[dindak]

A very positive review by Laurance Yap

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/2008-chevrolet-malibu-hybrid.htm

Toronto, Ontario - Funny thing about the trip computer on the new Chevy Malibu Hybrid. It's not telling you the truth - or, at least, the truth as you're expecting to see it. After a few days behind the wheel of this supposedly much more efficient version of the Malibu - which switches off the engine when you're stopped at a light and uses an electric motor to provide a power boost to the four-cylinder engine under hard acceleration - I was more than a little disappointed with the fuel economy numbers I was reading on the dashboard. At an average of over 11 L/100 km, the Hybrid not only seemed to be thirsty for a hybrid, but it was also a thirstier than the V6-powered, six-speed automatic Malibu LTZ that I'd driven back in January.

Such disappointment, however, didn't last very long when I went to fill the car with fuel. After calculating how much fuel I'd used over the distance I'd driven to that point, I came up with a much better average of just over 7 L/100 km - an excellent number for a midsize family sedan and almost half of what the trip computer was reading. What gives? ...

 

[WishIhadatruck]

You'd think they could at least make the trip computer work in a way to properly calculate the gas mileage. At least the car seems to actually deliver much improved mileage. If he got just over 7 L/100 km then that is low 30's mpg, not bad. I think that is about the same as Motor Trend got with the Saturn Aura in a test comparing it to the Camry and Altima hybrids. It seems to be capable of delivering better than the epa ratings.

 

[zete]

Now that makes a lot more sense. Good thing this guy checked to find out why the numbers seemed so high. Interestingly enough, this then explains why the Aura has similar high mileage numbers.

7l/100kms is a great number which is equivalent to approximately 34mpg. He's obviously showing that on a mixed circuit, so that number is very very impressive.

GM needs to do something to fix the computer to take into account the stops, otherwise those reviewers insufficiently curious won't check manually against what the onboard computer is telling them.

 

[mbukukanyau]

Tells you one thing, Canadian Auto writers think beyond the numbers they get from the car. American writers just assume what they see is the real deal.


To LUTZ- This car needs 3 things
1) A New Trip computer
2) A Six Speed Transmission
3) Loose some weight.

If you do that, It will best Camry/ Altima hybrids and be able to show lazy users that its doing it.

 

[mbukukanyau]

Indeed, save for something like an S-class Mercedes or a 7-series BMW, the Malibu Hybrid may be the best-riding car I've driven in recent memory.

All I can say is WOW!!!

 

[jwrebholz]

I can corroborate the comment about the ride. The car glides down the road with considerable grace and poise, but does so without feeling like a marshmallow.

 

[zete]

My dad test drove a Malibu recently and he, too, found the drive and the cabin quietness amazing. He was out looking at the Camry but felt it was too soft and kind of "tank like" -- his words. He happened to be driving past a Chevrolet dealer and figured, what the hey. He loved the Malibu. He's leaning that way, but wants to get every last drop out of his current ride since he won't get much for a trade.

 

[GMforME]

You'd think they could at least make the trip computer work in a way to properly calculate the gas mileage. At least the car seems to actually deliver much improved mileage. If he got just over 7 L/100 km then that is low 30's mpg, not bad. I think that is about the same as Motor Trend got with the Saturn Aura in a test comparing it to the Camry and Altima hybrids. It seems to be capable of delivering better than the epa ratings.

I've complained about this in house for months. Also the fact that when you use remote start it also effects the calculation. It calculates the fuel consumption when the vehicle is remote started against the fuel mileage number. While its true the vehicle used the fuel it is not a reflection of fuel mileage going down the road. This is an issue with all GM vehicles with remote start.
I made a proposal that we don't calculate fuel mileage during remote start (ie anytime the vehicle is not in key in run position but it hasn't gone anywhere)
In the winter 2 remote starts a day will crucify the fuel mileage average when its not a real indicator. You cannot believe how many vehicles come back for service for poor fuel mileage and its directly tied to remote start not an issue with the vehicle.

 

[member12]

Great news, but they need to update that trip computer to "whenever the car is in drive".

Is this also the BAS system?

 

[GMforME]

We've had alot of magazines beat us up for poor fuel mileage because of this to. They don't do an actual calculation they use the average trip calculation which can be way way off especially if they are using the remote start.

 

[ericmvest]

The 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid gets substantially better mpg than the trip computer states. Similar to General Motors being conservative in stated horsepower a few years ago, General Motors seems to be conservative in rating its vehicles' performance. It is better to under promise/over deliver than over promise/under deliver, but its even better to be spot on accurate.

Contrast General Motors to another auto maker, a Japanese one, which in recent years has had problems over stating horsepower and designing odometers that over stated mileage. These errors were always out of the customer's favor. This company is supposedly an engineering oriented company so you would think they would know how to measure horsepower and design accurate odometers.

This post comfirms my favorable impression of General Motors' integrity.

 

[GMforME]

The 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid gets substantially better mpg than the trip computer states

Yes they actually do. In fact all the BAS cars get better than sticker by quite a bit at times. If you actually check it you will find its true. The sticker is based on the Govt mandated city drive cycle which is not favorable to a BAS vehicle because of the way its run. Its not us underpromising, its whats required of us by the Govt that drives the sticker. Everyone laughs at 2MPG but its quite a bit better than that in real life. However we can't tell you that by the sticker because its the law.

The law on Odometers is +- 2% somone just got caught at 2.5%. Odo's are usually spot on. At least here they are here, its not hard at all to be within .1%
Its tire distance traveled (tire diameter*PI) calculated in pulses per rev off the ABS reluctor or the diff reluctor. Not a big deal.

