation to floor it was irresistible, you can go
>> from 60 to 100 in the time it takes to pass a semi, but if you do that
>> you'll end up getting 14MPG. If you keep it at a steady speed it drops
>> back to 4 cylinders and the MPG isn't horrible. It's never great mileage,
>> as I said earlier my old Concorde got 29 on the highway and when it was
>> new I sometimes managed to get over 30. On the other hand the Concorde
>> couldn't do 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.
>>
>
>

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:43:43 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:42:09 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>> Dave Gower wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They have visual tricks that make them look husky, for example high side
>>> window lines. But they're not tiny. They weigh over 3000 pounds. Their
>>> handling and fuel economy reflect that, unfortunately.
>>
>> Yikes, you're right! Taking a look at the Dodge website, the Caliber's
>> estimate fuel economy is 23MPG city/26MPG highway! And this is supposed
>> to e the successor to the Neon? Mu '05 Neon's fuel economy is 25/32, by
>> comparison.
>>
>> And here I was, wishing I had waited a year; now I'm glad I didn't. I
>> was slightly disappointed by the Caliber's interior and exterior
>> appearance, but the mileage and handling issues have really turned me
>> off to it.
>
>That's barely better then the 300C which is rated at 25 highway (I've
>gotten 24 in my 300C AWD but that was on a very long highway trip). How is
>it possible that a little runt of a car like the Caliber can only get 26
>highway. The 300C has an excuse, it's a massively powerful two ton car,
>whats' the Caliber's excuse?. My old 94 Concorde got 29MPG on the highway,
>that's real MPGs not EPA, so what has Chrysler forgotten in the last 10
>years?
Too right. i mean, my 97 t+c's rated 24 highway, and at one time
(when the wife was driving it for bsuiness, doing a route with 400lb
of merchendise int he back 0it was averaging (total average) of
24.4mpg.

i did get slightly over 30mpg on a trip in my 87 caravan (3l v6)
gooing from Atlanta to Salisbury, NC to pick up 3/4 ton of lexan (in
8ft sheets - had them running diagonally, propped over our heads with
sticks against the roof and windscreen) and back again in a day. 87's
aren't exactly the most aerodynamic. Did another run in it from
Griffin, ga to Talahassee down US19 to take a rfiend to pick up a car,
and back. That time we had the AC on but it was stil upper 20's mpg.

Frankly, caliber's an ugly vehicle. hideous even