Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevrolet Malibu MPG-Real World Numbers

1568101116

Comments

  • ronbo10ronbo10 Posts: 45
    Hello- long time since I've posted on this forum. My wife and I trade off driving our 2006 Malibu Maxx. It's been a great car for us overall- a few niggling problems- had to have the steering column replaced twice (latest update seems to have done the trick). Anyway, during the break-in period I too was not getting the mileage I had been led to expect based on others' reports. Had maybe 3000 miles on it and was still getting low 20's, while others were getting 26 to 28 mpg, some as high as 34 or so on the highway. I had been coddling the thing too much, it would seem. I finally decided to do a few max performance accelerations (5 or 6 zero-to-sixty runs), and sure enough my mileage improved significantly thereafter. I mean immediately. Today we get about 28 to 29 mpg on average with 75% highway, 25% suburban. I guess that extra pressure in the combustion chambers exerted enough outward force on the piston rings such that they finally seated properly. I of course can't confirm that this is the reason for my improved mileage, but it did seem to correlate.

    You might give it a try...couldn't hurt.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Had maybe 3000 miles on it and was still getting low 20's... I had
    been coddling the thing too much, it would seem. I finally decided to
    do a few max performance accelerations (5 or 6 zero-to-sixty runs),
    and sure enough my mileage improved significantly thereafter.


    Interesting... Did you follow the New Vehicle Break-In instructions in
    the Owner Manual, (p. 2-21):

    Do not drive at any one speed -- fast or slow -- for the first 500
    miles (805 km). Do not make full-throttle starts.

    ?
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    It can't hurt. I may have to give it a try.
  • ronbo10ronbo10 Posts: 45
    Interesting... Did you follow the New Vehicle Break-In instructions in
    the Owner Manual, (p. 2-21):

    Do not drive at any one speed -- fast or slow -- for the first 500
    miles (805 km). Do not make full-throttle starts.


    Yes, as I recall. I tried to stay off the interstates etc. I'm thinking I had been perhaps gentle with it, to the extreme... Definitely no full throttle starts or anything of that nature.
  • I've had mine for one tankful (its a 2007 Maxx LS) and according to the DIC, I'm getting 22.5 mpg in city driving.
  • ronbo10ronbo10 Posts: 45
    If I do nothing but city driving, my 2006 Maxx LTZ will get around 20 mpg. In my area it's mostly suburban, with not too bad average speeds, as long as I avoid rush hour, anyway. With a mix of suburban and highway, I'll get around 28 to 29. Pure highway as high as 32. The car has been fairly susceptible to the effects of cold temperatures (worse mileage, of course), and winter fuel blends (if I were to guess, probably about a 7-8% reduction in fuel economy).
  • '04 Malibu V6 ~99k

    Pure highway driving gets me ~38 mpg. When I take an average of the week with some town and rush hour traffic filled in, I'll get 27.

    Let me note that I'm extremely happy, and confident, in these numbers.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Pure highway driving gets me ~38 mpg.
    How do you measure this? What is your definition of "~"?
  • It sounds like it was measured by hand, during fillups. The "~" would mean "around" (as in, "not near my log, so can't post exact numbers"). Either way though, those numbers sound pretty spot on. The 2004 V6 LT sedan we had was the same way, with a best ever just over 38 mpg all highway, and routinely 32-35 ~90% highway mix of weekly work driving, and a worst city return of around 25 mpg.

    The 3500 non-VVT was pretty frugal, and the much criticized EPS probably helped. Later model years limited the EPS to the 4 cylinder cars only, losing the slight efficiency bump it provided (word was, around 1 mpg gained for the electric power steering).
  • I am very interested in real world highway mpg with the 2.4L with the six-speed transmission. I know it's rated at 33, but what kind of driving would you have to do to get that kind of mpg? I drive a lot of miles for my job, anywhere from 1500 to 2000 per month and a LOT of that is interstate driving. I like to drive slow, usually around 60mph, and in my current car, a 2006 Hyundai Accent, I get great mileage, over 36mpg lifetime.

