General Motors discussions

m1miata · April 2007

Good styled car, thought the rear end, if sold here in the States would have to change a little, as not to look like an Impala. The '08 Park Avenue, China looks pretty good.
Loren

torque_r · April 2007

""The facts are that Nissan, Toyota and Honda trucks get mediocre mileage.

I cannot think of ONE Japanese truck with a V6 or V8 that gets class leading mileage. .

Toyota Tacoma V6, Toyota RAV4 V6 and 4-cyl, Toyota Highlander V6, Toyota Sienna, Toyota 4Runner V6, Lexus RX350, Honda CR-V, Nissan Murano, Mazda CX-9, Mitsubishi Outlander.

nippononly · April 2007

RAV4 4-cyl is beaten by CRV isn't it? How can both be the class leader? Maybe they are tied?

Highlander V-6 is beaten by Equinox.

Sienna is at the top of its game though. However, Outlook/Acadia is very close behind.

The Mazda: rated 18/24. OK, but not exactly stellar. Outlook/Acadia is at 18/26.

The Mitsubishi: rated 20/27. Which class is it in? I would say, RAV4 class, in which case the RAV beats it (while also being more powerful and quicker).

bumpy · April 2007

so I'll just post it here.

torque_r · April 2007

"RAV4 4-cyl is beaten by CRV isn't it? How can both be the class leader? Maybe they are tied?

That's not the point. The point of the this whole post is that stating that Japanese deliver mediocre fuel ecomomy is false.

Highlander V-6 is beaten by Equinox

Not the same class. Highlander V6 is a 3-seater and priced like a Saturn Outlook. Besides, the Highlander is much heavier and has 85 more horsepower.

The Mazda: rated 18/24. OK, but not exactly stellar. Outlook/Acadia is at 18/26.

FWD: Mazda 19/24, Acadia 18/26
AWD Mazda 18/24, Acadia 17/24

The Mitsubishi: rated 20/27. Which class is it in? I would say, RAV4 class, in which case the RAV beats it (while also being more powerful and quicker).

And 20/27 is bad? Name one american truck with V6 that has that. You also ignored the Nissan Murano which at 20/24 is a class leader for the price.

cooterbfd · April 2007

Highlander V-6 is beaten by Equinox

Not the same class. Highlander V6 is a 3-seater and priced like a Saturn Outlook. Besides, the Highlander is much heavier and has 85 more horsepower.
You also ignored the Nissan Murano which at 20/24 is a class leader for the price.

OK, what class do you put the Highlander, Acadia, and Murano in? Seems to me, that w/ 3 rows and FWD/AWD availability they would all be crossovers and in the same catagory, right?

1487 · April 2007

"Toyota Tacoma V6, Toyota RAV4 V6 and 4-cyl, Toyota Highlander V6, Toyota Sienna, Toyota 4Runner V6, Lexus RX350, Honda CR-V, Nissan Murano, Mazda CX-9, Mitsubishi Outlander. "

Any numbers to back up those claims? The GM crossovers get same or better mileage than the 4runner, Murano (murano is higher in city mileage), CX-9 and Highlander. The Rav4 does have pretty good mileage. The rest are mediocre to worst in class. What makes you think vehicles like the 4Runner and CX-9 get class leading mileage? The CR-V and base Rav 4 are four cylinders and there arent a ton of domestic four cylinder SUVs. I specifically excluded fours.

1487 · April 2007

"That's not the point. The point of the this whole post is that stating that Japanese deliver mediocre fuel ecomomy is false. "

Japanese SUVs and Pickups with V6s and V8s get mediocre mileage. I fail to see how this statement is false. If you believe that to be true show us some EPA numbers. Sorry but 18/24 for a V6 crossover weighing only 4000lbs is hardly efficient. Most large Japanese crossovers get about 2mpg better mileage than comparable body on frame SUVs. The Europeans are even worse. Japanese body on frame SUVs are terrible in terms of mileage.

1487 · April 2007

I am pretty sure the CX-9 AWD is rated at 16/22 which is 1mpg better than Tahoe AWD. The Acadia is better by 1mpg in the City and 2mpg on the hwy. It's amazing how 16mpg on a domestic is a "gas guzzler" while the same rating for an import crossover is "efficient for it's size and power".

