2009 Fuel Economy Numbers Show Face

[01sunfire01]

my g5 mixed driveing i get about 29.7 to 29.9 thats like long country roads and alittle city driveing. on the highway i get anywheres from 33-38

[TimR]

Well for everybody screaming about no 6 speeds in the pickup trucks and how they will raise mileage drastically, they have the 5.3L 2wd with auto 4 speed, and the 5.3 2wd with the auto 6 speed and mileage is identical.

[Chevy Ryan]

Originally Posted by TimR

Well for everybody screaming about no 6 speeds in the pickup trucks and how they will raise mileage drastically, they have the 5.3L 2wd with auto 4 speed, and the 5.3 2wd with the auto 6 speed and mileage is identical.

For a 4x4 and 5.3L, mileage went from 14/19 to 14/20. But the same thing happened when they put the 6 speed in the 4 cylinder Malibu, city mileage stayed the same and highway went up a little (I realize they're different transmissions, but the point is the two extra gears only help on the highway cycle).

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Chevy Ryan

For a 4x4 and 5.3L, mileage went from 14/19 to 14/20. But the same thing happened when they put the 6 speed in the 4 cylinder Malibu, city mileage stayed the same and highway went up a little (I realize they're different transmissions, but the point is the two extra gears only help on the highway cycle).

Agreed, and I'd like the 6 speed just for acceleration purposes, but 1 mpg is nothing and the way people were going on around here you'd think it was going to double the mileage. All you have to do is look at the top (highway) gear to see the change was going to be nothing basically (.70 4 speed to .67 with the 6 speed)....

I would have thought it would help out the city rating more actually. Not sure what they have done with rear gear ratios but it would appear not much...if they could have gone 3.42 or even 3.23 instead of 3.73 the lower first gear of the 6 would keep acceleration the same but reduce highway rpms for better mileage (maybe).

[airglow]

Originally Posted by K-1

The lowest I've gotten in my 3.6L on the highway is 28mpg - 80+mph w/ A/C. Other times, it's >30mpg. It's far from "fuel sucking".

Compared to the 3.5L V-6, and some competitors V-6's, the GM 3.6L truly is "fuel sucking" in the Aura and Malibu. On the other hand, even before DI in the 08 Lambda’s, the 3.6L was best in class for fuel economy. I guess it depends on the application.

According to the EPA for the Malibu/Aura, the 3.5L/4 speed gets 1 MPG better city and 3 MPG better highway than the 3.6L/6 speed.

Why not offer the cheaper, better MPG powertrain combination for those consumers who would be willing to give up some horsepower for better MPG, but still want a V-6?

My wife needs to get a new company car this year. She is likely to buy an 08 Aura since it was available with the more efficient 3.5L V-6, and it looks like Saturn has plenty of them clogging their lots. We’d rather get a Malibu, but GM has decided if we want a V-6, we have to buy the more powerful, less efficient, more expensive 3.6L. No high MPG value V-6 for you!!! Talk about bad timing to drop the efficient 3.5L V-6 from the Aura with gas at $4/Gal.

[airglow]

Originally Posted by 1487

the 6 gets slightly worse mileage than the Aura V6.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

For 08 and 09 the 3.5L/4 speed in the Aura/Malibu were rated identically at 18/29. There is no 3.5L available for 09 in the Aura, and the 3.5L Malibu is apparently fleet only, just like it was in 08.

For 08 and 09 the 3.6L/6 speed in the Aura/Malibu are rated identically at17/26.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by airglow

Compared to the 3.5L V-6, and some competitors V-6's, the GM 3.6L truly is "fuel sucking" in the Aura and Malibu. On the other hand, even before DI in the 08 Lambda’s, the 3.6L was best in class for fuel economy. I guess it depends on the application.

According to the EPA for the Malibu/Aura, the 3.5L/4 speed gets 1 MPG better city and 3 MPG better highway than the 3.6L/6 speed.

Why not offer the cheaper, better MPG powertrain combination for those consumers who would be willing to give up some horsepower for better MPG, but still want a V-6?

My wife needs to get a new company car this year. She is likely to buy an 08 Aura since it was available with the more efficient 3.5L V-6, and it looks like Saturn has plenty of them clogging their lots. We’d rather get a Malibu, but GM has decided if we want a V-6, we have to buy the more powerful, less efficient, more expensive 3.6L. No high MPG value V-6 for you!!! Talk about bad timing to drop the efficient 3.5L V-6 from the Aura with gas at $4/Gal.

I think we've already established that the EPA ratings are bunk for the 3.6L in the Epsilons. In the "real world", there isn't a difference in efficiency between the 3.5L and 3.6L.

[motor75]

I'm getting about 37 MPG now with an '08 Cobalt LT (non-XFE) manual 5-speed - and these are calculations based on milage and fuel consumed, not from the DIC which is typically about 1MPG higher than reality. I can't quite understand why they can't come close to that number in an automatic - you'd think they should be able to hit 35MPG with an Auto 2.2L Cobalt.

[gardnet1]

GM should continue with XFE models across the entire vehicle line-up.

Example:I-4/6-speed Colorado with smaller, narrow run-stop tires (no spare needed), non-heavy duty combination alternator/starter, start/stop technology, 4 1/2' bed, cylinder deactivation, aero package and electronic power steering. I would also look into lightweight insulation.

Engineers from Space & Misslie programs from the Air Force and NASA would be great resources for hire as they can get the weight out of vehicles with the least amount of compromise.

[Pinnacle]

I was hopeing the Malibu numbers would be 39 to 40.

[Ed Arcuri]

I attended the NHRA Mile High Nationals last weekend. While there, I stopped at the Pontiac display to look at the G-8 and Solstice GXP.
I asked a Pontiac representative if a flex fuel Solstice was on the way. He responded that he knew of none, but that he had been asked the same question several times that day.
My take is: offering the flex fuel capability is "green", an important attribute these days; it gives the buyer fuel options; and it isn't expensive to add this feature. As I have said before, packaging the E85 capability with other features, and charging more for the package, could give GM slightly higher transaction prices while offering something some buyers want.
Cheers,
Ed Arcuri

[TimR]

Originally Posted by gardnet1

Engineers from Space & Misslie programs from the Air Force and NASA would be great resources for hire as they can get the weight out of vehicles with the least amount of compromise.

Yeah and a Cobalt would cost 1.7 Million dollars!!!

[hrcslam]

I thought the 3.6L DI in the Outlook was supposed to boost the gas mileage of the Lambda's to 26-28mpg's? What happened? It shows only 1mpg increase in the City.

[hrcslam]

Originally Posted by TimR

Yeah and a Cobalt would cost 1.7 Million dollars!!!

That might cover a down payment!

[ral1960]

Originally Posted by hrcslam

I thought the 3.6L DI in the Outlook was supposed to boost the gas mileage of the Lambda's to 26-28mpg's? What happened? It shows only 1mpg increase in the City.

Engine displacement and gear ratios did not change.
DI saves fuel mostly during cold starts (reduces emissions, too), and quicker up-shifts when accelerating.
You save more fuel with DI by downsizing the engine for the same performance as non-DI.