    Would I be setting myself up for a mpg disappointment consdiering a malibu? I'd be driving the malibu the same way, nice and slow on the highway, so I'm real interesed in how it would perform at a nice slow highway speed.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    I have not had a chance to take mine on the road. If you go back and read some of the previous entries, you'll see people who indicate that they are getting 30+ on the highway. I will tell you I get somewhere in the 23 - 26 range, usually about 24. That's with a commute that's about 75% highway and 25% suburban streets and some around-town driving. I'd be kidding if I said I wasn't disappointed. In all fairness, I drive 5 - 10 mph over the speed limit (pretty common around here) and I'm not gentle about how I use the car.
    That said, there is much to recommend this car.
  • Hello,

    I know the VVT v6 was introduced in MY 2007......when did the Electronic Power Steering disappear for the 6cyl?

    Looking at the revised EPA Numbers are as follows for the MAXX 3.6....

    City / Hwy / Combined

    04 19 / 28 / 22
    05 20 / 28 / 23
    06 20 / 28 / 23
    07 18 / 28 / 21

    Was the drop in 07 due to the VVT? The loss of EPS? Emissions? Other equipment (tires/transmission)? Why the gain from 04 to 05/06?

    I'd like to find the sweet spot mileage wise. Where do you feel that would be?

    Is there any strong argument why going for the 2007 with the VVT engine is worth it?

    It's a lot easier finding extremely well equipped 04 and 05s then 06 and 07s, though I prefer the external styling of the newer ones as well the the updated interior colors.

    Grrrr....help!

    Thanks,

    Jason

    Just FYI, SS fuel econ #s
    06SS 16/24/19
    07SS 15/22/18
  • Wow. Lots of questions. I was once pretty active on the, er, some other car enthusiasts forums, one of which is all about GM. I believe the Electric Power Steering went away for all V6 cars for the 2007 model year. That was the year that Chevrolet moved from the LX9 3.5l V6 (no VVT) to the LZ4 3.5l VVT V6 for the 2007 model year.

    The EPS had some issues for the first two years, though I haven't heard any real complaints from owners with the four cylinders cars (all of which still have EPS). The only recurring comments are about the feel it provides (over boosted, underboosted, etc.).

    As far as the fuel economy sweet spot- I have a bias, since I owned a 2004, but everything I've read seems to indicate that the fuel economy dropped with the VVT engine (and change to hydraulic steering), which pretty much lines up with your numbers between 04-06 and the 07 numbers. I seriously doubt the very small increase in power would be noticable (torque remained unchanged for the vvt / non-vvt engines, hp went from 200 to 217).

    So if you don't mind the electric power steering's feel, I'd go with an 06 (newer), if you can find one in good enough condition. That said, the difference in fuel economy ratings is still pretty small across all four model years.
  • I own the base 2007 Malibu (4 cyl). I just drove home or the holiday, I surprised to see I was averaging 37.5 miles to the gallon according to the electronic display. I was just under 700 miles before I had my first fill up! City driving is what I mostly do and I average about 24.5 miles to the gallon for it. I love this car! :shades:
  • Recently took delivery of an '08 Malibu LTZ 4 cylinder, 6 speed automatic (granite black with the dual-color interior). The car was a dealer demo with approximately 5,000 miles on it (should be through any 'break-in' phase). Obviously one of the biggest selling points was the EPA gas mileage, which was significantly better than my '06 Accord EX V6 (22/33 versus 20/29).

    Driving conditions are as follows (and are, unfortunately, about as bad as can be reasonably expected). Daily commute of about 5-6 miles each way, city driving only, no posted speed limits over 25 mph. Stop signs and stop lights about every half mile for the first three miles or so and then more frequently after that. In addition, I live in Grand Rapids, MI, which has had temperatures around 10-15 degrees and several inches (at least) of snow since I got the car (I almost feel bad for the car...coming out of the nice, clean, dry showroom into this mess:)).

    So far I have driven approximately 510 miles, which includes 260 straight highway miles (75 mph cruise) and 250 miles under the conditions described above. The DIC says that I am averaging about 22.7 mpg (which I think is a bit generous, given the fact that my second full tank is approximately 3/4 gone and my first fill up was 13.77 gallons). The instantaneous fuel economy while I was on the expressway was consistently above 30, usually in the 33 - 34 range. In the city, it is obviously much worse, and since I rarely get up to speed for more than 5 or 10 seconds, it is depressing to look at (usually 8-12 mpg). I am looking forward to a tank of pure city driving so that I can see how awful it really is, but I am thinking that it is somewhere in the 14 - 15 mpg range, which is truly depressing. I understand that it is mostly driving conditions, but I was still expecting much better. The Accord seemed to be around 17 - 18 mpg under similar circumstances, if I remember correctly.