210delray · April 2007

And I'm supposed to know how to reset the oil change monitor when there's no owner's manual provided? Plus I wanted to SHOW ALAMO that they did a SHODDY job of getting my car ready -- zero oil life, almost no washer fluid, and underinflated tires (I did bring along my trusty tire gauge).

How is my opinion of a car or its features a misrepresentation?

210delray · April 2007

Thank you very much. I should have read your post first before I posted the previous one.

210delray · April 2007

Thank you. Actually the lot was cleared out of everything other than luxury cars and minivans when we got there at around 11 PM. We were wondering what to do when suddenly, "our" G6 was wheeled in. I think the Impala is considered a "full size" or "standard" car by Alamo, but the Malibu would have been equivalent.

BTW, I went with Alamo because of lower prices and GM cars, most of which now have standard side curtain airbags. I didn't want last year's crappy Sebring from the companies that use Chrysler primarily.

torque_r · April 2007

Any numbers to back up those claims?

am pretty sure the CX-9 AWD is rated at 16/22 "

Any REAL numbers to back your claim? And don't tell me the 16/22 is what the Mazda should be getting for 2008 and at the same time compare it to a 2007 Acadia. This game is old and exposed.
Also the Acadia should be put against Highlander, and 4Runner against Trailblazer. Both 4Runner and Trailblazer have low range and longitudinally mounted engines which cause the poorer fuel mileage (That's what Lutz said). These two should be compared to each other. It is funny you ignored the horrible mileage of the Trailblazer AWD (15/21) and the Colorado (16/23) and these are 6 cylinders and 5 cylinders we are talking.

nippononly · April 2007

I think to be fair, you have to compare crossovers to crossovers, and truck-based models to truck-based models.

4Runner makes like 17/21 in 4WD, 18/22 RWD. How does the Trailblazer do? edit...torque answered my question, TB makes 15/21, so 4Runner edges it, both have very low fuel economy. Both are also very old models at this point, designed at a time when America was still in the heyday of cheap gas.

As for the CX-9, I took my numbers straight from Edmunds, which lists the FWD at 18/24, torque posted a slightly different result.

Torque, your response is perfectly valid - all the models are tightly clustered around a totally mediocre, almost totally crappy result. None will do much better than 20 mpg in daily driving. I was just addressing your remarks literally, as to class leader, ie there can only be one leader, unless two models are tied.

cooterbfd · April 2007

Trailblazer 4WD I-6 15/21
Trailblazer 4WD V-8 15/21

4Runner 4WD V-6 17/21
4Runner 4WD V-8 16/19

Colorado 4WD I-4 16/23
Colorado 4WD I-5 16/22

Tacoma 4WD I-4 19/23
Tacoma 4WD V-6 18/21

Considering they are ALL within 10% of one another, I'd saythat either they're ALL good or ALL horrible.

nippononly · April 2007

My vote is: all horrible!

That's a neat trick of the Trailblazer's - the I-6 and V-8 are both rated identically? I wonder how they accomplished that.

1487 · April 2007

Um, the CX-9 gets 16/22 for 2007, not 2008. I'm not sure what "game" you are referring to. You can verify the EPA numbers if you want. It gets 15/21 for 2008. Believe it or not, I am not as stupid as you think. I would never compare 2008 numbers for one vehicle to 2007 numbers for another to make a point. The CX-9 mileage isnt that good, that's the bottom line.

How is the trailblazers mileage any more horrible than the CX-9 or ML350? The CX-9 is one 1mpg better but it's lighter and has a 6 speed auto and considerably less power. The Chevy has 290hp compared to 263 in the Mazda. Sorry, but the Mazda's advantage isnt that impressive when you consider all that. The 4Runner's mileage is just as bad as the Trailblazer.

