It's the fuel economy, stupid!

04Malibu · 05-12-2005, 11:52 AM

No, I'm not calling anyone stupid. Although I think we could say just that about the management at GM and Ford.
What does everyone think about this? Accord gets 38 MPG highway. Corolla 41 MPG. Cobalt... a great 32 MPG highway (unbelieveably, worse than the V6 Malibu). Ford Focus, a stunning 31 MPG highway. Now we wonder why Toyota and Honda are out selling us?
Not suprisingly, guess which cars of Toyota's and Honda's lineup have been growing the most rapidly? Corolla and Civic. Guess which GM and Ford models are declining in sales? IS ANYONE SUPRISED THAT GM AND FORD ARE GETTING KILLED BY THESE GUYS?

MaxLegroom · 05-12-2005, 12:08 PM

Sadly, that is all that most people will see when looking for such information. I've tended to prefer to read Car and Driver's observed fuel economy. Whatever else you may have to say about the magazine, if you get worse gas mileage than that, you're probably in jail.

Michael_S · 05-12-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04Malibu

No, I'm not calling anyone stupid. Although I think we could say just that about the management at GM and Ford.
What does everyone think about this? Accord gets 38 MPG highway. Corolla 41 MPG. Cobalt... a great 32 MPG highway (unbelieveably, worse than the V6 Malibu). Ford Focus, a stunning 31 MPG highway. Now we wonder why Toyota and Honda are out selling us?
Not suprisingly, guess which cars of Toyota's and Honda's lineup have been growing the most rapidly? Corolla and Civic. Guess which GM and Ford models are declining in sales? IS ANYONE SUPRISED THAT GM AND FORD ARE GETTING KILLED BY THESE GUYS?

The Accord hybrid might be EPA rated for 38 mpg highway, but the Accord V6 is rated for 30 and the Accord 4-cylinder is rated for 34. The Malibu V6 is slower than the Accord V6 (The Accord has 40 extra horsepower, 8 less pound feet of torque, and an extra gear in the transmission), but the Malibu is rated for 32 highway. The Malibu I4 is slower than the Accord I4 (The Accord has 15 extra horsepower, 15 extra pound feet of torque, and an extra gear in the transmission), but the Malibu is also cheaper and rated for the same 34 mpg highway. Plus, the Malibu V6 takes 87 octane fuel while (I believe) the Accord V6 requires 91 octane.

In midsize car fuel economy, GM is actually really good.

But when it comes to compact cars, you're on the money: the US automakers are way behind. My sister has a Chevy Aveo, and while she loves almost everything about it her average gas mileage is in the mid 20s. I do better in my Chevy Impala, which weighs about 700 pounds more, has 70 more horsepower, and over 100 extra pound feet of torque!

Michael_S · 05-12-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxLegroom

Sadly, that is all that most people will see when looking for such information. I've tended to prefer to read Car and Driver's observed fuel economy. Whatever else you may have to say about the magazine, if you get worse gas mileage than that, you're probably in jail.

But most drivers don't flog the car mercilessly day in and day out. It would be better if Car and Driver (or somebody else) tested the car after it was broken in, by driving it about 1000 miles in normal traffic, with as little hard acceleration as possible. That's more real world experience to judge by.

04Malibu · 05-12-2005, 07:14 PM

The old Saturn S came really close to matching the Asian's economy. As for reliability, I saw conflicting reports. So we know that we can do it, why don't we?
Something else very interesting is the consistency among models of the Asian makes. Buy a Corolla and you should get roughly identical mileage to the sticker. But buy a cobalt, (like a friend of mine did) and you might be three to four miles off.
We are doing considerably better in the mid size segment, both GM and Ford. But the quality is hurting us there, at least so far. I really think it is about the quality. Manufacturing tolerances and margin for error.Although I will say I do love my 05 Malibu and, speaking of inconsistent mileage, am getting around 35 MPG highway.
I hope they put that old 1.8 liter Saturn engine in the Cobalt and get 35 or 37 MPG out of it. That would really sell a lot of cars and, unfortunately with gas prices where they are at, the small cars will be where it's at for a while!!

lordofgain · 05-12-2005, 08:43 PM

I have an 04' Silverado and an 02' Camaro. What's gas mileage?

327 · 05-12-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordofgain

I have an 04' Silverado and an 02' Camaro. What's gas mileage?

bahhh who cares!!

, I was impressed when my parents got 26 mpg in our 86 vette

camaro chris · 05-12-2005, 09:34 PM

actually my brothers 96 camaro got 30mpg on a trip from ny to ohio.

lordofgain · 05-12-2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaro chris

actually my brothers 96 camaro got 30mpg on a trip from ny to ohio.

Chris I don't think your brothers Camaro has been..... tinkered with like mine! Oh yea, AND I can't keep my foot out of the accelerator!

yoblues · 05-13-2005, 09:45 AM

Everyone knows what happened. GM and Ford spent all the money on the trucks and suv's and ignored their cars. Toyota, Nissan etc. did it the other way around. Now they have the popular cars and can mess with the truck/suv market but if the bottom falls out of that market due to gas price crunch, they still have their popular cars to fall back on.

