2009 GM Vehicles Post MPG Increase; Saab Aero 4Cyl Pkg; Malibu Hybrid Gets Big Boost

[shabodah]

I don't understand why the 6l80e has a sixth gear of .67 It should be near .55 or so. From what I've seen of Displacement on Demand or active fuel management, if you prefer, 3.42 rear end gears with a sixth gear of .55 would be a good setup for 55-65mph. 3.73 would be better suited for 65-75mph, though. Regardless, it is far easier to tailor the final drive ratio to each application than the transmission.

[The Law]

Originally Posted by Snafu_SS

I like the idea personally..it's like the Fusion with the sport appearance package. Looks awesome but you can still get an I4 and manual trans

depends if they badge the thing as a Aero or Aero package features on a 2.0T

[sschr]

Originally Posted by windvale

MSRP on the 2009 Camry Hybrid is $25,350 (see link below), and at $4.00 a gallon it'll save you over $500 dollars a year vs a non-hybrid Camry.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...ta-camry-2.htm

When gas was $2.00 a gallon, Full-Hybrids didn't make much financial sense. With gas at $4.00 a gallon, and maybe $6.00 by labor day - they are making a lot of financial sense...

I found an interesting article on how long you have to own the Hybrid cars to recoup the cost difference. Interesting reading.
http://autos.aol.com/article/green/_...06091809990002

[TJ95GAGT]

Originally Posted by 1487

easier said that done. Cars dont have room for the two mode's battery pack. it has been stated MANY times that GM doesnt plan to use the two mode system on its small and midsize cars.

how big is the 2 mode battery pack compared to the Volts? The video of the battery testing for the volt had a pack that looked to be pretty big IMO.

Edit: Found a diagram of the 2 mode system for the Vue. Sure you'll be sacrificing some trunk space and/or the fold down seat feature but that a batter pack looks managable for a mid sizer, surely would fit in my Accord trunk and maybe my Grand Am trunk if the car was made with that mind.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icrosoft:en-us

[TheWraith]

Originally Posted by shabodah

I don't understand why the 6l80e has a sixth gear of .67 It should be near .55 or so. From what I've seen of Displacement on Demand or active fuel management, if you prefer, 3.42 rear end gears with a sixth gear of .55 would be a good setup for 55-65mph. 3.73 would be better suited for 65-75mph, though. Regardless, it is far easier to tailor the final drive ratio to each application than the transmission.

i was really shocked when i first saw that as well. it would make perfect sense for the transmission gears to correspond closely to the 6 speed manuals, so they could offer the same differential in both offerings. instead, for stuff like the G8, camaro, etc, etc, they will need to have two or more different rear gear ratio offerings. or maybe the next generation of 6 speed manuals will closer match the 6l80e? granted, not a major problem, but for a company that's obviously trying to reduce costs, it would make a lot more sense in terms of manufacturing and assembly to have less variations.

[1487]

Originally Posted by TJ95GAGT

how big is the 2 mode battery pack compared to the Volts? The video of the battery testing for the volt had a pack that looked to be pretty big IMO.

Edit: Found a diagram of the 2 mode system for the Vue. Sure you'll be sacrificing some trunk space and/or the fold down seat feature but that a batter pack looks managable for a mid sizer, surely would fit in my Accord trunk and maybe my Grand Am trunk if the car was made with that mind.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icrosoft:en-us

Cost is the other issue. Plus GM cannot drop the 2 mode system into cars that werent designed to accomodate it in the first place. The GMT900s and Vue were obviously designed with the 2 mode system in mind. GM cannot sell two mode hybrid cars for $30k but thats likely what they would need to charge. The improvements in the next gen BAS system will likely make a 2 mode car unecessary. Since they are getting 26/34 out of the current system I think 28/36 is very likely with the new system if not better. who needs a full hybrid when you can get that mileage out of a "mild" hybrid system that costs $3k less?

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Xenon

If you want to get real tenical about it, Saab's real performance badge is Viggen, and thats been out of the lineup since 2002. Aero is just a trim level , and besides it doesn't carry the same cachet as SS does for Chevy.

Actually.... No....Aero is the performance model and pre-dates the Viggen.

Aero is more than just a trim level. It involves modification of the suspension, lowering of the car, a more powerful engine, more aggressive performance tires, tweaks in steering response and transmission. Not to mention a body kit, better seats, and an interior trim change.

Now... are you going to tell me that this so called "Aero" model is going to incorporate all that with a less powerful engine? Or is this "Aero" going to throw down the same 280HP, but with better fuel economy in a 4-cyl package? Because I'm down with that... that's what Saab's are supposed to be in the first place. V6's should be disallowed.

SS has no cachet for Chevy. They were fooling themselves into thinking they could call a car SS becuase it had 10 HP more. IMpala SS is a joke. Cobalt SS is finally decent. SSR didn't quite have enough HP. And the list goes on.

[Perian]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Aero is more than just a trim level. It involves modification of the suspension, lowering of the car, a more powerful engine, more aggressive performance tires, tweaks in steering response and transmission. Not to mention a body kit, better seats, and an interior trim change.

Now... are you going to tell me that this so called "Aero" model is going to incorporate all that with a less powerful engine? Or is this "Aero" going to throw down the same 280HP, but with better fuel economy in a 4-cyl package? Because I'm down with that... that's what Saab's are supposed to be in the first place. V6's should be disallowed.

Here's the balance from the product guide:

For 2009, Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan buyers can choose an Aero-type appearance and performance package that includes dual bright-finish tailpipes, sport-bolstered seats, metallic interior decor, upgraded brakes, a sport-tuned chassis and new, sportier-looking 17 by 7.5-inch five-spoke alloy wheels.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Perian

Here's the balance from the product guide:

For 2009, Saab 9-3 Sport Sedan buyers can choose an Aero-type appearance and performance package that includes dual bright-finish tailpipes, sport-bolstered seats, metallic interior decor, upgraded brakes, a sport-tuned chassis and new, sportier-looking 17 by 7.5-inch five-spoke alloy wheels.

So it's a sport package then.... not a "mileage increase."
The car already exists.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by vdoh182

5.3 liter silverado with 6 speed gets 14/20, compared to 14/19 in the regular 4x4 model, the 6 speed doesnt seem to have helped much.

That's an improvement of over 5% highway. I would say that is a significant improvement from "just a transmission".

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

One thing I have wondered about low rolling resistance tires: do they increase stopping distance? I'll look it up now.

EDIT: It seems they do increase stopping distance by at least a few percent, although there are some that dispute that.

Yes. Rolling resistance is essentially the same as traction. If you lower your rolling resistance, you've lost some traction. Your stopping distance will be worse, your turning ability is reduced, and your acceleration capability will be reduced.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by motorman

the antique 3.8 impalas get 30+ on the highway at legal speeds

I'm sure the Malibu can beat that. But what your car was capable of getting at a certain speed on the highway, isn't the same thing as the standard EPA highway fuel economy test cycle.

[psece]

Originally Posted by Perian

[b]

Chevy Malibu Hybrid:
2008 MPG: 24/32
2009 MPG: 26/34
How it was done:
Malibu Hybrid delivers an estimated 34 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg in the city – an improvement over 2008 models, thanks to better control of the battery charging/discharging system and new low rolling-resistance tires.

I am really wondering what the numbers would be for a Malibu Hybrid with BAS+, a 6 speed and the 1.4 turbo HCCI. Lets say each adds 6 to 8 percent on to the current numbers. Being conservative, maybe 31/40? That would compete nicely with the 33/34 of the current Camry Hybrid. Just wish they could be out with it today.....

[nsap]

Originally Posted by psece

I am really wondering what the numbers would be for a Malibu Hybrid with BAS+, a 6 speed and the 1.4 turbo HCCI. Lets say each adds 6 to 8 percent on to the current numbers. Being conservative, maybe 31/40? That would compete nicely with the 33/34 of the current Camry Hybrid. Just wish they could be out with it today.....

The 1.4L Turbo DI is already getting well over 40 MPG highway without BAS+ in the new Delta II car. I'll go out on a limb and call 48-50 MPG highway with the setup you describe.

[psece]

Originally Posted by nsap

The 1.4L Turbo DI is already getting well over 40 MPG highway without BAS+ in the new Delta II car. I'll go out on a limb and call 48-50 MPG highway with the setup you describe.

Is that the HCCI 1.4 and have they lightened the Delta II any. If it is still at its current weight, that is incredible. I know weight has less to do with Highway mpg, but still gotta get to that speed somehow.

I wonder what the cost difference is compared to the Toyota system. I always assume that the Toyota Hybrid system is costlier.

2010 has to be doable. Just wonder if GM would want a 50 mpg Malibu Hybrid stealing some of the Volts thunder. Fine with me though.

Thanks for the info NSAP.