1487 · April 2007

The V8 has DOD and much more torque and thus is no less efficient than the I-6 which works harder to move the same weight.

m1miata · April 2007

That inline 6 looks like a good engine. Is that the one made in China? Or are they made in two locations or more? About the ENGINE (click here) Once the cars start getting back to RWD, it would be good to see some inline 6 engines for cars once again. Looks like the V8 get 14/18 MPG. Anyway, it doesn't matter, all the SUV gas mileage rating look good for the gas and oil companies. If the V8 is DoD engine, like you mentioned, I think I would opt for the i6 engine. The 275# torque and HP should be enough, unless you are towing something really heavy, or simply prefer the V8. Both do the trick; it comes down to what you prefer some times. It may matter where the engine is built. From a mechanical standpoint, the inline 6 is interesting. Good ol' smooth and long lasting inline engines.
Loren

1487 · April 2007

The only US engine for GM built in China is the 3.5L V6 in the Equinox.

lokki · April 2007

Volvo had one, Audi had one, Honda had one, and now GM has one.

Sure it fits in a little less space than a 6, but are the few centimeters saved enough of an advantage to make them worth while?

5's and 3's never make sense to me.

bumpy · April 2007

Most 5-cylinders are either an I4 with an extra cylinder or an I6 with a cylinder chopped off. Honda's was a weirdo in that it was not only a longitudindal I5 in a FWD application, but it was a slant 5 to boot.

andres3 · April 2007

And there you have it, a Japanese V6 SUV with best in class mileage.

nippononly · April 2007

3-cylinder engines have the potential to save a lot of gas over the 4-cylinder, especially in very urban settings. If you do a lot of highway driving, the 4 will be almost as good on gas and you will want the extra cylinder.

Examples: the old Swift/Metro, and the old Justy.

The 5-cyl VW engine is thirsty AND has been accused of being a bit thrashy, and with its fuel economy you would think they could make a nice small V-6 to go in there instead for about the same cost and mpg rating. They don't use that engine anywhere else in the VW Group, so I can't imagine they achieve big cost savings by using an engine from another model.

gsemike · April 2007

An Equinox is about half the size of a Highlander. The Murano doesn't have a third row.

m1miata · April 2007

The VW engine also sounds kinda weird. Personally, I never liked the idea of engines which use a lot of oil. And longer break-in period for an engine is not so good, IMHO. I have never owned a VW, so I can only go by what I have heard on the Net about those cars using oil. I have however heard one driving away, while at a dealership. I esquired about the warranty coverage for oil consumption, and it appears up to 8/10 of a quart per 1,000 miles is considered normal. Engines can sure enough differ in the amount of oil they consume, but I am use to Japanese, and American engines which use less oil. Seems that they have a break-in period too. This leads me to believe that those people following the correct break-in period, and getting oil changed at the right time for the initial change, may have less or no problem with oil consumption. I am just not one to chance it though. I must say they look pretty tight. Great looking interiors. Test drove a Jetta with the i4 and it seemed like great torque off the line, then not much left after that. But the handling was good. Not sure how the latest is for power. Sure sounds weird.

In the GM line, I do like that 3.6 V6 in the Aura XR. Plenty of power off the line, with more on tap at the higher RPM. Sounds pretty good too! Test drove the 3.5 engine on three occasions. While not as good as the 3.6, it seems like it was less coarse than those OHV I had owned before from GM, idle seemed a bit smoother, with less shaking going on, and the power is up. The 3.6 however sounds better, loves to rev, while sounding better, and has that extra power punch. I liked it better than the OHV engine, though I must admit the 3.5 OHV with VVT old work horse gets the job done if cost cutting is required for that model of car,or it is just a basic transportation car. In the case of the Aura, they mate it to the 4 sp. tranny, so who knows how different the 3.5 would be with the 6 sp. like the 3.6 V6 gets. Then there are those people which do not like higher revving engines. To each his own, as they say. IMHO, the 3.6V6 engine seems to have the best future. With V6 engines, I prefer the OHC. Would love to see some inline 6 engines being used once again, in RWD cars.

The 3.5 OHV VVT engine is one of the more impressive in its class, as was the 3.8 OHV which had a good history. There are after market and updated intake manifold gaskets available from GM for those older 3.8V6 engined cars. Ford also had a problem with this, and has a replacement available for their 3.8.
Loren

tlong · April 2007

Going forward who has the more aggressive hybrid strategy GM or Honda? We can trash GM history all day long (I'm sure you will continue to do so) but if Honda is so committed to hybrids why do they only have two on the market with few plans to expand their offerings? Honda has two now, will have one by the end of the year and has another model in the works before the end of decade. GM has one out now, and three more coming by end of year. Hybrid pickups and Escalade plus two mode Vue are coming in 2008. We can all acknowldge GM wasnt the first into the hybrid game, but we cannot all agree that GM cares nothing about the tech and only the Japanese are committed to hybrid vehicles. If GM is so far behind Honda (and they are in hybrids) why is it that GM will have far more hybrid offerings than Honda within a year's time?