Hudson · 05-14-2005, 01:11 AM

If gas mileage were the reason why vehicles sold, the Geo Metro XFi would have outsold the rest of the Metro lineup...which it didn't. Gas mileage (especially EPA ratings) is not the reason why people buy cars in the US. And definitely not the defining criteria to pick one vehicle over the next. Fuel efficiency ranks down on the average buyers check list.

Hemi Eater · 05-14-2005, 01:29 AM

Economy! What is that. 15.4 is best ever. 60 to 110 in under 1 second! With 4 Passengers in comfort

FISH · 05-14-2005, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson

If gas mileage were the reason why vehicles sold, the Geo Metro XFi would have outsold the rest of the Metro lineup...which it didn't. Gas mileage (especially EPA ratings) is not the reason why people buy cars in the US. And definitely not the defining criteria to pick one vehicle over the next. Fuel efficiency ranks down on the average buyers check list.

That is very true in Australia as V8's and V6's are the pick before any Piss Weak 4 cylinder.

I don't think 3 cylinders have even shown up on our shores.

Hudson · 05-14-2005, 10:43 PM

The US market (in the past 30 years) has had 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 cylinder engined cars and trucks. Today, the three-cylinder car (Honda Insight) is easily outsold by four-cylinder rivals (Honda Civic and Toyota Prius), even though they both put out lower mileage ratings and real world mileage numbers. There are more V10 models (Dodge Viper, Dodge Ram, Ford F-Series, Ford E-Series, Ford Excursion, BMW M5, Porsche Carrera GT, Volkswagen Touareg, Volkswagen Phaeton) on sale in the US than the total number of three banger models offered in the past three decades (Geo/Chevrolet Metro, Chevrolet Sprint, Subaru Justy, Honda Insight, Daihatsu Charade)...which may show that it's NOT economy that drives sales.

Michael_S · 05-15-2005, 11:17 PM

Most of you are being extremist, and you know it. Obviously fuel efficiency isn't the most important factor. If it was, we'd all be riding horses - their distance of travel per calorie of energy is substantially higher than any mechanical vehicle.

People look for fuel economy within the class of vehicles that fulfill their needs and their price range. The Honda Insight is slow, has very little space, and costs $20,000 - that's a bad buy by any metric.

Nobody's going to buy a 30 mpg Ford Focus wagon if they need something that can two 4 tons, so in that case the Focus fuel economy is irrelevant to the comparison. But if a Silverado 1500 Vortec V8 can tow that much and provide better fuel economy than the Titan, Ram 1500, and F-150 V8 (and in fact, it does) then it should be someone's first choice. The Ridgeline can do better, but it can't tow 4 tons so it may as well be a Focus Wagon for the sake of that comparison.

But compare a Cobalt to the Civic or Corolla. Crash ratings, interior space, performance, and price are similar. The Cobalt is a little safer and a little quicker. However, the Civic(31/38) and Corolla(31/39) average 7 mpg better fuel economy than the Cobalt (24/32) - which is a positively huge difference. I definitely think they have the edge.

Compare an Aveo to the Scion xA or xB. Aveo has an edge in crash ratings. Otherwise space, performance, and price are similar. The Scions (31/34 and 32/37) average better fuel than the Aveo (27/35). The gap isn't as big as with a Cobalt, but it is there.

If GM can make best in class fuel economy with its midsize sedans, large sedans, and trucks, why do they let the rest of the lineup lag behind?

05-12-2005, 11:52 AM	#1 (permalink)
04Malibu 3.0 Liter SIDI V6 Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 636	It's the fuel economy, stupid! No, I'm not calling anyone stupid. Although I think we could say just that about the management at GM and Ford. What does everyone think about this? Accord gets 38 MPG highway. Corolla 41 MPG. Cobalt... a great 32 MPG highway (unbelieveably, worse than the V6 Malibu). Ford Focus, a stunning 31 MPG highway. Now we wonder why Toyota and Honda are out selling us? Not suprisingly, guess which cars of Toyota's and Honda's lineup have been growing the most rapidly? Corolla and Civic. Guess which GM and Ford models are declining in sales? IS ANYONE SUPRISED THAT GM AND FORD ARE GETTING KILLED BY THESE GUYS?

05-12-2005, 12:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
MaxLegroom 5.3 Liter Vortec V8 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Newport News, VA Drives: 2002 VW Passat 1996 Chrysler Sebring LX Posts: 1,463	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! Sadly, that is all that most people will see when looking for such information. I've tended to prefer to read Car and Driver's observed fuel economy. Whatever else you may have to say about the magazine, if you get worse gas mileage than that, you're probably in jail.

