My 2005 3.8 L SXT gets best 27.1 mpg at 63 to 71 mph hwy cruising [but mostly at 70 mph]. At 70 mph I'm at 2100 rpm. It's EPA rated at 18/25 mpg.

At 2012 R/T is rated at 17/25 mpg. A 2006 D.G.C. SE is rated at 19/26 mpg.

So you 4th gen's with the 3.3L engine, what mpg do you get city and hwy? Is it fast enough to accelerate the 4th gen fast enough? What rpm do you get at 70 mph cruising?

I prefer Dodge's with the 3.8L engine, as I need all the power, pull, and acceleration that you get from the 3.8L engine. My only experience with the 3.3L was in my 1999 Sport, and it had good acceleration, terrible city mpg, and enough power to tow loaded + a loaded Uhaul 5 x 10 cargo trailer, especially up an incline and a 20 mph headwind [but I got 7 mpg doing that].

Also, does your 3.3L 4th gen tow well? Is the tow package available on a 3.3L and what are the tow capacities of it?

 

I'm confused about what you're asking about because you already own a 2005 4th gen. If you live in the USA, the EPA rating on your SXT GC van was 16C/23H, not 18C/25H. The 2005 3.3L vans were rated 1 to 2 mpg higher depending upon whether it was dual fuel or not. Asking people what mileage they get won't give u nail down the difference in economy between the 2 motors. Just compare the EPA values.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod..._Caravan.shtml

I wouldn't want to tow with a 3.3 because they have a lot less torque. A 4th gen 3.3 van is exactly the same as a 3.8, aside from engine bore and stroke. There would be no significant difference in real-world tow duty capacity because the chassis, suspension and transmission is roughly identical. It will just go a bit slower up steep hills and the drum rear brake setup is a little bit smaller. Brake capacity is more a function of friction compound and condition, since few people run factory pads. The smaller brakes with premium semi-metallics and aggressive compound rear shoes will outbrake the larger 4 wheel disc setup with expensive ceramics. Spring rates vary slightly between SE, Sport and various heavy duty options, but it isn't anything significant.

 

I must have posted the OLD EPA fuel economy stats, not the revised ones. But my 2005 3.8L SXT gets me 11.6 mpg in Chicago city driving and 27.1 mpg in 63 to 71 mph driving [most at 70 mph cruise at 2100 rpm].

I want to compare real world mpg for owners of 3.3L's vs 3.8L's.

I was thinking the 3.3L transmissions might have diffferent gear ratios than the 3.8L so they would give adequate power and acceleration just by reving rpm's higher.

 

I drive my 2002 GCS like a borrowed mule and it always averages 18.3mpg.

If I reset it and make nice it will average 20mpg for a while, until I revert to me normal style.

 

OK, based upon the previous poster, it sounds like the 3.8 gets 9mpg better than a 3.3 on the highway. Trust me, it is hopeless lol.

The 3.3's gets 1-2 mpg better in real world, if you were able to collect sufficient data. However you will never gather enough good data from owners of 10 year old aging vehicles in an infinite combination of condition and tune, driven in all different terrains, fuels and climates. You need controlled lab conditions to detect small differences like 5% or less. This is why EPA uses scientifically sound methods that eliminate ALL variables (air temp, humidity, fuel, road surface, condition, driver etc). There are faaaaaar too many variables to identify and valiate tiny differences in economy (like 5%) unless you get statistic info from about 100 owners and do some analytics which throws out outlyers etc. It would take years. Half of those folks need spark plugs or they have tire with low air pressure etc etc.

Are you checking gas mileage with a pencil or using the useless overhead console digital readout that guesstimates economy based upon injector duty cycle?? They are off by 10% or more. Wild claims thrown around always come from the digital readouts or idiots who don't know how to consistently top off a gas tank on level surface after consuming at least 15 gallons. Too many errors involved.

The 3.3 and 3.8 vans weigh the same, have the same cylinder count and have the same coefficient of drag, so there isn't much difference in economy. The 3.3 works a bit harder and the ratios are steeper. Deeper gears don't help much over 20 MPH because it just has to upshift sooner. Pulling long hills at 70 MPH screaming at 4K+ RPM gets old and sucks gas.