If GM is so far ahead in hybrids then why is Lutz complaining? GM's "lead" should enable them to put out those higher mileage cars more easily, this is a competitive advantage!

Let me guess, now you wil go on to tell me how GM's hybrid isnt "real" because its not a full blown $3000 system like Toyota's.

I'm with you on this. Since GM's system is much cheaper, where did Lutz get $5K/car to improve mileage? GM has a lead, remember?

210delray · April 2007

It's likely the car is serviced based on mileage rather than the oil life indicator - GM's version is very good.

Hmmm, I wonder about that in Alamo's case in Las Vegas. I mean, they rent primarily GM cars, so shouldn't they know about the oil life monitor by now? And if they do change on the basis of mileage, shouldn't they be using 5000- or 7500-mile intervals (or at most, 10K mile intervals)?

Yet, my rental started out with just over 12K miles and zero oil life -- I think it's quite possible the oil may NEVER have been changed.

Well I gave them an earful when I returned the car, and as we were clearing our belongings out, an employee wrote in grease pencil on the rear side window "PM" (for preventive maintenance).

210delray · April 2007

Wow, thanks for posting this -- what an eye-opener!

So over the period 1982-2004, GM had its best years in 1984-86, when it sold more than 6 million cars. In 2004, sales were down to 4.7 million. The mid-80s are when Roger Smith's GM started to lose its way, IMO, with the '85 fwd N cars (Grand Am, Calais, and Somerset coupes), the too-little, too-late W cars of '88 (after the wildly successful Taurus/Sable had been out for 2 years), and the disastrous downsizing of the Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado/Seville in 1986. And wasn't it until 1990 that GM finally introduced the 4-door W's?

Ford peaked in 1999-2000, at over 4 million. No wonder some thought Ford might overtake GM at the time. Then came the Firestone/Explorer disaster. It's been all downhill since.

Chrysler's best year was 1999, at 2.8 million, just after the "merger of equals." For a while things were looking good, especially 3 years ago, when the Chrysler 300 took the nation by storm. But things went awry very quickly just in the last year or so...

As for Honda and Toyota, they've increased sales almost every year, while Nissan has been less successful. Still, 2004 was Nissan's best year.

VW -- what a roller coaster! Clearly, their poor reliability has cost them in recent years. And in 1993, they were in perilous shape. I remember thinking at the time, they should just fold the tent and go home!

210delray · April 2007

I was just skimming through the last hundred or so posts.

Looks more like the Hundred Years War! :P

msfoster · April 2007

I need to pull my punches on v-6 fuel economy and GM. Out of all manufacturers GM has done the best with v-6 fuel economy. The same is true of v-8 economy as well. If anything my Suburban is probably the one big exception in the GM fleet. When I was looking I talked to a few owners of 3/4 ton models with the 454 and they were getting 12 mpg (city and highway mileage those engines don't seem to care which) sadly my 350 gets about 13.5 and it doesn't do any better on the highway. My dad's 91 Fleetwood gets 19 mpg in town with him drive (old man in a hat in disguise). When I drive it I get 17 to 18 in town. I haven't done a freeway trip so I can't comment on that.

As far as Lutz having seizures about fuel economy he should resucitate the old GM relationship with Suzuki and get the Metro back in production. On days where I'd slam the pedal to the floor and grab gears as fast as I could I got 42 mpg in town! As far as front seat room the only thing the Suburban beats the Metro on is shoulder and head room. I'm 6'4" and tall in the body so head room is hard for me to get. Of course throw three or more people and any stuff in the equation and the Metro shows it's size.

