Um, this is extremely simple. You're going from 23 city / 28 highway MPG with the 2.0L to 20 city / 24 highway MPG with the 2.4L. Obviously, the 2.0 is more economical.

 

I'm averaging 24.8 with a '11 2.4 CVT auto, 4x4. I've gotten as much as 28.02. This is in mixed driving (city/back roads)

 

Driving it easy, the smaller engine and a manual tranny will always win. Under a load the smaller engine will have to work harder and spend more effort in lower gears. The smaller engine loses its advantage when it tries to act like a bigger one. You see those kids screaming around in an old Honda with loud pipes? They aren't getting the 35 MPG the car is capable of -- you ambling along in your Patriot 2.4 are probably doing better.

A FWD Patriot with a 2.4 driven easy on the highway (60MPH) with no significant hills can easily do 30MPG. My last 3 tanks have all been over 30, and that includes some city and a few dozen miles on non-town dirt roads and maybe a mile at slow speed on more of a trail.

 

Hi, My North Edition FD1 CVT 2.4L gets up to 33miles/imp.gal(=27.7miles/american gal) combined; I'll add that my driving is less than aggressive(I try to keep the revs down). My searches (when I was shopping) led me to conclude that the 2.0L was only slightly better on gas. The decision for you would be: do you want slightly better fuel economy(2.0L) or slightly more power(2.4L). My comment is only based on a lot of review reading and review watching. I have absolutely no first hand experience with the 2.0L so I refrain from engaging in an argument over this topic; I truly respect the above poster's(Slimer) input which is as valuable as mine. Keep in mind that the Patriot is somewhat heavy and not really aerodynamic.

 

I have the fwd 5 speed with the 2.4. I always avg 25 to 28 mpg consistently 70%city/30% highway driving.

 

My 2.4 5-speed FD1 is doing 23 or so in mostly city driving and will get anywhere from 28-33 on the highway @ 65-70 mph.

 

I get similar mileage with my Pat (2.4L CVT 4x4). I get about 23-24 mpg during the week, to and from work and 25 or 26 mpg, mostly county roads and some tollway driving.

 

2.4L, 4X4, 5-speed, 215/65 17 all terrain tires.

I filled up last night: 344 miles, 13.00 gallons ($55.02) = 26.26 MPG.

My low fuel light went on around 325 miles. The pump shut off at 12.5 gal, I pushed it to 13 gal.

I do not believe a 2.0L would have done much better MPG wise.

 

What are the main dif's between the two besides the power/MPG?

If they are both are similar builds, quality, etc and the power/mpg are the only differences than I would go for the 2.0 in a heartbeat (we dont need power - its a city car).

 

Sure. But, 4X4 sure would be nice during those nasty Mid-West winter storms...

 

Nope - not at all. I commute 40 miles one way through some fun winter roads here in WI and my low profile Tiburon sport car with low profile 17" rims do just fine. As I said, even with out ex Ford Exploder with 4x4 - we never once used it.

 

It may just be me, but... in weather like this...

Milwaukee, WI 2008​

... I would use 4WD.

 

And thats how it was this years winter - my alley looked like that. Ya if you have it - use it - but my car ran around just fine in that near 2 feet of snow we got this year and I made it to work just fine unlike others that couldn't figure out how to drive in snow!

 

i have a 2008 2.4L CVT autostick with FD1. i live in the Philly suburbs, so some rolling hills, but nothing crazy. i'm averaging 19.97 (lets just say 20 for rounding sakes). i drive with a *very* light foot, but i just can't understand where people are getting figures in the 24-26 mpg range for a similar vehicle. I barely broke 25 mpg on an all highway trip down to DC. Granted, my daily drive is a lot of stop and go traffic, but i couldn't imagine it'd make that much of a difference.

 

Dude, ...MPG when not rolling, is ZERO.

 

I average 27 MPG on my 2011 2.4 5M 4x4. I could probably drive less aggressive and get another mpg or two, but that's no fun.

I think 4x4 is worth it, if you need it you have it, if not it helps resale value.

 

My wife and I looked at some Hyundais with the 2.0 and 2.4 and the 2.4 was more expensive but got better mileage... More torque means less high-revs to get it going.

 

But every car and engine is different, is this the same with the Pat?

 

30MPG Oldsmobiles

 

And this is gas.

 

Depends, there's a power to weight ratio that affects mileage too.

I used to have a 1970 Torino GT with a 351 Cleveland engine. Had nice power, and with the 4 barrel set-up right, I would get over 25 MPG with mostly highway miles. Now if you kicked in the 4 barrel a lot, it would be in the low teens.

 

My 5.7L 6 speed manual Trans Am (3,440 lb) gets MPG similar to the 2.4L 5 speed manual Patriot (3,111 lb), but not all the time.

 

2.4L 5 Speed... See Fuelly below for averaging over two fill ups, i had to do some math to get the correct numbers for the oversized tires (245-65-17).

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been only going to about 2.3k rpm when accelerating and staying at 58mph (2krpm) on the road home. My mileage is mostly highway, i would say around 90-95% highway but it is a small town with many stoplights that i frequently hit as i am going by.

I highly doubt that with a 2L i would be getting this type of mileage, my jeep bogs down enough when loaded up with family going up hills and all that jazz, i couldnt imagine having any less power to drive this car

 

i just filled up for the first time with my new Patriot. I have a 32 mile rural commute with four stop signs and one traffic light. i got 28.7mpg for the first tank. i'm very pleased. i expect over 30mpg on the steady state cruising on the highway at this rate.

by the way, mine is a 2.4L 4x4 FD1.

 

Just bought a new 2011 Patriot 2wd with a 2.0. I would prefer stick but my wife's arthritis causes a need for the Automatic. First tank I drove almost all and got 24 mpg, this tank she drove and got 19 mpg. Sunday we are taking it to Dallas and hope to get better mileage.

Right now my Durango isn't much worse.

 

I test drove a 2.0, I found it spent way too much time in the 3500-4000RPM range when driving around.

 

tank 2 - 100% rural commute = 31.2 mpg

tank 3 - 20% commute / 80% hwy = 29.7 mpg

 

Mileage is slowly improving but no real "Highway trip " yet. One thing that may be the problem. We live in East Texas and thee are a lot of hill, nothing steep just constant rise and fall. Even I 30 to Dallas. Maybe the trip to Galveston and San Antonio in July will show a better mpg.

 

Haven't had that problem unless I accidentally bump the auto stick over.