05-12-2005, 07:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
04Malibu 3.0 Liter SIDI V6 Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 636	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! The old Saturn S came really close to matching the Asian's economy. As for reliability, I saw conflicting reports. So we know that we can do it, why don't we? Something else very interesting is the consistency among models of the Asian makes. Buy a Corolla and you should get roughly identical mileage to the sticker. But buy a cobalt, (like a friend of mine did) and you might be three to four miles off. We are doing considerably better in the mid size segment, both GM and Ford. But the quality is hurting us there, at least so far. I really think it is about the quality. Manufacturing tolerances and margin for error.Although I will say I do love my 05 Malibu and, speaking of inconsistent mileage, am getting around 35 MPG highway. I hope they put that old 1.8 liter Saturn engine in the Cobalt and get 35 or 37 MPG out of it. That would really sell a lot of cars and, unfortunately with gas prices where they are at, the small cars will be where it's at for a while!! Last edited by 04Malibu : 05-12-2005 at 07:22 PM.

05-12-2005, 08:43 PM	#6 (permalink)
lordofgain 2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC Join Date: Mar 2005 Drives: 04' Silverado Z71 Ext cab, 02' modified SS Camaro Posts: 132	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! I have an 04' Silverado and an 02' Camaro. What's gas mileage? __________________ 04' Silverado Ext. Cab Z71, 02' SS Camaro

05-12-2005, 09:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
camaro chris 6.2 Liter LS3 V8 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Binghamton NY Posts: 3,657	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! actually my brothers 96 camaro got 30mpg on a trip from ny to ohio. __________________

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
GM Inside News Forum Advertisement

05-13-2005, 09:45 AM	#10 (permalink)
yoblues 6.2 Liter LS3 V8 Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,387	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! Everyone knows what happened. GM and Ford spent all the money on the trucks and suv's and ignored their cars. Toyota, Nissan etc. did it the other way around. Now they have the popular cars and can mess with the truck/suv market but if the bottom falls out of that market due to gas price crunch, they still have their popular cars to fall back on.

05-14-2005, 01:11 AM	#11 (permalink)
Hudson 6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,338	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! If gas mileage were the reason why vehicles sold, the Geo Metro XFi would have outsold the rest of the Metro lineup...which it didn't. Gas mileage (especially EPA ratings) is not the reason why people buy cars in the US. And definitely not the defining criteria to pick one vehicle over the next. Fuel efficiency ranks down on the average buyers check list.

05-14-2005, 01:29 AM	#12 (permalink)
Hemi Eater Walking Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Drives: 2005 Pontiac GXP Bonneville Posts: 9	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! Economy! What is that. 15.4 is best ever. 60 to 110 in under 1 second! With 4 Passengers in comfort

05-14-2005, 10:43 PM	#14 (permalink)
Hudson 6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,338	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! The US market (in the past 30 years) has had 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 cylinder engined cars and trucks. Today, the three-cylinder car (Honda Insight) is easily outsold by four-cylinder rivals (Honda Civic and Toyota Prius), even though they both put out lower mileage ratings and real world mileage numbers. There are more V10 models (Dodge Viper, Dodge Ram, Ford F-Series, Ford E-Series, Ford Excursion, BMW M5, Porsche Carrera GT, Volkswagen Touareg, Volkswagen Phaeton) on sale in the US than the total number of three banger models offered in the past three decades (Geo/Chevrolet Metro, Chevrolet Sprint, Subaru Justy, Honda Insight, Daihatsu Charade)...which may show that it's NOT economy that drives sales.

05-15-2005, 11:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
Michael_S 6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,842	Re: It's the fuel economy, stupid! Most of you are being extremist, and you know it. Obviously fuel efficiency isn't the most important factor. If it was, we'd all be riding horses - their distance of travel per calorie of energy is substantially higher than any mechanical vehicle. People look for fuel economy within the class of vehicles that fulfill their needs and their price range. The Honda Insight is slow, has very little space, and costs $20,000 - that's a bad buy by any metric. Nobody's going to buy a 30 mpg Ford Focus wagon if they need something that can two 4 tons, so in that case the Focus fuel economy is irrelevant to the comparison. But if a Silverado 1500 Vortec V8 can tow that much and provide better fuel economy than the Titan, Ram 1500, and F-150 V8 (and in fact, it does) then it should be someone's first choice. The Ridgeline can do better, but it can't tow 4 tons so it may as well be a Focus Wagon for the sake of that comparison. But compare a Cobalt to the Civic or Corolla. Crash ratings, interior space, performance, and price are similar. The Cobalt is a little safer and a little quicker. However, the Civic(31/38) and Corolla(31/39) average 7 mpg better fuel economy than the Cobalt (24/32) - which is a positively huge difference. I definitely think they have the edge. Compare an Aveo to the Scion xA or xB. Aveo has an edge in crash ratings. Otherwise space, performance, and price are similar. The Scions (31/34 and 32/37) average better fuel than the Aveo (27/35). The gap isn't as big as with a Cobalt, but it is there. If GM can make best in class fuel economy with its midsize sedans, large sedans, and trucks, why do they let the rest of the lineup lag behind?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode