2009 Fuel Economy Numbers Show Face

[steve333]

Originally Posted by ral1960

That's pathetic. I've gotten that on trips in my Caddy when fully loaded, and averaged that with my Intrigue around town. Is your driving style that aggressive? All stop & go? Flat tires? All hilly terrain? Otherwise, I'd have your engine checked. Years ago, an engine sensor went bad (right after a tune-up), the mpg dropped, then the fuel pump blew from overwork.

Nope, new tires at 35psi, engine thriowing no codes. I drive a mix of city and freeway with cruise set to 70mph. I drive what I would consider to be normal, not aggressive.

[Pinnacle]

Originally Posted by Eric77TA

That would be nice, but that would exceed the highway mileage of the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa by several MPG and only be 1 MPG worse than the SMART. Methinks it will take weight loss or less displacement than the 2.2 (maybe the upcoming 1.4 turbo?) for a car the Malibu's size to beat the subcompacts.

I was just expecting alittle more then 34 out of this hybrid, you have to say thats not impressive the 4 speed NON-hybrid is getting 35 from word of mouth that I have heard, I would have to see real world figures on this car.

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by K-1

Last I checked, 33mpg was higher than ">30". There is no appreciable fuel economy difference between the 3.5L and 3.6L outside the EPA test.

I doubt you have ever got anywhere near 33 MPG in a 3.6L Aura.

Sorry, but I have asked dozens of owners of 3.6L powered cars and reviewed hundreds of posts/reviews online from owners of the same and most are in the 24-28 range. That is better than most competitors and better than the EPA rating, but not better than similar research shows what most 3.5L powered vehicles get (30-35) and many get 24 MPG in "mixed" driving.

[USA1Fan]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

I doubt you have ever got anywhere near 33 MPG in a 3.6L Aura.

Sorry, but I have asked dozens of owners of 3.6L powered cars and reviewed hundreds of posts/reviews online from owners of the same and most are in the 24-28 range. That is better than most competitors and better than the EPA rating, but not better than similar research shows what most 3.5L powered vehicles get (30-35) and many get 24 MPG in "mixed" driving.

It's entirely possible that someone got 33 in the 3.6L Aura. My best tank so far in my 3.6L Malibu was 32.2, and I expect that I could have even higher on an all-highway trip (haven't done one of those yet). This is still mostly highway, but was one of my week's commutes (er, a week worth, duh).

True, most of my tanks have returned somewhere between mid 28 and 31, but I could easily see hitting 33, just not routinely.

As far as the whole discussion between the 3.5 and the 3.6 go though, I have to side with you. The 2004 3500 (non-VVT 205hp version) in our old Malibu easily got 34 highway all the time, and on those same long trips would return 36 or so, with a high of just over 38 for one of them. Even though the fuel economy for the newer VVT engine dropped a little, it's still rated at around 3 mpg better than the 3.6, so I'd expect it to actually return an average about that much better for most drivers.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

I doubt you have ever got anywhere near 33 MPG in a 3.6L Aura.

There are a LOT of factors that affect mileage. Elevation has a big impact...temperature, climate, how the person drives, options (or lack of), a/c usage, engine condition, tranny condition, tire pressures, wheel bearings, etc etc so a statement of mileage is useless without these variables being known, and so is shooting down the claimed mileage.

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by USA1Fan

It's entirely possible that someone got 33 in the 3.6L Aura. My best tank so far in my 3.6L Malibu was 32.2, and I expect that I could have even higher on an all-highway trip (haven't done one of those yet). This is still mostly highway, but was one of my week's commutes (er, a week worth, duh).

True, most of my tanks have returned somewhere between mid 28 and 31, but I could easily see hitting 33, just not routinely.

As far as the whole discussion between the 3.5 and the 3.6 go though, I have to side with you. The 2004 3500 (non-VVT 205hp version) in our old Malibu easily got 34 highway all the time, and on those same long trips would return 36 or so, with a high of just over 38 for one of them. Even though the fuel economy for the newer VVT engine dropped a little, it's still rated at around 3 mpg better than the 3.6, so I'd expect it to actually return an average about that much better for most drivers.