    Other than the city fuel economy, the car it self is the nicest that I have ever owned. Interior is great, ride is smooth, cabin is very, very quiet.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    As I've noted in previous posts, my car is almost exactly like yours (I have the cocoa/cashmere interior). I now have 8000 miles on the car and I have changed to synthetic oil. And, yet, my fuel mileage has not improved. I'm still hovering in the 22 - 25 mpg range. I've only taken it on the road once and I experienced a problem with the cruise control. After shifting down to go up a hill, it was not shifting back into 6th. So I traveled quite a way in 5th gear without realizing it. The dealership found the problem in the TCM and fixed it, but my mileage that trip was only 26 - 27 mpg. Needless to say, I am very disappointed in the mileage this car is returning. I've had V6's that have done that good. In fact, my Corvette does that good - or better. Weather permitting, I'll be taking it on the road again the weekend after Christmas. So we'll see how good (or bad) it does now that the problem is fixed. But I really did anticipate better.
    The other real complaint I have is the 6 speed automatic. It is constantly hunting up and down and still never seems to be in the right gear. When I need to make a quick move in traffic, the car takes far too long to respond. It's as bad as any turbo lag I've ever experienced. I occasionally get so frustrated with it I resort to shifting manually and keeping it in a lower gear, to keep the RPMs in a more usable range. Even when in manual mode, it takes to long to shift. While the Malibu was in the shop, I recently drove an HHR with the 4 cyl and a 4 speed automatic. I found that transmission far more driveable. And there was hardly any difference in fuel mileage. That just shouldn't be. I would also note that the CVT in the Rogue, with the paddle shifters, shifts much more crisply and quickly.
    I've noted a few other niggling things previously - like no dual zone climate control or the fact that the back seat does not fold flat. But, given the class of car, those are not major problems.
    Other than that, you are right, it is a nice car. But I probably would not buy another one.
  • donnieldonniel Posts: 3
    I'm looking at used 2008 Malibu LS 6cyl. at dealer, both have 25000 miles, anyone have any mileage #'s for this model, has auto trans.
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,275
    [i][b]I'm looking at used 2008 Malibu LS 6cyl. at dealer, both have 25000 miles, anyone have any mileage #'s for this model, has auto trans.[/b][i/]

    We have a 2008 LS 4-cylinder with about 12,000 miles on it. We are getting 21 MPG in mostly city driving. By the way the LS does not come with a V6.
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,275
    I'm looking at used 2008 Malibu LS 6cyl. at dealer, both have 25000 miles, anyone have any mileage #'s for this model, has auto trans.

    We have a 2008 LS 4-cylinder with about 12,000 miles on it. We are getting 21 MPG in mostly city driving. By the way the LS does not come with a V6.
  • donnieldonniel Posts: 3
    I just called dealer again, this is a Malibu Classic identical to 2007 models, this ran over into 2008 production, does have 6cyl., these were fleet vehicles.
  • packer3packer3 Posts: 277
    I would stay away from it with that kind of miles on it in a short period of time I'll bet somebody pounded that car over time.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Keeping my records: an updated table after another long (1150 miles
    one way) trip recently:

    +-------+-------+------+
    | When | Where | MPG |
    --------+-------+------+
    | 08/05 | MA-TN | 36.6 |
    | .......... | TN-MA | 36.8 |
    +-------+-------+------+
    | 08/08 | MA-TN | 36.6 |
    | .......... | TN-MA | 37.4 |
    +-------+-------+------+
    | 09/05 | MA-TN | 38.2 |
    | .......... | TN-MA | 37.8 |
    +-------+-------+------+

    The bottom line: 38.2 MPG, the highest so far; 37.8 MPG with the car
    fully loaded, going over mountains easily.

