GM Ready for Smaller Engines When Customers Are

[FXjohn]

I may be in the market for an XFE, we'll see. I also kind of like 4 cyl impreza's
I read the Vibe AWD won't be available in a stick shift.
Sorry kind of excited about possibly getting something new.

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

You are right. The economics of moving from 30 mpg to 35 mpg highway is absolutely NOT significant.

However, how does moving from 30 mpg OR 35 mpg highway up to over 42 mpg combined average sound? How about to over 52 mpg combined average?

Do these fuel economies become economically justifiable?

Look up the GM/Vauxhhall products rated 42/51 mpg(US/Imperial) combined cycle and above on the site noted below. Don't forget to check the above 61 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle range [that is above 50 mpg(US)]. I think you will find over 40 vehicles from GM/Vauxhall within these ranges.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

By the way, Ford has about 20 vehicles within this range. Interestly, Chrysler has none that I have found.

Please let us know what you think after you have reviewed the info and thought about it.

Need to be careful with comparing Euro MPG ratings with EPA

Per Opel website
Astra 1.8L 5-Speed Urban 9.7-9.8L (24 MPG) Extra-Urban 5.6-5.7L (41-42 MPG) Combined 7.1-7.2L (33 MPG) vs EPA 24 City 27 Combined 32 Highway

Similar on 1.8L 4-Sp Auto Euro 22/30/37-38 vs EPA 24/27/30

The Euro Urban and EPA City are same 24 and 24 on 5M and a close 22 to 24 on 4A, as are the Combined and Hwy 33 to 32 (5M) and an identical 30 (4A)

So you have for Astra 1.8L
5M 24/33 Euro
5M 24/32 EPA

4A 22/30 Euro
4A 24/30 EPA

I was surprised when I did the math on these numbers and previously thought the Extra-Urban numbers should mimic the EPA highway but they don't.

So I now use the Euro Urban and Combined numbers to compare to US EPA Cityand Highway, not saying that this is 100% accurate as many of the Urban numbers are lower but think the Combined number will approximate U.S. EPA Highway fairly well.

Of course as it is with EPA numbers many drivers of GM products get better than the rating in real world driving, so as with any number from standardized test "your mileage may vary".

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

Need to be careful with comparing Euro MPG ratings with EPA

I was surprised when I did the math on these numbers and previously thought the Extra-Urban numbers should mimic the EPA highway but they don't.

So I now use the Euro Urban and Combined numbers to compare to US EPA Cityand Highway, not saying that this is 100% accurate as many of the Urban numbers are lower but think the Combined number will approximate U.S. EPA Highway fairly well.

Of course as it is with EPA numbers many drivers of GM products get better than the rating in real world driving, so as with any number from standardized test "your mileage may vary".

Thanks for the feedback!

Did you get a chance to look for the GM/Vauxhall(Opel) machines above 52 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle? Did you find out how far up they go?
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

You might find the Fords above 52 mpg(Imperial) interesting also. The Duratorq is an interesting and apparently capable engine.

[yoblues]

Typical GM pinhead ****.......................Mr. Toyota just fell of his chair he's laughing so hard...........

[AMcA]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

We have several members here that report getting 40MPG in Cobalts. The EPA says that some Cobalts get better mileage than Civic/Corolla and some variations get 2/3 MPG less. Toyota and Honda haven't exactly reinvented the wheel.


What do you want me to say about it? The Prius is one area where Toyota is head and shoulders above GM. However, I doubt the Prius is what makes Toyota so much money.

I haven't gotten 40 in a Cobalt. But I did recently manage 35.4 in a rental while going over a major moutain pass and keeping a brisk 70+ through most of a 180 mile trip. Not bad for a peppy, inexpensive, reasonably roomy and comfortable car. (An automatic, not the high-mileage manual edition, by the way.)

Rented later in that same trip: a Prius. Averaged 37 mpg. Not at all impressed. Wretched thing to drive.

[Drive571]

40 MPG in a Cobalt sounds *awfully* optomistic. Downhill, in Neutral? I find myself less likely to believe mileage stats posted by those with a purchase to (consciously or unconsciously) defend, including my own.

Of cars that *aren't* mine, the last Cobalt I rented in L.A. averaged 25.1 MPG (per trip computer) in a mix of stop-and-go and desert freeway driving. A rented Prius covered the same ground and averaged 42.3.

The Cobalt steered and handled better, but the whole Prius experience is like piloting your own bite-sized NCC 1701, while the Cobalt feels like... well... a rental.

[E. Haskell]

Originally Posted by Drive571

40 MPG in a Cobalt sounds *awfully* optomistic. Downhill, in Neutral? I find myself less likely to believe mileage stats posted by those with a purchase to (consciously or unconsciously) defend, including my own.

The XFE is rated at 37 mpg. Under the pre-'08 rating system it would be rated at 40 or 41 mpg. It was never uncommon for people to exceed the ratings of the old system.

[USA1Fan]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

The XFE is rated at 37 mpg. Under the pre-'08 rating system it would be rated at 40 or 41 mpg. It was never uncommon for people to exceed the ratings of the old system.

Amen. And I still exceed the ratings in the new system. Just not by nearly as much. My mostly highway driving with the 08 Malibu LTZ (following speed limits, use cruise where possible, etc.) has returned anywhere from 28 to 32 mpg, with the majority seeming to fall mid 29 to low 30 range. The EPA sticker says 26. Under the old system I'd have expect to hit 31 / 32 routinely, and get up to 34 at times. The 3.5l 2004 Malibu sedan we had was rated something like 31 highway, but was routinely 34, with a high of 38 (!! loved that).

Being a conservative driver with outstanding conditions helps a lot, so I suspect the new ratings are pretty close for most people.