Howdy, Stranger!

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





General Motors discussions

1788789791793794930

Comments

  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Looks like your Park Ave has been getting 5 mpg more in both city and highway than EPA's numbers. With your "light foot" you can achieve 35/45 with a Honda civic. I'll say 12 mpg makes a HUGE difference...

    Honda Civic and Buick Park Avenue
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    BTW, a Corolla can easily get 40 MPG on a freeway, even using the gas pedal. The 33 MPG in a Park Ave, is hard to believe unless going downhill, both ways . :D
    L
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    it sounds as if you are lobbing a bomb on our Buick buying decisions. BTW I'm 38, and all I've ever owned is BUICKS.

    Uhh...I think you need to read lemko's original post.

    In "his standard" I meant his standard of Buick as a "small car" not Buick as a "low quality car". We can argue about Buick is either low or high quality all day long and no one will come out as the winner because it is hard to define low to high quality. However, it is clear to anybody that no Buicks can be considered as small cars.

    For some constructive criticism: Next time try to figure out the whole situation before making comments like that.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Has Honda dropped the Civic Si for '08?

    No, Sir.

    Instead Honda has added a Civic Si Sedan.

    :P
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Depends how you run the numbers. Sure, if found at a good enough discount price, it may be an equal to the Civic price wise. In most cases, it costs more as a total price in and out of the deal. Check out the Intellichoice site for true cost of ownership. If they cost the same, won't you really rather have the real deal? If you are talking value overall, is that not a Hyundai, with the worlds best warranty?
    H
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    BTW, a Corolla can easily get 40 MPG on a freeway, even using the gas pedal. The 33 MPG in a Park Ave, is hard to believe unless going downhill, both ways

    I've driven my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and I think I got about 37.5 mpg, on a trip up to PA and back. Probably averaging about 65-70 mph with occasional jaunts on up to 80. Mainly just going with the flow of traffic. I think it's EPA-rated at 30/38. And there were some hills and valleys on that trip, too. A bigger car with taller gearing will sometimes do better in that kind of driving because it'll pick up speed going downhill and that helps it coast up the next hill a bit better. I'd have to keep my foot on the gas with the Corolla though, or it would actually lose speed going downhill!

    Last time I checked the fuel economy on my Intrepid, I got almost 29 mpg. Fairly level terrain, from Harrisburg PA, out near Allentown, and back. A/C running full blast the whole time. It's rated at 20/29. The Park Ave was rated 20/29 for the regular 3.8, and I think 19/28 for the supercharged model. I think the supercharged model is geared more aggressively than the regular model, but I'm sure they're both taller than my Intrepid, so as long as you keep your foot out of it, they can get pretty good economy.

    I think Imidazol97 has mentioned getting low 30's out of his LeSabres.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Posts: 420
    I find 35 mpg in true city driving without hypermiling to be a tad bit high. You are encroaching on hybrid territory there. I consider true city driving spending half your time at a stop light/sign, the speed limit is 25-30 mph and you are surrounded by other cars. It is very difficult for any vehicle to get decent mileage in those conditions. You can't really coast that much.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    If the Corolla is loaded with passengers, or facing a good wind, the MPG slides into the 34 to 37 MPG quickly. And yes, the V6 GM's I have owned got upwards of higher 20's to as much as 30 MPG - can't complain about OHV V6 with tall gearing actually gettin EPA ++ MPG with ease.

    Is the Ecotec i4 GM engine the answer for gas mileage and performance overall? Is it the transmission and car weight which is killing the MPG comparisons? If so, diet and new tranny, and it is a done deal. I understand the engine won awards by Wards which is some authority in automotive. Does this translate to engines capable of doing 200k to 300k miles? How about smoothness? I have no idea of what the latest USA four bangers are like, other than one I tested in a Fusion, which was sort of peppy, sort of buzzy, and little noisy -- not too bad. If the four banger by GM is now world class, why not lower the car weight on the Cobalt and give it a new transmission, if that is what is holding down the gas mileage. If you got a couple more MPG than a Civic, that would be a good advertising point.
    L
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My 2002 Seville with the 4.6 liter northstar would average about 29 MPG on a long trip if I limited my cruising speed to 70 MPH. My 98 Aurora would do that well too. My 95 supercharged Riviera would do about the same as the Aurora, but I never limited my cruising speed so it usually averaged around 27-28 MPG.

    My SRX averaged about 21 MPG cruising about 70 MPH (or less). It was hot on that trip in July. Plus, with only 3000 miles on the odometer when I started, it was not broken in that well.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Rivieras, now those were a lot of interesting twists and turns of a product over the years. The 60's pretty cool and wild, and '93 I thought had a decent style to it, compared to so many other boring looks in cars. Wonder how good the Corvette single leaf spring worked out in those Buicks? Will the '95 be a collector car some day? I looked up HP and it stated 205HP with an impressive boost to torque with the blower. Didn't the Delta88 once have 225HP version of the 3800 II engine? Anyway, someone here told me that the turbo version has a different intake manifold which is not prone to failure at the 70K mark. So I am thinking this Buick may be a interesting car to own for its uniqueness. So very few on the road. How about handling? Did it feel easy to steer, if not too nimble. It was a bit wide in the middle, as memory serves me.

