GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A lot of this stuff has been beaten to death before in scores of previous threads, but I'm bringing them up again!

My figures are from fueleconomy.gov, which I feel is accurate. I'm doing my best to give fair comparisons.

RWD versus FWD

'08 Malibu, 3.6L/6 speed auto:
17 mpg city, 26 mpg freeway

'08 CTS, 3.6L (direct injection), 6 speed auto: 17 mpg city, 26 mpg freeway

Sorry Lutz, you're getting a FAIL. Telling us that CAFE made you guys can the RWD projects. Direct injection is not helping the CTS cheat much so don't go over that one, and hey, it has more power anyway. Both vehicles are new models with modern powertrains, both similar engines, both 6 speed automatics. Don't try pulling that again Bob.



Small turbocharged engines versus larger, naturally aspirated engines
Horsepower and size is roughly the same for both vehicles here...

'08 Mazda CX7 FWD:
turbocharged 2.3L, 6 speed auto: 17 mpg city, 23 mpg freeway

'08 Ford Edge FWD: 3.5L V6, 6 speed auto: 16 mpg city, 24 mpg freeway

Many people, including GMInsidenews members, have expressed the desire for drivetrain options to include a turbocharged four cylinder engine for better fuel economy. This has been discussed quite a bit with the upcoming Camaro. These engines apparently WON'T give those mileage benefits. The Edge won't suffer from ANY turbo lag and is arguably less complex. Oh and the turbo motor's gonna take premium fuel.



Unibody pickup trucks. There has been discussion of the need for GM to build a unibody pickup for less weight and thus better fuel economy. While GM doesn't offer one in the US, Honda sells the Ridgeline...

'08 Honda Ridgeline: 3.5L, 5 speed auto, 4WD (without low-range): 15 mpg city, 20 mpg freeway

'08 Chevrolet Silverado: 5.3L V8, 4 speed auto, 4WD: 14 mpg city, 19 mpg freeway

YES, I know, the Silverado gets worse mileage. Problem is, the Ridgeline is indeed a unibody vehicle and lacks low range gearing which a number of truck buyers would not approve of. 247 hp on the Ridgeline, 315 hp for the 5.3L Silverado. The Silverado considerable more horsepower and torque, towing capacity, and payload. I won't start with buyer's preferences. 1 mpg isn't much anyway considering what your buddies are gonna say to you...


One more thing is that I feel that vehicle fuel efficiency should be determined by vehicle BUYERS, NOT the government. We shouldn't have laws for this; I'm speaking mostly about CAFE. Consumer demand by itself would determine vehicle efficiency because if people want efficient vehicles, they'll buy them and not less efficient ones. For further reading see current SUV sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,488 Posts
Fully agreed F14!

But RWD will always drink "more" a bit, you are carrying more weight specifically more rotating mass... it's impossible to get rid of that in the equation. But does it make a difference in the real world? Not much. Take into account also the CTS is hugely heavy the Maliboo must be a couple hundred pounds fleeter.

Maybe the CTS has better aerodynamics?

But your last point I think is more correct than we'd like. I think the big RWD powerful cars that GM was considering (like Impalas) are dead in the water not so much because of CAFE but because they'd be nailed to the showroom floor just like 300 C's and SUV's.

The Ridgeline vs. Silverado difference is quite impressive - for the Silverado. The Silvy is a much heavier more powerful bigger better looking etc machine, the Ridgeline is basically an ugly Odyssey with the back of the roof cut off.

For his salt Lutz likes to play the media to his / GM's advantage. He was doing this at Chrysler too ;)



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks Saabr, at least someone read my rant lol. There's a number of misconceptions
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top