Anyone out there have any experience with the current line of GM 4 cylinder engines? This was always GMs challenge they could make bullet proof tractor 4 bangers but when they tried a ground up car 4 banger it usually blew up. Vega 4 and Quad 4 come to mind. Hopefully they got some engineering lessons from Honda in this department when they made that deal with Honda a few years ago.

msfoster · April 2007

I'm a big fan of the Metro 3 cylinder engine. Small, very light and revved like anything Honda builds. Put in the very light Metro it was a kick to drive not some lackluster economy car. Granted it wasn't a pocket rocket either but I'm hard to satisfy and it did do that. When I sold my Metro in had over 90,000 miles and was still running strong. And as you can tell it wasn't driven nicely.
The only five cylinder I've ever had a good impression of was the Audi one (never owned one though). Remember the run away Audis and that's the engine in those cars. Back then Audi was part of VW so I'm not sure why the current VW 5 is such a bad engine. Sounds like GM didn't do there homework on theirs either.

GM has got to get out of this "we don't make enough profit on small engines to do them right" mindset they've got. Have them build an engine over 3 liters and they do great, under and they seem to suck. Granted I have very little experience with anything under 3 liters in GMs current fleet. But what I'm reading here doesn't sound good. Oh and the Metro 3 cylinder is a Suzuki engine with a GM throttle body. Funny I just thought of the old Corvair 4 until I realized GM contracted to Porsche to do the engineering work on it! It appears that's what they need to do, get a company that is good at small engines to design them one.
Come on GM at the very least whack a 5.3 in half it's got to be better than most of your previous 4 cylinder efforts! And it will be great base engine for those RWD cars you are afraid to build because of fuel economy standards. Afterall you are the company that put the Iron Duke in late 60s and early 70s Novas! :surprise: Extremely rare cars but they built a few handfuls. Sadly I'll bet they were faster than my 87 S-10.

jerrywimer · April 2007

GM's current 5 cylinder is a whacked-off version of one of their best engines to date- the 4200 i6 (the one from the Trailblazer discussed above). The 2003 Trailblazer we owned had the i6, and it had excellent NVH characteristics as well as power. But (and this is a big one for some truck people), that power is very much in line with all the import / DOHC mills out there in that it's slow to come on right off the line, but picks up at around 2000 rpm and comes roaring (not so literally- this IS one smooth powerplant, even high in the revs) to its peak when it gets way up in the rpms.

This isn't really all that uncommon nowadays though- it's the same difference between GM's former 5.7l (350) V8's and the newer 5.3l engines. Both are OHV, and the 5.3l is rated far better on hp and torque, but the 5.7l just has it all over the 5.3l right off idle (great for towing). The 5.3l is still better than the 4200 off the line though, and overall has a torque advantage on the straight 6 anyway. Which is why the larger displacement / cylinder count block still achieves similar EPA ratings- it doesn't need to be rev'd as much to get the same results for the amount of weight both engines carry with the TBs.

But I've digressed from my original point- the Colorado / Canyon 3500 (3700 now?) 5 cylinder is basically an Atlas 4200 inline 6 with a cylinder lopped off, then a few changes made to rebalance the now unbalanced block. I briefly drove a GMC Canyon 4x4 crew cab as a loaner, and it had the 3500 (this was maybe their 2nd year of production). I wasn't all that impressed by the seat-of-the-pants feel of the engine in the truck, but had to admit that it was deceptive. While it didn't feel that strong, speed came up unexpectedly (ie. while waiting for it to 'feel like it was hitting its powerband peak' during acceleration, you'd look up and realize that you were already at the speed you were aiming for, if that makes any sense?).

You folks are discussing fuel economy too. So I'll put my own $.02 in on this. In my general experience, GM 6 and 8 cylinder vehicles can easily be driven to achieve at least 10% better than either city or highway EPA ratings (old system, not the even more stringent one). While I don't live in LA, New York, or Chicago (any more, yet), which does seem to greatly affect what you consider normal 'city' driving (hence, also city economy), my normal results for city / mix seem to be on the upper end of the range between EPA city and highway ratings in the old system. And this applies to *all* manufacturers, import or domestic.