    They sure had some cars at Buick which got into the venturesome league, like the Reatta. I like the looks. Did a brief test drive in a used one, but was not overly impressed with the feel. That said, perhaps some new shocks, and tires, or just a longer test run would have yielded a different impression. One problem in keeping one of the Rivs or Reattas as a collection car may be in parts. What about '93 or '95 Riv or the Reatta parts. Guess the parts yards or specialty companies have it covered? But it is not like a Mustang or Camaro with many collectors.
    Loren
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    It was Phillips, but not an SRX -> it was an equinox.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    My 95 Riviera was the 225 hp version, replaced by 240 hp in the 1996 model: series II 3800. The 91 Reatta was significantly improved (I owned one). The Riviera is probably much easier to keep maintained in that parts should be easier to get. I have to say this though, the Riviera, Aurora and Seville are all very similar FWD cars. The Reatta, with a much shorter wheelbase, was somewhat different, but no Corvette (I had an 86). My SRX, with a longer wheelbase, is really more nimble (with a shorter turning circle) than any of the big FWD cars.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    "Compared to the corolla, last gen civic, Sentra, etc. I dont see how you find the Cobalt to be so dull looking."

    Yeah but this current generation of Civic(06+) competes with the 05 Cobalt not the last generation Civic(01-05) currently. You keep on comparing the last generation Civic to the Cobalt but Honda is selling the current generation Civic on new car dealer lots not the last gen Civic on new dealer car lots.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    I would consider a previous generation Civic over the current Cobalt. Actually, could go back more years to when they had the double wishbone suspension. The base models were better handling. Now current Si vs. the previous is no contest, as it looked very strange indeed.
    With a little freshen design, instead of the push up effect, the Cavalier would be the best bet looks wise compared to the current rendition as a Cobalt. I am still waiting for the BB or Bling-Bling model to come out.

    GM seems to have promoted the smaller car more with youth than in the past, which is a good thing. And they have the drag strip racer and well, just are doing more, which is great.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Thanks, I thought the HP was boosted to 225. That article I found said 205. Ya know, a 240HP, which followed, boosted 3800V6 should be faster than my Accord 244HP with 211 torque, when mated to the right tranny.
    I see 280# torque listed = not bad! So why did they not go that route with the Lucerne and LaCrosse autos? Car emission changes??? Those numbers were great, the 240HP with 280# torque. Hey, was that not more HP than your '86 Vette? Certainly more power than the current Buick V6 gen III. With that much HP + Torque, it may have been a fit for a New Camaro, but alas, it is nearly gone. Had no idea the old work horse OHV 3.8 ever got up to that level. And with good gas mileage. But what went wrong? No Camaro with the turbo 3.8? I think it maxed out around 200HP.
    L
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The reason was that it was all the transmission. Stripped of its mile-high gearing and a torque converter that would engage at 35mph if you let it, it got 18-22mpg.

    They needed a real redesign that competed with the imports, and that's what the 3.6 is. It's a vastly superior engine in every way. Better power, better torque - and at lower RPMs, plus less displacement and weight as well.
  • chetjchetj Posts: 324
    like my ecotec (05 sunfire) but it gets 30 mpg on a auotomatic tranny...it is ballsy but i rather they sacrifice hp (145) and increase the mileage...i am a stickler for oil changes and i feel this engne would have no problem going 200k
  • chetjchetj Posts: 324
    i know except for regular maintenance nothing ever went wrong on my cavalier...35 mpg too...paid $9800 new back in feb 99...i imagine any civic back then wouldve been at least 3k more...i would rather buy american and keep the money here...original struts and muffler, not bad for 8 new england winters
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    Thanks, I thought the HP was boosted to 225. That article I found said 205. Ya know, a 240HP, which followed, boosted 3800V6 should be faster than my Accord 244HP with 211 torque, when mated to the right tranny.

    From what I recall, the 3800 V-6 went to 205 hp around 1997 in the big FWD cars, and 200 in the W-bodies. I think there were actually three versions of the supercharged 3800. Originally, it put out 225 hp, but then was massaged to 240 and then to 260.

    And yes, there was a version of the Olds 88 that had a supercharged 3800. It was a trim level called the LSS I think. I don't think it was all that popular, but by the time it came out, interest in the 88 in general was fading.

    Edmund's did a road test of a supercharged Olds 88. As I recall, they didn't really care for it. They said it handled and rode like a Caprice copcar.

    The 3800 in the Lucerne is down to something like 195-198 hp, but I heard that it's mainly because of the new way of rating engines. A couple years ago they changed the procedure slightly, and some engines "lost" a little hp along the way. For some reason though, I think it's still rated at 200 hp in the W-body?
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The 86 Corvette had 230 hp, but about 330 lb-ft of torque. The torque is of greater importance than the horsepower. DOHC engines are all well and good, but with enough torque you can beat them. The Corvette only weighed a bit over 3000 lbs too, while the Riviera was about 4000 lbs.