    A great, great car (Base Sedan 2005).
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    I will use it on same commute that gets me 23 mpg in a 4.3 L, 4 spd auto, Sonoma ext cab (3850 lbs). Car is lighter by couple hundred lbs, has a little more than half the displacement, 107k less miles on it, and much better aerodynamics, tires, and electric steering. 9 of my 15 mile commute is interstate 55 zone with daily speed traps but no congestion. Will I be able to get over 27mpg? The Sonoma is rated 20 hwy, so by direct comparison, I would get 33 combined in the Malibu.
  • paopao Posts: 1,867
    Im sure his 37.7 above is with a 4 cyl.....with it...yes...with the 6cyl....close...I have a 6 in my 04 Maxx LT...and average 24-26 city driving....30-33 on the highway over long hauls.....the new engines..dont seem to get quite as good MPG....as the 6s in the 04-05 MY......about a 1 -2 MPG difference from what I have seen people reflect on the boards here
  • hickorychickoryc Posts: 25
    Hatchback is a great design. My milage over lifetime of ownership (new 2004) has been 28 mpg. Keep 40 pounds in the Japanese tires that have a pressure not to exceed label of 55. Very fully loaded last summer for 3,000 mile vacation, put tires at 45 while paying $4 per gallon. Still got high 20's. Going to a 4-cyl tomorrow with 6-speed auto. Hoping to average low 30's. BTW the front passenger seat of 2010 Fusion SE folds down exactly the same way as the Maxx. Will still be able to haul 8' lumber.
  • 09 LT2 4 cyl 6AT. Too new to tell. I just filled the first time yesterday. DIC said 25.4MPG. That was a combination of roads. DIC has showed in the mid 40's with cruise set at 55MPH.
    I suspect I will need a few thousand miles before it shows best mileage. Wife bought a KIA and was only in the low 20's until it had over 10K miles. Now it seems to get 25.4 local or highway. I'm sure it would be better if it was a steady 65 or 70 MPH, but these days, if you don't stick with the pack on the interstate, you get run over.

    More when it at least gets first oil change.
  • Just passed the official break-in of 500 miles, have 586, and mileage still sucks.
    Also I've seen a number of posts claiming the best car owned except for mileage.
    I've had a bit of experience.
    62 Buick Skylark w/ 215 V8. Lousy engine. One of GM's early adventures into aluminum block. Damn things lasted about the same as Chevy Vega's first engines. Lucky to be good past 60K.
    68 Mustang fastback 302 4bbl from factory. Hitting it, you could hear the front end fully extend with a pronounced clunk. Driving it decently it could get 19MPG, but required premium fuel and at prices of 4 gal for a $1, who cared? It responded well except on ice and snow and had a lot of interior squeaks and rattles. My brothers drove it while I was in Nam and ruined the engine because they were too cheap to buy premium fuel, leaded and 100+ octane. Burned the valves.
    72 Mazda RX2 It served me well, except the mileage was a big disappointment, especially that this was the time of shortages and spiraling prices. That rotary made the car fast and powerful compared to I-4 model. And it seemed that there was something peculiar about that car. Maybe it was the color or quiet of the engine, but people kept running into me, as if they did not see me.
    65 Chevelle 283. Was wifes car when we got married. Ragged to death. Totally worn out. Terrible on gas, too.
    73 Buick LeSabre mid size V8. Did not keep long. First lengthy drive, radiator sprung leak, over-heated, and cracked head. Started to fix, but after pulling intake manifold and saw that mess of gunk, looked like a bunch of dinosaurs died in there, and got rid of it. (In those days, 9 of 10 mechanics would have said Quaker State oil.)
    74 Town Car with big V8. Think I got burned on that one too, Pretty certain the odometer was rolled over, maybe more than once. Second winter, transmission was slow to engage. Best of about 18 MPG highway.
    78 Mercury Gran Marquis with 400M Dealer did not stand up to used car warranty. Fixed 2 of the 3 major gripes myself after repeated trips to dealer. No one could fix the third. A hard braking or panic braking would through the car sideways. I sold it to someone on crutches who said he only needed to get 3 blocks to and from grocery store. I later realized the problem from a picture that showed the factory tool on the brake diverter valve, used during bleeding of brakes only. Damn thing had been left on at factory. But was glad it was gone anyway since it was poor mileage and 400M were known to blow around 90K.
    81 Pontiac Bonneville with Olds 307. Not a bad car, especially the engine. I'd wished they had kept Olds and killed off Buick or Pontiac.
    84 Mercury Topaz D This car was the mileage king. 38MPG everyday locally and just shy of 50 on highway. Might still have it except idiots at dealer replace timing belt and had it one tooth, 10 degrees, late and it was about 50K miles later I discovered it. So I was somewhat leary of it after that and wife wanted it gone, just before this last round of high gas prices. I really wished I'd kept. It road good and was reasonably quiet. No get up and go though.
    86 Sable top model 3.0, fully loaded including electric defrost on front window. Was daughters car. I had to rebuild transmission because the AXOD had a frequent problem. Low gear clutch bands would break. Otherwise a really solid car with about 17.5 local and 22 highway.
    86 Pontiac Parisienne 307 Olds w/ overdrive and TCC. Car was dogged to death when I got it. Well not quite, but terrible brakes, tires, A/C pump, water pump, carbueration, and ignition. I fixed all that and was excellent car. Body not as heavy as Bonneville though. 17.5 locally and 22 highway. It got rear ended and totalled, sigh.
    92 Ford Taurus 3.0 They definitely lightened up the vehicle with redesign from the 86. Not near as solid or quiet, but better mileage because of different injection system, electronic transmission controll making the AXOD a AXOD-E. Those 3.0 12 valve were very dependable. Most common problem I know of with them is at around 100K, oil pan gasket needs replacing. At about 160K, woman cut in front of daughter with a new Suburban. Totalled the Taurus and daughters injuries were limited to air bag deployment and seat belt. Although the Suburban only showed sheet metal and bent rear wheel, I'm sure that rear axle was damaged and frame bent too.
    The above car was passed to another daughter, before it was killed, and purchased a 95 Buick Regal 3.1 for wife. It was rather basic, but great on gas. About 20 locally and 28+ on highway. But this engine was famous for the Dex-Cool/blown gaskets issue. Blew upper intake shortly after we got it and it blew some gasket it seemed about 120K. Car was transferred to daughter by then, after the Taurus total.