But my true all-highway results have been far different. The import vehicles (2 Toyotas, 1 Suzuki) all seemed to easily hit the EPA highway numbers in these circumstances, +/- 1 mpg (on a 30mpg rated vehicle, that's within 3%). But that's pretty much the BEST I could do. Then again, it was also a pretty consistent experience, regardless of whether I drove 55 or 75 mph for the trip, and under normally variable weather conditions. My GM vehicles on the other hand, seem to be much more susceptible to variances in speed, driving style, and general driving conditions. For example, the 2004 Malibu LT with the 3500 V6 and 4 speed automatic tranny acheived as high as 38 mpg highway (routinely 36-38 if I drove cautiously), or as low as 31 mpg (harder starts, higher speeds, windy / rainy / hilly). Interestingly, the EPA highway ratings on that car were 23/32 city/highway, so the 31 was as close to its rating as the import vehicles I've owned on the low side, while the 36-38 was far above! It was fairly rare for our 'city' driving or mix of driving to earn numbers as low as 23 (happened maybe 1 time- during Christmas shopping season, when we pretty much idled on the main drag by the Asheville, NC mall for most of a weekend- nutty traffic during the holidays there, but not unusual, given that this strip of road is poorly designed and normally pretty congested all year anyway). Regular daily mix driving normally was between 28 and 30 mpg.

Now just on the current posts I've read above, as well as other owners elsewhere making economy posts, two things seem to be true:
1) I drive in a way that earns me better economy in most situations than the "average" driver.
2) Most import trucks and SUVs, despite being lighter, with smaller displacement, with higher tech drivetrains (according to those who think OHC is 'better' than OHV and more modern) and more gears, seem to be pretty much on par or even just below average for fuel economy when compared to domestics in the same class. Keep in mind that this means comparing 'crossovers' to 'crossovers', and BOF vehicles to BOF vehicles. Posts above bear this out.

Ironically, some of the current crop of import crossovers aren't returning any better economy than some domestic BOF vehicles though. If you're to believe the media that BOF ("trucks") are dinosaurs and should be phased out of most markets in favor of the crossovers, and that it's because crossovers are more efficient, you wouldn't expect such results.

A really harsh example for some of you, keeping in mind my first point above about my driving and results- For the past month to month-and-a-half my 07 Avalanche 5.3L V8 4 speed automatic four wheel drive LTZ (loaded up to the gills with options, and weighing close to 6000 pounds, if not more with ME in the driver's seat), has earned me 20+ mpg on my daily drive to and from work. The route IS mostly highway or two lane rural road (~12 miles a day rural route, 24 miles highway, 1 mile city 3-stoplight / 30 mph or less driving). The highway part is fairly hilly / mountainous (this IS western NC), including a 6 mile stretch of VERY steep grade. The worst average I've had from this vehicle for this trip so far was in the low 17's, and was related to winter temperatures, high wind, and me on the gas at higher speeds than I usually have. Other than that, even with somewhat poor conditions (and maybe winter blend fuel?), it was usually in the mid 18's or low 19's. So why are all the cute-ute owners looking down on me, when they achieve routine results that are at best about the same in their tiny 4000 pound 4 / 6 cylinder 150-200 hp 5 / 6 speed automatic vehicles? Dunno. At one time it bothered me, but now I don't care. I get my cake and eat it too- but I DO figure that they should be able to do much better!

lemko · April 2007

Actually it's the old 3.4 V-6.

jerrywimer · April 2007

Oh yeah. And GM's Ecotec 4 cylinder seems like a great little 4 banger as far as all measures BUT fuel economy are concerned. (having driven a couple GM compacts with different versions of this mill recently)

But I do wish GM'd get on the ball on the fuel economy side with the small powerplants. Hondotassan 4's, 6's, and 8's may not impress me all that much for their economy (or power in most cases) in SUVs or trucks of any sort, but there's no arguing that when the smaller engines (4's especially) are used in their cars they are far above and beyond GM for efficiency while not sacrificing any power to do so. Wake up GM!

lemko · April 2007

My girlfriend's first new car was a blue 1986 Chevrolet Sprint with that 1.0 litre 3-cylinder engine. I think it sold new for only $4,500.

