Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Chrysler PT Cruiser fuel consumption

Of all Chrysler PT Cruiser modifications produced from 2000 to 2010 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 8% higher compared to advertised consumption. Starting from 2000 Chrysler PT Cruiser average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was slightly above industry average, at 2009 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersChrysler PT CruiserAll carmakersChrysler PT Cruiser
2000+4%+8% +5%-
Show all years
2001+5%+8% +6%-
2002+6%+8% +7%+9%
2003+6%+11% +8%+9%
2004+7%+9% +9%+9%
2005+8%+9% +10%+9%
2006+9%+12% +11%+8%
2007+11%+17% +12%+7%
2008+12%+17% +13%+7%
2009+14%+17% +14%+7%
2010+16%+17% +16%+7%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Chrysler PT Cruiser.

2006 - 2010

Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines24.3 MPG
9.7 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+9%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+7%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 7% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.4i 143 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chrysler PT Cruiser with 2.2 diesel engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.2 CRD 150 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 1.6i 115 HP manual 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
26.1 MPG
9.0 l/100km+17%
2.2 liter diesel engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.2 CRD 150 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km+7%
2.4 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.4i 143 HP manual 25.0 MPG
9.4 l/100km
24.2 MPG
9.7 l/100km+3%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.4i 143 HP automatic 23.3 MPG
10.1 l/100km
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 2.4i GT Turbo 223 HP manual 24.5 MPG
9.6 l/100km
21.0 MPG
11.2 l/100km+17%
2006 - 2010

Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 cabrio fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines24.1 MPG
9.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines23.5 MPG
10.0 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+6%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chrysler PT Cruiser with 2.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP), but despite this 75% of other similar cars have better fuel economy figures.

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.4 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP manual 25.0 MPG
9.4 l/100km
24.2 MPG
9.7 l/100km+3%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP automatic 22.6 MPG
10.4 l/100km
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2006 Cabrio 2.4i GT Turbo 223 HP manual 24.8 MPG
9.5 l/100km
21.0 MPG
11.2 l/100km+18%
2004 - 2006

Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 cabrio fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines23.1 MPG
10.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines21.4 MPG
11.0 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+7%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.9 liters per 100 km or 9% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Chrysler PT Cruiser with automatic transmission consumes around 2.7 litres per 100 km or 28% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Chrysler PT Cruiser advertised fuel economy is slightly worse than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is among the 20% worst in its class.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chrysler PT Cruiser with 2.4 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 Cabrio 2.4i GT Turbo 223 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.4 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP manual 23.8 MPG
9.9 l/100km
24.2 MPG
9.7 l/100km-2%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 Cabrio 2.4i Limited 143 HP automatic 21.8 MPG
10.8 l/100km
19.0 MPG
12.4 l/100km+15%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 Cabrio 2.4i GT Turbo 223 HP manual 23.8 MPG
9.9 l/100km
21.8 MPG
10.8 l/100km+9%
2000 - 2006

Chrysler PT Cruiser 2000 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines25.0 MPG
9.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines22.8 MPG
10.3 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+10%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+9%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Chrysler PT Cruiser 2000 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Chrysler PT Cruiser with automatic transmission consumes around 1.9 litres per 100 km or 20% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Chrysler PT Cruiser advertised fuel economy is slightly worse than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is among the 20% worst in its class.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.1 diesel engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2002 2.1 2.2 CRD 121 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Chrysler PT Cruiser with 2.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Chrysler PT Cruiser 2000 2.0i 140 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2003 1.6i 115 HP manual 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
26.1 MPG
9.0 l/100km+17%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2000 2.0i 140 HP manual 27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km
24.8 MPG
9.5 l/100km+9%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2000 2.0i 140 HP automatic 24.0 MPG
9.8 l/100km
22.6 MPG
10.4 l/100km+6%
2.1 liter diesel engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2002 2.1 2.2 CRD 121 HP manual 34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+9%
2.4 liter petrol engine
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2005 2.4i 143 HP manual 24.2 MPG
9.7 l/100km
24.5 MPG
9.6 l/100km-1%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2005 2.4i 143 HP automatic 22.4 MPG
10.5 l/100km
18.8 MPG
12.5 l/100km+19%
Chrysler PT Cruiser 2004 2.4i GT Turbo 223 HP manual 23.5 MPG
10.0 l/100km
21.8 MPG
10.8 l/100km+8%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.