My point really is a 3.6L not getting 33 MPG routinely as this is the way it was originally presented, not one instance.

I had a 3100 Malibu and the highest was 40 MPG and it was mostly downhill with no traffic and since there was fog and I was on strange roads averaged about 62 MPH, perfect conditions for maximum MPG but completely abnormal. The trip average was 33 MPG at an avg speed around 75 MPH.

I someone asked the MPG I used 33 as an avg. high NOT the 40.

I would say from what I have seen/heard that 28 MPG is a repeatable number for most drivers in most highway driving and that is a great number for an OHC V6 and better than most and what is typical for GM vehicles higher than the EPA number.

[USA1Fan]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

My point really is a 3.6L not getting 33 MPG routinely as this is the way it was originally presented, not one instance.

I had a 3100 Malibu and the highest was 40 MPG and it was mostly downhill with no traffic and since there was fog and I was on strange roads averaged about 62 MPH, perfect conditions for maximum MPG but completely abnormal. The trip average was 33 MPG at an avg speed around 75 MPH.

I someone asked the MPG I used 33 as an avg. high NOT the 40.

I would say from what I have seen/heard that 28 MPG is a repeatable number for most drivers in most highway driving and that is a great number for an OHC V6 and better than most and what is typical for GM vehicles higher than the EPA number.

Fair enough, and I agree. 28 mpg is repeatable. I haven't worked my overall average out yet, but it's probably just over 29 mpg. Assuming I use the AC more often as it gets hotter / muggier around here (or because of heavy rain where I can't open the windows), I expect it to drop rather than rise. So 28's probably just about dead on.

[cyclone]

I think im going to get a 2009 Malibu, or an Enclave,to replace my TrailBlazer.

[Joe in T.O.]

So the Cobalt XFE gets better highway gas mileage than a Corolla? Is the Cobalt XFE only sold in the States or is it available in Canada too? I have seen nothing as far as advertising this mileage increase.

[arcticF7]

Originally Posted by WishIhadatruck

Nice improvement for the Cobalt but it still isn't as good with the automatic (which most people buy) as the Corolla or Civic. The next generation car with its new powertrains can't get here soon enough.

The Malibu is definitely impressive.

Automatics are for pussies!!!!!

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by arcticF7

Automatics are for pussies!!!!!

Yeah, but "pussies" by 97% of the cars on sale in the US. So the fact that the Cobalt XFE manual gets awesome fuel economy isn't going to give GM the Cobalt sales it wants.

[fenderbender]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

Yeah, but "pussies" by 97% of the cars on sale in the US. So the fact that the Cobalt XFE manual gets awesome fuel economy isn't going to give GM the Cobalt sales it wants.

But they're on the right track.

If GM was smart (haha) they would advertise the crap out of this.

Sure the automatic doesn't lead the class (33), but it's still not bad. Certainly better than the joke of a small car with 31 highway mpg. (Previous Cobalt Auto)

[USA1Fan]

Originally Posted by USA1Fan

Fair enough, and I agree. 28 mpg is repeatable. I haven't worked my overall average out yet, but it's probably just over 29 mpg. Assuming I use the AC more often as it gets hotter / muggier around here (or because of heavy rain where I can't open the windows), I expect it to drop rather than rise. So 28's probably just about dead on.

Just updating my LTZ info- I've logged around 7 months worth of driving so far, and I was right. The overall average (nearly all highway) is right at 29mpg so far.

As far as automatics vs. manuals go- you must've lost a few screws if you think autos are for pussies. I've owned several manuals, and would again if the situation was right. But for all the hilly / mountainous / city / stop and go driving I've done, manuals were nothing but a PITA. Automatics are much better in these situations.

[Eric77TA]

Originally Posted by fenderbender

But they're on the right track.

They appear to be considering they can't build enough Cobalts to keep up with demand right now. They're having to add overtime at Lordstown:

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/27995939.html

Our local Chevy dealer can't keep Cobalts on the lot.