 

[WishIhadatruck]

I think the mpg readout should include the remote start fuel usage. If you want to correct for that they they should provide 2 readouts. 1 for actual driving and another to show the impact of remote start.

 

[megeebee]

Too bad they don't make Malibu's any more:





http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...ity-go-strike-malibu-production-halted-63980/

 

[dindak]

Mileage for the review are better than most tests I have seen. Makes you wonder if others calculated the numbers properly.

Personally, I am not sure the Hybrid is worth the premium but one can't deny that 34mpg mixed driving is pretty impressive with a 4-speed.

 

[Bggriffi]

I've complained about this in house for months. Also the fact that when you use remote start it also effects the calculation. It calculates the fuel consumption when the vehicle is remote started against the fuel mileage number. While its true the vehicle used the fuel it is not a reflection of fuel mileage going down the road. This is an issue with all GM vehicles with remote start.
I made a proposal that we don't calculate fuel mileage during remote start (ie anytime the vehicle is not in key in run position but it hasn't gone anywhere)
In the winter 2 remote starts a day will crucify the fuel mileage average when its not a real indicator. You cannot believe how many vehicles come back for service for poor fuel mileage and its directly tied to remote start not an issue with the vehicle.

How? You are using fuel. If it was changed, people would complain when their manually calculated figures were nowhere close to the trip computer's estimate. If you use the remote start, you HAVE to expect to get lower fuel economy. The car is running without moving! Why do you think hybrids shut off when they aren't moving?

 

[GMforME]

I think the mpg readout should include the remote start fuel usage. If you want to correct for that they they should provide 2 readouts. 1 for actual driving and another to show the impact of remote start.

yes nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.
Problem is that it does not dawn on the customer or even Mag writers until it is pointed out by the service department. (ie the customer returns the vehicle for service for crappy fuel mileage. Which is in fact induced by the customer.) Usually by then their cheesed and don't want to hear it and they are also peeved they had to take the day off to bring their car in to have the dealer tell them theirs nothing wrong with it. (scratch that, after they left the car for 2 or three days while the dealer does a calculated fuel mileage check and then tells them theirs nothing wrong)

And the response you gave is the same response given on the engineering side however it is not possible to provide those calculations seperately at this time.

Ironically the customer manual talks about it but you know about 1% read it.

 

[GMforME]

How? You are using fuel. If it was changed, people would complain when their manually calculated figures were nowhere close to the trip computer's estimate. If you use the remote start, you HAVE to expect to get lower fuel economy. The car is running without moving! Why do you think hybrids shut off when they aren't moving?

I'm hearing you, no argument.
What the display should not say is Average Fuel Econ because its not. It should say total fuel consumed. Fuel economy indicates the vehicles ability to attain miles per gallon driven not miles per gallon sitting idling in the driveway.

As far as people HAVING to expect lower fuel economy you would be suprised for how many the light does not come on. And you would even be suprised how many tell us that it should get sticker wether they use remote or not. (I swear its true)

Now you see why it hasn't been changed because it can't be agreed upon yet.
The only thing that can be agreed upon is it is inaccurate. So my vote is to eliminate it all together.

 

[984mula]

Too bad they don't make Malibu's any more:





http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...ity-go-strike-malibu-production-halted-63980/

At least they use the Orion Plant in Auburn Hills MI where the G6 is produced as an overflow plant... Maybe they can boost Malibu production there while this takes place.

 

[shuggyman]

I'm hearing you, no argument.
What the display should not say is Average Fuel Econ because its not. It should say total fuel consumed. Fuel economy indicates the vehicles ability to attain miles per gallon driven not miles per gallon sitting idling in the driveway.

As far as people HAVING to expect lower fuel economy you would be suprised for how many the light does not come on. And you would even be suprised how many tell us that it should get sticker wether they use remote or not. (I swear its true)

Now you see why it hasn't been changed because it can't be agreed upon yet.
The only thing that can be agreed upon is it is inaccurate. So my vote is to eliminate it all together.

A lot of discussion relating to how close minded some consumers can be. The best/worst feature in most GM vehicles is the DIC that displays ACTUAL fuel economy numbers. While many customers driving vehicles without this display just assume fuel economy based on window sticker or the dreaded "I get great fuel economy... 500km to the tank", GM drivers know exactly what is happening to their vehicle.

Guess what? If you don't idle your car (remote start or highway traffic jams) you use less fuel. If you drive slightly slower, the lowered wind effect results in better fuel economy. If your tires are properly inflated... etc, etc, etc. The best thing about BAS is it's simplicity. It is really a high value hybrid that doesn't need fancy screens to tell you what is working. A simple ECO light tells you when it is getting better than sticker. Like a video game, you try to get the light to turn on as often as possible. The more you drive BAS the better you get at turning your light on. But really, what you are doing is becoming a more fuel efficient driver. You can prove this with the DIC's average fuel economy display.

The big point is that the number is calculated on actual fuel used in the engine, regardless of km's (miles for you southern friends). Much like the Oil Life Monitor, is has nothing really to do with how far you have gone but what you have done from point A to point B. There is no need to "fix" the DIC display... just for us to learn how to use our right foot better. At a $1.25 / Litre, the BAS system is both affordable and great at teaching you to be a more fuel efficient driver.

Driving one regularly... I usually average anywhere from 7.5 to 8.5 L / 100 km. The difference usually is directly related to my driving... not the BAS system.