    The 225 hp supercharged engine had 275 lb-ft of torque. While the supercharger certainly boosted performance, on icy roads it did not work well, but with the traction control it was not impossible. But my Seville, with 300 lb-ft of torque, did not need the traction control to get started on a slippery icy road.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The supercharged 3800 was introduced on the Park Avenue for the 1992 model year with 205 hp. An improved supercharger boosted the horsepower to 225 later on, not quite sure when. However, the series two 3800 was introduced for the 1995 model year with 205 hp (not supercharged), with the series two supercharged 3800 coming out for the 1996 model year with 240 hp. The series three supercharged 3800 was introduced on the Pontiacs sometime after 2000 (I think) with 260 hp.

    the wicki site says that the 225 hp version was 1994-1995, and the 260 came out in 2003....
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,154
    Isn't there a saying that goes "Horsepower sells cars, but torque is what really moves them?" I probably screwed it up.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,900
    You got it right. That is the reason I will not be buying any new GM cars until they offer a decent SUV with a diesel engine. A 6 cylinder diesel in a Denali would be nice. I could even live with a Trailblazer size if it gets 30+ MPG on the highway.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,154
    Don't know much about diesels, but don't school buses use 6-cylinder diesels? I've seen Chevrolet and GMC school buses. Couldn't they just modify one of their engines? I wouldn't want to use a school bus engine as it is as they are slow. I've heard those engines use some kind of governor so the engine won't go over a certain speed.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    "Yeah but this current generation of Civic(06+) competes with the 05 Cobalt not the last generation Civic(01-05) currently. You keep on comparing the last generation Civic to the Cobalt but Honda is selling the current generation Civic on new car dealer lots not the last gen Civic on new dealer car lots."

    no need to review model history with me- I am well aware of when the new civic came out. Sentra, Elantra and corolla are still dull. My point stands either way. The civic is BY FAR the most adventurous sedan design in the class. The 3 isnt even as avant garde, in fact the 3 sedan is pretty plain looking.

    You seem to be missing the point that the small car segment is pretty conservative overall. ITS NOT JUST THE COBALT. Dont see why this is hard to process.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    first of all you should know ratings have changed for 2008. With those new ratings the cobalt and civic are about 2mpg closer in mileage because the civic dropped by about 4mpg. I believe its 26/36 under the new ratings and the cobalt stick is like 22/32 or something like that. 4mpg is significant but the two cars do NOT perform equally due to the Cobalts significant torque advantage.

    The cobalt got 3 stars with side curtain airbags? They are standard for 2008.
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    "No '08 Cobalt SS you say? Must have been very successful. "

    it was dropped for emissions reasons. GM will be putting the 260hp engine in the cobalt next year. Should be able to give the civic a run for its money. The 173hp Cobalt is only a few tenths slower than the Si because it has so much torque. 0-60 is about 7secs compared to 6.6-6.7 for the Si.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    Don't know much about diesels, but don't school buses use 6-cylinder diesels? I've seen Chevrolet and GMC school buses. Couldn't they just modify one of their engines? I wouldn't want to use a school bus engine as it is as they are slow. I've heard those engines use some kind of governor so the engine won't go over a certain speed.

    I'm not sure what kind of engine a school bus uses. Probably depends on the brand, chassis, etc. I think with most school buses, the company that makes them buys a chassis from one manufacturer, puts in and engine from some other source, and then puts their own body on it.

    And yeah, school buses are slow, but they also weigh about 8 or 9 tons. Just imagine what that Diesel engine would be like in something that only weighed around two tons!

    I'd imagine though that your typical bus/truck Diesel is some mammoth thing with a long stroke, and probably wouldn't fit under the hood of anything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,910
    I agree. You will not catch me in a little car for more than an errand buggy. I would not go on the freeway with any of the little cars being sold today. There are TOO many big heavy vehicles to contend with. I felt small in our Passat wagon on the highway. It would be a minimum size. The LS400 is barely big enough. Prefer PU or SUV for safety. IIHS statistics agree with you and I.

    Little cars especially the Yaris, Metro & Fit size should not be allowed access to high speed highways.


    Yeah, I will admit that when I drove my uncle's Corolla, I did feel kinda vulnerable. With something like my New Yorker or pickup I tend to not worry, because usually other vehicles will sort of just bounce off! :P And I never felt vulnerable in my Intrepid. But when I'd drive my uncle's Corolla, there were times when I'd feel a lot like this! :surprise:

    And all too often, when vehicle sizes are mis-matched, it's the smaller car that loses out. And no matter how fast or nimble your car is, and no matter how good of a driver you think you might be, there's always that chance you'll still end up in a situation where you get whacked! :P
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,329
    Of course with someone your size you don't so much drive a Yaris as wear it....
This discussion has been closed.