You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
It depends. If the version of the 2.4L Tigershark has the same gearing and output as used in the GT, it is a bad move as it could undercut the sales of the GT while not addressing the problem of the poor fuel economy for its class. If they offer an "Atkins setting on the VVT" for the 2.4L Tigershark for the SXT trim and possibly the Limited and use taller gearing for the transmissions, this will offer the best of both worlds. Better fuel economy and better power than the 2.0L while not cutting into the purpose of the GT. The problem that I see with having 2.4L as it is, it begs 3 questions in my mind. Why get this when I can get an Avenger which is about the same size, has a much more powerful engine with almost the same fuel economy? or Why not get a Charger 8speed which has more room, more power, and better fuel economy? If the 3.6L Pentastar can get almost the same fuel economy in the Avenger why not just offer the 3.2L Pentastar which could probably match the 2.4L?
In general, I can't understand why these I4s are so awful on gas. They have a 6-speed automatic yet, they are still getting 2-3 mpg lower than the optional manual? Also, why are they getting 2-4 mpg lower than their competition in the Dart? Also, why did the addition of the 62TE to the Avenger/200 only boost the highway fuel economy by 1mpg?
B.S. in Marketing