    Another sad story. After Taurus settlement, wife and daughter picked up a 96 Olds Aurora from someone they called friend. BS! The car was a refugee from a junk yard. Brakes were shot. Tires, no two alike, 3 undersize one size and the 4th two sizes. Car had obvious body damage and paint job that looked like brush job in someones back yard. Interior was in terrible condition. Car was obviously not safe to drive and gave daughter the Regal and I ended up with Aurora. First time in it, the steering column broke and fell into my lap.
    I got it drivable in a safe condition and did a lot of work to it. Still looked terrible, but that 32V 4.0 was very peppy and not terrible on gas if you drove respectably, especially for a very heavy car! 18MPG locally, 28 highway if you kept to 60MPH. Up to about 77MPH, it was 25+MPG, but anything over that the DIC would show rapid decreases.
    This car is easily the best overall car I ever owned. Supreme handling, ride, roominess, comfort, braking, quiet, etc. Bose Sound too. At 100MPH, the only sound was like the air rushing around the cabin of a jet when he is throttled back. Autobahn version had minor change, required V rated tire, so you could really cruise. Since Olds went under, you had to go to Cadillac for service. Premium fuel was needed in the Aurora engine until about 2 years ago and it was famous for nit picky problems. Many caused by using non-GM parts. If I could find a clean one, I'd buy if price was right, just to have around for occasional use.
    97 Sable 3.0 Wifes car and another dependable vehicle, although noisy and still lighter than earlier models. About 23MPG highway. Another weak point in this line of cars was the stabilizer bar links, not a major repair, but often going bad around 80K because the grease boots would fail past 50K. Jiffy L_be tried to sell wife a transmission fluid change, she declined. A few weeks later she had problem on highway, like it was jumping out of gear. She went to service station and sold her transmission fluid, wrong type.
    By time I found out she had problem, she had shlepped it to dealer and they said transmission. I assumed she sprung a leak, where else would 4 quarts go? I went to dealer, no puddle
  • Has anyone been getting the advertised mileage with this combo?

    I noticed some wild swings on the DIC and it seems to be slow to calculate the instantaneous.

    I can not help but wonder if GM pulled a fast one on us. Several years back, the EPA allowed that to happen in trucks with V8. I don't remember what size engine. Of course the EPA was pushing cleaner air and one way to do that was use some alcohol. GM had not yet approved this engine for any alcohol claiming it would be corrosive to a few of the fuel related parts. These were very minor parts that might have needed plating for corrosion and would only cost a couple of dollars per vehicle. To encourage GM to get off their [non-permissible content removed] and do it, the EPA allowed them an incentive of rating the MPG something like 3MPG higher than real world figures.
    That was so the vehicle would be approved for 10% ethanol. And everyone knows that you get less mileage with ethanol.

    And that might answer the discussion of why the rating decreased around 2007. I had wondered about those changes myself, thinking maybe it was cleaner air restrictions or that they revised the test methods. But it could also be that was about the time of national roll out of all service stations moving to the 10% blend and the vehicles might have been tested with that instead of pure gas in 2007.
  • I have been meaning to come back on and post my real-world mileage figures, but haven't gotten to it. To answer e net rider's question, though, I have not seen the advertised mileage with this car. I have an '09 LTZ with the 4 cyl, 6A. Currently there are approximately 15,600 miles on the odometer. The absolute best I have seen is a little over 28 mpg. My wife drove it from KC to DesMoines a while back and got about 29.5 mpg. But neither of us have broken 30. I have seen mileage around town as low as 19 mpg. In mixed driving (in-town and freeway), I usually get 22 - 23 mpg. My barber, on the other hand, has an LT2 with the same powertrain and he regularly gets 30 - 33 mpg on the road. He gets mid-twenties in mixed driving. He drives about 5 mph slower than I do, but so does my wife.
    One other anomaly I have noticed is that the DIC, on average, shows poorer fuel mileage than does the calculator. Sometimes it's only a fraction and sometimes its a full mpg. But the calculator shows better fuel mileage than the DIC indicates.
    It's a bit off-subject, but the other disappointment I have with this car is the 6A. It's always 'hunting' and the downshifts (even in manual mode) are quite slow. It's like really bad turbo-lag. Lift in mid-corner, then get back in the throttle and it hesitates. Need quick response in traffic? Forget about it. Plan ahead. I hate it. I wish I had a manual in this car. Very disappointing when you consider that GM's 4As are among the best.
    For those of you who would council me to consult the dealer on these issues - I have. Everything is 'normal'. (I trust my service dept., by the way.) These two issues seem to be ruining what might otherwise be a good ownership experience. On the whole, I like the car. But, when people ask what I think about it, what they usually hear is, "It's OK, but...."
    Now, as for my 'Vette with the 6M or any of the GM trucks I have owned (currently an '04 Avalanche) - I have nothing but good things to say about them. They do everything I've asked of them. And they generally get the mileage advertised on the Monroney - even under the old EPA testing methods.
    I'd like to replace the truck, as it is 5 years old, but it looks like I'll be replacing the Malibu before that happens. That's how unhappy I am with it.
  • Thanks for reply.
    As to the shifting, I have to wonder if a better programming for shift points would help? That is mileage and response. I've noticed a couple of other annoying things in this arena. When letting off from moderate to hard acceleration, it seems to upshift before engine or something properly spins down, giving the vehicle an additional slight bump in accerleration when you've already tried to slow. That seems dangerous to me! And sometimes it will hold in a gear with the engine turning so slowly it seems to be laboring hard, especially if you gradually accelerate.
    New experiences yesterday:
    An odd slight vibration, seeming to vary with road surface maybe, but hard to determine exactly what it is. Sound is very subdued. Almost like a bad CV joint sometimes and if it is occurring, it is more noticeable during braking, which then makes it seem like a rotor is also a possibility. And maybe like a flat spot on tire, and more noticeable when doing a slight steering correction (another issue).
    Regardless of the specific cause of that, I'd say the tires have an issue for certain. When pulling into traffic from a store road, I went through a small pot-hole puddle with moderately heavy acceleration. The road was dry. I found that the vehicle was trying to correct for wheel spin and felt like it was trying to do a duck walk, almost like having wheel hop and positraction going on at the same time. I will certainly being paying closer attention to suspension handling and at the very least say these Firestone FR710 tires are partially at fault. If it had been the Aurora with the same amount of pedal, it likely would not have spun unless I fully dropped the pedal on the V8.
    So far these tires are suspect for terrible wet traction, noise, poor tracking on varying road surface, maybe out of round, and harsh ride with prescribed pressure.

    And steering. I like a tight precise steering that tracks well on the road. It may be due to ELS since I'm unfamiliar with that, but there feels like slop in the wheel. Normally this would be like a worn out power steering unit or rack & pinion or worn parts in the steering column.
1568101116
Sign In or Register to comment.