19 MPG combined isn’t exactly a selling point for the 2017 Dodge Journey AWD with the 3.6L V6. This vehicle is about affordable practicality; it’s a workhorse for families who need three rows and available all-wheel drive without spending too much. Fuel economy is a consideration, but it’s often lower on the priority list than space, price, and capability for the Journey buyer.

City and highway performance

The EPA estimates for the 2017 Journey AWD 3.6L V6 are 16 MPG in the city and 24 MPG on the highway. That city figure reflects the engine working harder to move the Journey’s weight through stop-and-go traffic, a typical scenario for suburban families running errands and shuttling kids. The highway number is better, suggesting that longer trips will be less expensive. The six-speed automatic transmission, while reliable, is a contributing factor; more modern transmissions with additional gears often improve fuel efficiency, especially at cruising speeds. Given the vehicle’s age, no fuel-saving technologies like engine start/stop are included.

Annual fuel cost

According to the EPA, the estimated annual fuel cost for the 2017 Dodge Journey AWD 3.6L V6 is $2,300. This is based on driving 15,000 miles per year, assuming a national average fuel price. The actual cost will vary depending on your driving habits, driving type, and fuel prices in your area. A driver who primarily uses the Journey for short trips in heavy traffic will likely exceed this estimate, while someone who mostly drives on the highway might see slightly lower costs. It’s a useful benchmark, but consider your personal driving patterns.

Real-world expectations

While the EPA estimates provide a standardized benchmark, real-world fuel economy for the 2017 Journey AWD 3.6L V6 often falls slightly below these numbers, especially in city driving. Aggressive driving, frequent short trips, and carrying heavy loads can all negatively impact fuel efficiency. Owners who prioritize fuel economy and adopt a more conservative driving style may be able to approach the EPA estimates, but consistently exceeding them is unlikely. Across all its model years, see JOURNEY MPG for the full picture.

How it compares

The 2017 Dodge Journey wasn’t designed to compete primarily on fuel economy, but comparisons are inevitable. A similarly-sized 2017 Toyota Highlander with all-wheel drive and a V6 engine achieves around 20 MPG combined, a slight edge over the Journey. The Honda Pilot, another popular three-row SUV, manages a similar 20 MPG combined for its AWD variant. Even a smaller, more modern crossover SUV like the Mazda CX-5 (around 24 MPG combined with AWD and the 2.5L engine) offers significantly better fuel economy. The Journey’s lower price point is where it typically wins back buyers; sacrificing a few MPGs can mean thousands of dollars saved initially. For all Dodge fuel economy data, check out the rest of the lineup.

Tips to maximize efficiency

Regular maintenance is important to optimizing fuel economy in any vehicle. Ensure that the 2017 Journey’s tires are properly inflated, as underinflated tires increase rolling resistance and fuel consumption. Also, keep up with scheduled oil changes and other maintenance items; a well-maintained engine runs more efficiently.

Adopt a smoother driving style. Avoid aggressive acceleration and hard braking, as these actions consume more fuel. Anticipate traffic flow and maintain a steady speed whenever possible. The Journey’s weight will always work against fuel economy, but gentle driving can help.

Minimize unnecessary weight. Remove any items from the vehicle that are not essential, as extra weight reduces fuel efficiency. This is especially relevant for a family vehicle like the Journey, which can easily accumulate extra gear and clutter.

Consider front-wheel drive if all-wheel drive isn’t essential. The front-wheel drive version of the 2017 Journey typically offers slightly better fuel economy than the AWD model, as it doesn’t have the added weight and mechanical drag of the all-wheel drive system. If you primarily drive in areas with good weather conditions, the FWD model could be a more economical choice.