2009 Fuel Economy Numbers Show Face

[steve333]

Originally Posted by SuperSS27

I get 38/39MPG cruising at 65 with the AC on in my Manual Cobalt. My last tank which I calculated by hand was 37.59 MPG. And I don't have the XFE, but I do have an 08.

I have never gotten more than 26 MPG with my '06 Cobalt Automatic.

[ral1960]

Originally Posted by steve333

I have never gotten more than 26 MPG with my '06 Cobalt Automatic.

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.

[Lorneh1234]

Originally Posted by steve333

I have never gotten more than 26 MPG with my '06 Cobalt Automatic.

OUCH I've never gotten worse than 33 MPG (imp) with my G5 Stick shift...

[SierraGS]

Originally Posted by K-1

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.

How have we "established" this?

3.5L Impalas get about 35 MPG Highway in the driving you you described getting >30 and many co-workers with 3.5L G6 and older Malibus get the same 33-36 range (speed dependant).

Buyers can also save about $1,500 with the 3.5L over the 3.6L and the average potential buyer is going to make the $20K plus purchase decision based upon the EPA numbers.

GM can also do an XFE model with a 3.5L Malibu and regain the previous ones 32 MPG Hwy rating (they already surpass it in the real world without XFE).

[SierraGS]

Anyone notice that the Trailblazer/Envoy 2WD 5.3L V8 gets better MPG 15/21 than the 4.2L I-6 14/20?

Odd

Any real world numbers to verify (or debunk) these ratings?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

Anyone notice that the Trailblazer/Envoy 2WD 5.3L V8 gets better MPG 15/21 than the 4.2L I-6 14/20?

Odd

Any real world numbers to verify (or debunk) these ratings?

I haven't done it in a while, but I think the last average was 18-19 MPG in my Envoy with the 4.2L I-6.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

How have we "established" this?

3.5L Impalas get about 35 MPG Highway in the driving you you described getting >30 and many co-workers with 3.5L G6 and older Malibus get the same 33-36 range (speed dependant).

Buyers can also save about $1,500 with the 3.5L over the 3.6L and the average potential buyer is going to make the $20K plus purchase decision based upon the EPA numbers.

GM can also do an XFE model with a 3.5L Malibu and regain the previous ones 32 MPG Hwy rating (they already surpass it in the real world without XFE).

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.

[mjd1001]

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'd beg to differ on that. I have a 3.6 Vue, my mother has a 3.6 G6 coupe, and my father has had a few 3.5 Impalas..and I have driven them all (even my parents car for more than a few small trips). Of course the Vue gets worse mileage due to the weight and aerodynamics, but I even notice the G6 with the 3.6 gets a few mpg worse than the 3.5 in the Impala. Maybe it is the gearing?? but I don't think so, because with the 6 speed in the G6, I would think the gearing would be more advantageous for better MPG. Yet, to me it seems the 3.5 definitly gets better mileage than the 3.6 in comparable vehicles.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

I'd beg to differ on that. I have a 3.6 Vue, my mother has a 3.6 G6 coupe, and my father has had a few 3.5 Impalas..and I have driven them all (even my parents car for more than a few small trips). Of course the Vue gets worse mileage due to the weight and aerodynamics, but I even notice the G6 with the 3.6 gets a few mpg worse than the 3.5 in the Impala. Maybe it is the gearing?? but I don't think so, because with the 6 speed in the G6, I would think the gearing would be more advantageous for better MPG. Yet, to me it seems the 3.5 definitly gets better mileage than the 3.6 in comparable vehicles.

Compare the 3.5L and 3.6L in the same vehicle and get back to me. Any other comparison is worthless.

[1487]

Originally Posted by SierraGS

How have we "established" this?

3.5L Impalas get about 35 MPG Highway in the driving you you described getting >30 and many co-workers with 3.5L G6 and older Malibus get the same 33-36 range (speed dependant).

Buyers can also save about $1,500 with the 3.5L over the 3.6L and the average potential buyer is going to make the $20K plus purchase decision based upon the EPA numbers.

GM can also do an XFE model with a 3.5L Malibu and regain the previous ones 32 MPG Hwy rating (they already surpass it in the real world without XFE).

The 3.6 doesnt get great mileage in the Aura. I have no doubt the 3.5 is better in terms of efficiency. I get 14mpg in the city and 25mpg on the hwy with AC on in the Aura XR. The 3.6 needs to be improved for car applications ASAP. I would rather have the 3.5 or 3.9L with AFm with a 6 speed auto.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by turbobuick-t-type

The C-1500 with the new 6-spd gets the same mileage as the old 4 spd. I thought there was supposed to be an improvment?

The GM 6-speed auto in the trucks is geared pretty short. It uses a 3.42 final drive ratio, but the actual gears in the transmission are shorter so the effective gear multiplier to the wheels is more than if you had a four speed automatic with 4.10s. So I'm betting acceleration is much improved, but gas mileage doesn't change.

[Michael_S]

When gas was cheap, and everyone drove like a lead foot, the 2007 and previous EPA mileage ratings were too high.

Now that gas costs a fortune, and lots more of us are driving with a light foot, the 2008 and newer EPA mileage ratings seem to be too low.

Originally Posted by TimR

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 think most people were ranting about the six speeds when gas was cheap and acceleration mattered more than fuel economy. GM's own numbers indicate that a move from four speeds to six speeds gives an 8% boost in acceleration. That's pretty big.

Of course, today fewer people care about that.

Originally Posted by airglow

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.

He wrote "6", probably meaning "Mazda 6", which is rated at 17/25 in V6 trim. That's at least one car in the midsize class that has a V6 with similar power to the Malibu V6 or Aura XR that's rated for worse mileage.

Originally Posted by 1487

24/33 is about what the Elantra and Sentra get. Its not far off the mark at all, even with the 4 speed. The focus and elantra and corolla also have four speeds.

GM is losing truck sales and SUV sales, so they should be doing everything they can to gain sedan sales. The new Cobalt figures aren't bad, and the XFE (manual transmission) numbers are spectacular. But the automatic transmission Cobalt (24/33, 27 combined) should match or beat the Civic automatic (25/36, 29 combined) and Corolla automatic (27/35, 30 combined). The Civic and Corolla have an edge in consumer minds, because they've been well known, highly rated economy cars for years.

GM needs to take that from them, and taking it is much easier when you flat out beat them at their own game. The Cobalt automatic doesn't do that.

[Eric77TA]

Originally Posted by jkennedy293

The Cobalt XFE is rated at a whopping 37mpg on the hwy. That's Mini Cooper territory.

And the Mini requires premium.

[Eric77TA]

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.

Agreed. Something is going on there. I get nearly 26 in all city driving with the A/C in my 2006 2.2 auto. I average mid 30s in mixed driving and can get nearly 40 at a constant 65 mph cruise.

[Eric77TA]

Originally Posted by Pinnacle

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

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.