Per it's modern equivalent, the Aveo isn't a bad car. My Mom has one and I'm surprised at the amount of space in the back seat. I sat in a 2007 Aveo at the Philly Auto Show and the car seemed well-trimmed for an econo car.

jerrywimer · April 2007

I think the Aveo's only real failing is fuel economy. If it equal to or better than the rest of the micro-econo-cars currently available right now in that area, it'd do even better than it does in the market now. I'm not sure it'd cause any magazines or media to flinch from the undying loyalty to certain "other" brands though. Those "others" are too well entrenched.

nippononly · April 2007

I will second that. Aveo owners need apologize for nothing in those cars, and I like that Chevy is making a wide array of options available that aren't available in some other subcompacts (ahem, TOYOTA, ahem). The ONLY drawback to the Aveo is the fuel economy isn't there for a car in this class. 27 EPA city? Come on! These are small cars with the smallest engines on the road in America, yet they can only manage a 10% improvement on the Accord 4-cylinder for fuel economy?

imidazol97 · April 2007

What are the real world mileage figures that Aveo car owners experience? How to they compare to others?

The EPA ratings have been miseading at times, yet some use them like bibles. My own experience with cars and EPA is that they do MUCH better on the highway and in the city driving than EPA suggested. I suspect Aveo also does the same.

nippononly · April 2007

But remember, EPA is nothing more than a frame of reference. If all cars exceed EPA, then Aveo will also, but so will the ones rated much more highly.

lokki · April 2007

Not surprisingly, Edmunds has an active discusson going on that very subject:

Chevrolet Aveo: Real World MPG by KarenS HOST :P

1487 · April 2007

"If GM is so far ahead in hybrids then why is Lutz complaining? GM's "lead" should enable them to put out those higher mileage cars more easily, this is a competitive advantage! "

Instead of responding to the facts I laid out you are directing your response to Lutz's comments. Lutz was talking about a specific platform, he didnt say GM as a whole didn't believe in making any fuel efficient vehicles. Just so you know, Toyota and the rest of the industry agree with Lutz that the CAFE proposal is all wrong. Lutz is saying they cant get a 30% increase in mileage on large RWD cars across the board while maintaining performance. Hybrid drivetrains are very limited production right now and its unrealistic to expect that GM could make an entire platform utilize hybrid powertrains to acheive a 30% increase in mileage.

"I'm with you on this. Since GM's system is much cheaper, where did Lutz get $5K/car to improve mileage? GM has a lead, remember? "

Again, I am lost as to your point. What does GM's "lead" (which I never claimed they have) have to do with costs? Hybrid powertrainss are expensive and its estimated a full hybrid system costs over $3000. GM's BAS hybrid system is far cheaper but the car cannot run on electric only. I have no idea what their upcoming two-mode system costs but it will definitely be closer to what Toyota's system costs due to complexity. Lutz just said $5K per car, but I don't think he meant that was an exact figure. I understand that you don't like Lutz or anyone associated with GM but I think it's pointless to hang on his every word and then ask other to explain or defend them. He was trying to make a point.

1487 · April 2007

"GM has got to get out of this "we don't make enough profit on small engines to do them right" mindset they've got. Have them build an engine over 3 liters and they do great, under and they seem to suck. Granted I have very little experience with anything under 3 liters in GMs current fleet. But what I'm reading here doesn't sound good. "

what are you basing this statement on? Have you heard of the 2.8L turbo with 250hp, 2L turbo with 260hp, 2.4L ecotec with 173-177hp or the 2L supercharged 2L with 205hp? It's ridiculous to say the GM doesnt believe in making good small engines. GM has far better four cylinder options than most of the competition.

nippononly · April 2007

So I skimmed through a couple of pages and it seems like most people are getting somewhere in the 28-32 range around town, with many getting close to 40 on all-highway trips.

Not bad, but nowhere near today's fuel economy leaders (and not just among subcompacts).

andre1969 · April 2007

Thanks for that table, Bumpy...that's some GREAT information! You wouldn't by any chance have access to data older than that, would you?

Also, I'm wondering, are those calendar year totals or model year? I'm guessing calendar year, which would explain why GM's total for 1983 is up so much over 1982. The economy started to recover later in 1983, and 1984 ended up being a very strong model year for GM.

I always looked at 1985 as GM's last year of unbridled dominance. Even though the domestic industry had been faltering since the 1970's, it was mainly Ford and Chrysler that were getting hurt. While GM wasn't immune, they weathered the 70's and the 1981-83 downturn pretty well. But by 1983, Chrysler and Ford were coming back on the strength of the small LTD/Marquis and the new aero Cougar/T-bird, while Chrysler was adding yet more permutations of the K-car.

Still, in 1985, GM actually had 7 of the top ten selling cars. They were, in no particular order, the Cavalier, Caprice, Celebrity, Century, Delta 88, Cutlass Ciera (I remember this one was #4) and Cutlass Supreme (this one was #9). Ford had two top ten cars: the Escort and Tempo. And in spite of the vast inroads the Japanese were making, they only had one top-ten selling car model: the Nissan Sentra.

Things would change quickly though, as the 1986 Taurus practically rewrote history overnight, and as Japanese cars started adopting the traditional american philosophy of bigger and heavier, making them more broadly appealing to American tastes.

**Note: back in those days, it seemed that nobody really paid attention to truck sales. If you factor in trucks, stuff like the Chevy C/K and Ford F-series would definitely have been in the top ten, even back then. Dodge wouldn't be a major player in big trucks until the 1994 redesign though. It's possible though, that by 1985 that the Plymouth Voyager minivan, classified as a truck, would have been a top ten seller if they counted cars with trucks.

lokki · April 2007

Here's an interesting perspective on GM from Japan - translated into english - it's intended for people interested in the Japanese Auto industry, and thus written from that perspective. Bear in mind that translation is an art, and that there are cultural differences too, but I think you'll find it informative

The Japanese Automobile Industry Does Not Bring the World Happiness (June 2005)

A couple of quotes:
"In reality, the big three were about to master the Lean Production System, and it was thought that "the advantage of Japanese automobiles was lost". However, it seems that the U.S. firms' catch-up ended halfway."

"...what happened to the U.S. industry? A former reporter of an economic magazine summarized it as follows in "The Wane of the King GM". "GM wanted partners in order to implement cost reduction by utilizing the advantage of scale."; "They did not have a concept of improving each other through friendly rivalry. This can be verified by the fact that there have been no remarkable accomplishments in jointly developed cars." With regard to the purchase of automobile parts, too, "it is obvious which company would succeed in strengthening the corporate structure, Toyota, which is always struggling to reduce costs in units of 0.1 yen by involving part makers, and GM, which forces part makers to discount prices via the power of 'numbers' by resorting to group joint sales."

210delray · April 2007

Though I'm not bumpy, I'm glad you chimed in on this chart. I made a reply a few posts back, but everyone just continued with their prior ~~arguments~~ discussions. :P

Undoubtedly, the chart is for calendar year, as keeping track of sales by model year is hard to do, what with all the leftover cars selling well into the next model year (or even calendar year), plus new model introductions occurring at any time of the year.

Even when Ward's does it by "model year," it's simply sales data from October 1 through the following Sept. 30.

Yep, GM "jumped the shark" saleswise after about 1985. Everyone rails about those awful 70s Vegas and such, but those small cars were never GM's bread and butter. Wasn't 1986 the last model year Oldsmobile sold over 1 million cars (and they were all CARS then)?

xrunner2 · April 2007

Very interesting table. What is the source and is data for 2005 and 2006 available?

GM sales numbers flat over the period of the table while everyone else was growing.

grbeck · April 2007

You're right, 1986 was the last year that Oldsmobile sold over 1 million cars. And those were CARS - SUVs or minivans were not in the lineup.

And I believe that the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was still the nation's number-one selling car (although the Ford F-150 has been the best-selling VEHICLE since 1981).

Interestingly, Oldsmobile's saga relects GM's decline. When Olds started to falter, so did GM.

m1miata · April 2007

Daweo / Aveo doesn't have great gas mileage for such a tiny car. Not impressed. And they seem overpriced. At least all the Aveos I ever saw. If I wanted a Korean car, I would just buy the Hyundai and get the warranty. For gas mileage and resale, the Corolla / Civic come to mind. Anything smaller, is too - too little. We have one of those Smart cars running around the area. Must be a test car. I think those are pretty safe, yet I would not use one on a California freeway, competing for space with SUVs and crazy drivers.

Loren

General Motors discussions

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles