Not to mention the Civic which has exactly the same size engine and HP and there are gazillions of them on the road. If Astra makes it here as it appears - unchanged other than the front&rear bumper and some cup holders, and GM price it right, it should sell very well. It has the best looking interior on the small car market - I dare the say even better than the Mazda3.
I assume most of you by know that the new 2008 Saab 9-3 has be freshened with some new goodies in hardware and technology. I'd like to know what y'all think ?????
I myself am excited about the 2008 saab 9-3 because it gives me everything I'd personally want in a car in one beautiful package. The top model is the Aero 9-3 with "XWD" or otherwise known to the public as (CROSS WHEEL DRIVE) What a piece of Gadgetology :shades:
The 2.8 turbo now is rated at 280 hp. and from the way I understand it a "Viggen" like (Black Turbo) project is in the works with 300-320 hp. Boy that would be very very exciting !!!!! If I'm able to buy a new car within' the next year or two the Saab 9-3 will more than just fit the bill ! I am honestly fired up about this new car. I love everything about it. The Convertible is #1 on my list but boy the Sedan looks very hot as well. I guess the Saab 9-3 being the safest automobile in the world is added peace of mind if you want to press down on the gas pedal and see what it feels like to travel once again at turbocharged warp speeds.
Well y'all take care and give me a opinion on the 08' Saab 9-3 as it's another clear example of how GM, is staying on the offensive and why Saab, has made me fall in love with em' once again.
Unfortunately, with the new ratings, Chevy can no longer claim the Impala as a +30 mpg highway car. Note to Chevy: Couple that 3.5L with a 6-speed and make it happen again!
Even with all that, at least Honda would tell the supplier to go to hell with 10,000 of your bulbs and bring new one's that work. Dodge would just say ahhh... cut our cost by 50% and well keep the defects and live with 50% failure rates.
I do not buy into the "GM" bulb problem in the first place but since I have no data I cannot make the assumption there is not a problem.
As far as bulbs, they all come down the same line at the sources. The supplier does not/cannot "pick" the good ones and send the to Honda and the bad ones to GM. Now that may not be true for other parts on the car but bulbs are a generic commodity component.
Unfortunately, with the new ratings, Chevy can no longer claim the Impala as a +30 mpg highway car.
This will happen all over the industry and the public, if they care, will have to get used to it. may take a couple years to get their minds back in order.
Anyone have a link showing all manufacturers new MPG's? I know there is a site that does a model at a time but someone must have them all listed.
Also, the bulb could've been damaged during shipping. The vehicle could've dropped off the carrier a short distance when being unloaded breaking the filament. A careless lot boy could've rattled it by running over a cement parking barrier, etc.
The mileage ratings of the 2008 Impala are dismal (to me anyway)- with gasoline now at $3/gallon with normal supply and demand- and with the distinct possibility of $5/gallon if there is a serious terrorist disruption in the Persian Gulf or military action against Iran- well, you get the picture, but I guess that GM doesn't want to be bothered with possibilities like that, they just assume that people will elect to buy big vehicles with big powerful engines no matter what.
And talking of lightbulbs, my Volvo (and almost all Volvos) have lightbulb and electrical issues beyond almost any other car- acknowledged! You would think that after building cars for almost 80 years, they could get it right (haha).
And I really don't think that Consumer Reports has a bias toward anything. It has been alleged and not proven over the years.
The mileage ratings of the 2008 Impala are dismal (to me anyway
Compared to what? The Impala V6 is only 1 MPG less than the V6 Camry, and the Impala is a LOT bigger than the Camry. The V8 gets as good a mileage as any other V8 of its size.
PS You can buy a Malibu that is the exact same size as the Camry and get better rated mileage than the Camry 4 cylinder.
Is that on the new Epsilon or the old? Sounds like fun, though GM really needs to figure out just what Saab offers that can't be had from Opel/Saturn or the Euro Cadillacs.
And I really don't think that Consumer Reports has a bias toward anything. It has been alleged and not proven over the years.
I have met the CR car tester guys. Do they have a bias? Depends on your definition. They like the way Accord/Civics handle. They even like the harsher ride. Why, the roads they test on are full of curves and whoop de doos and swells.
And again, does anyone know the new MPG ratings for all cars?
The mileage ratings of the 2008 Impala are dismal (to me anyway)- with gasoline now at $3/gallon with normal supply and demand- and with the distinct possibility of $5/gallon if there is a serious terrorist disruption in the Persian Gulf or military action against Iran- well, you get the picture, but I guess that GM doesn't want to be bothered with possibilities like that, they just assume that people will elect to buy big vehicles with big powerful engines no matter what.
Everyone is going to drop, not just GM. And yes, the big V8 is not as efficient as the 4 cylinders. If that bothers you buy the 4's and V6's. And to actually get 25 mpg on the highway with a V8 is pretty darn good. My old vette with less hp is lucky to get 12 mpg being pushed by the wind!!
Right! A 4 cylinder Honda Civic is fine for me (160 pounds, 5'8"). Something that gets 28mpg city and 35mpg highway is my speed with a 0-60 below 9 seconds. If you go to the Honda Accord discussions, they rave of 40mpg on the highway with the 4 cylinder. And from what I've experienced, the GM 4 cylinder models do not have nearly the refinement and mileage of the Honda and Toyota 4 cylinder models. But I can see a place for the Impala with the V8- maybe as Police interceptors or something. But not for hauling trailers (aren't front drive cars not as good as trucks for that purpose?)
I am a fan of the '08 9-3, its got everything one could want in that class of car and will be cheaper than its rivals. I really like the front end styling and the hp boost with AWD.
Those are 2008 ratings, they are lower across the board. The Accord V6s ratings for 2008 should be about 19/27 or so if the car wasnt being changed. How are the Impala's figures dismal compared to that?
I like the look of that 9-3. Of course I'm kind of half looking at an 02 or so 9-3 convertibles. Nice cars - especially in the Midnight Blue or Merlot Red. I need to find some more money around....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
62vetteefp: I have met the CR car tester guys. Do they have a bias? Depends on your definition. They like the way Accord/Civics handle. They even like the harsher ride.
Judging by the sales figures, so do plenty of retail customers. And in their preference for firmer ride/handling compromise, those testers are hardly alone.
Consumer Reports is biased towards certain features and ride/handling compromise. Every reviewer brings certain preferences to the table when reviewing anything - whether it is a car, a movie or a washing machine. That does not mean that the results are unfair.
Their tests would be unfair if Car A scored higher under their own criteria than Car B, and they still recommended Car B anyway, because it was made by a certain brand.
62vetteefp: Why, the roads they test on are full of curves and whoop de doos and swells.
In other words, they test cars on roads that duplicate real-world conditions, as those sound like the roads around here. Billiard-smooth interstate roads are nice, but I don't spend most of my time driving on them.
"In other words, they test cars on roads that duplicate real-world conditions, as those sound like the roads around here. Billiard-smooth interstate roads are nice, but I don't spend most of my time driving on them."
I've thought for a long time that the problem with many American cars is that the designers and engineers are in Michigan which for a large part is very friendly to boulevard cruisers - smooth and flat and largely straight line.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
>Their tests would be unfair if Car A scored higher under their own criteria than Car B, and they still recommended Car B anyway, because it was made by a certain brand.
Not so. They design the test to be different than the driving of 90% or more of the car buyers for most cars other than sports cars. This is equivalent to giving kids a test to qualify for college where the content questions are related to the curriculum at a certain, select prep school. Guess which kids (cars) do better on the test and are recommended for college (for purchase) by the testers...?
<Billiard-smooth interstate roads are nice, but I don't spend most of my time driving on them.
I spend most of my time driving on roads that are not winding and don't require grinding rubber off the tires. I slow down to the recommended speed for the curves/corners.
Honda Accord, real world gas mileage is around 24 MPG in mixed driving, and 29+ MPG on freeway driving. Results may vary. An Impala will likely match to exceed those figures, though you may fall asleep doing so. :P Not much driving excitement there. :shades: Yes, I know, you can by an SS model. Great, SS FWD cars. Peel the front tires off that car, for that torque steer heaven feel. One way to lift some weight off the front I guess, punch it. Anyway, back to fun with gas savings = not Impala.
I slow down to the recommended speed for the curves/corners.
Ah, so you're the one who holds everybody up. The recommended speed is really the lowest common denominator speed: that which every vehicle on the road can safely take a corner at, even old spongy Buicks. Many cars these days have good enough suspensions to safely corner at higher speeds.
imidazol97: Not so. They design the test to be different than the driving of 90% or more of the car buyers for most cars other than sports cars.
No. These tests do have a connection to how a vehicle is used in the real world. How a vehicle reacts in a handling test indicates how it will react in an emergency maneuver while on the road. Braking tests show how a vehicle will react when the person has to slam on the brakes in an emergency (does it stop straight and true? do the brakes fade after several stops? what is the stopping distance?).
A car's composure at the limit is a good indication of its composure - and capabilities - in daily use.
And every test - not just the ones in Consumer Reports - includes a reviews on the ergonomics and interior sound levels, which potential customers will have to live with on a day-to-day basis.
If anything, Consumer Reports focuses on the more mundane aspects of car ownership, as opposed to the buff books, who are more likely to go bananas over a car that can do 0-60 in four seconds, even if other aspects of the car make it annoying on a daily basis.
So you should FAVOR the Consumer Reports approach.
imidazol97: This is equivalent to giving kids a test to qualify for college where the content questions are related to the curriculum at a certain, select prep school. Guess which kids (cars) do better on the test and are recommended for college (for purchase) by the testers...
In other words, they should test only for mediocrity, and never push either the cars (or the children).
Seems to me that sort of attitude is what got GM into trouble in the first place...
imidazol97: I spend most of my time driving on roads that are not winding and don't require grinding rubber off the tires.
You live in the Midwest, where the roads are relatively flat, straight and wide.
Drive on some of the two-lane backroads around here, which are narrow, have very little shoulder and are very bumpy. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike - west of the Blue Mountain interchange - appears to have been designed by someone unfamiliar with the concept of a straight line.
We also have roads that cross our mountains - and our mountains aren't even that high compared to the mountain ranges in the Western states. They require very good handling and braking capabilities - unless the mountain is crossed at 25 mph.
Building cars for midwestern conditions is part of what got GM in trouble into the first place.
Ahhh, the double the yellows and obey the white signs method. The California way. :shades: A gazillion country roads around here. Some of those marked 15 on turns can easily be taken at 40 or 45. Ummm, maybe not in the old Buick :P You may have to trade her in for the top model Buick of today or get an Aura XR or something like it, before any attempts to challenge the yellow signs. Of course blind turns are dangerous for driver and anything possibly hidden around a bend, like a bike, animal, farm equipment, sand, wet leaves (oh those are fun), and well ya get the point -- not always possible to challenge the yellows.
As far as professional testing for car abilities? Well, is it not good for all to have a car which is overqualified to take on any road and win? You may only normally use 60% of the ability, but having a reserve is a good thing indeed. Just trying to be helpful.
how can you be so naive? Do you really think that ALL the american cars CR tests are really so bad that they cant handle a few curves and dips in the road? Are you saying that is the reason CR places nearly every American car at the bottom of its rankings? Come on, this is 2007. The Fusion, Aura, G6, etc. are surely as capable as any Camry or Passat when it comes to handling. And lets not get into sales justifying CR results. In case you missed it they pan plenty of domestic models (like Impala) that do well in sales. The fusion is one of the only domestic cars they actually ranked high. They have been thorouhgly unimpressed by the 300/charger, Aura, Impala, Lacrosse, etc.
"Building cars for midwestern conditions is part of what got GM in trouble into the first place. "
I do wonder if people like you are talking about products on sale today. What GM models are you referring to when you speak of these floaty, midwest focused cars that cant handle a lousy CR test loop? The Aura? Malibu? Lucerne? Please let us know. You are basing your assertions on GM boats of old that dont even exist anymore. I would say the base model Lucerne is one of GM's last "traditional" cars that has an old school ride with lots of float. Trust me, CR is not flunking GM cars because they cant handle curves. In fact CR probably cant even tell you exactly why they rate GM cars so low since they dont have a numerical scoring system. Makes it kind of hard to see where they got their scores. All the readers know is that imports somehow outscore their US competitors by 10-20 points in spite of having similar performance ratings and subjective evaluations. Check their recent midsize sedan comparo for reference. The Auras low rating made absolutely no sense.
> Trust me, CR is not flunking GM cars because they cant handle curves. In fact CR probably cant even tell you exactly why they rate GM cars so low since they
If you read for example a 5 car test comparison and then read each of the car reviews and study the values they do present on their summary page, you'll usually find inconsistencies where they dislike one car because its slalom speeds are on 50.5 mph and then their car ranked higher will have nothing mentioned about being only able to take the slalom course at 50.5 and they actually only did it at 50.1 but are preferred for other reasons. They aren't consistent in their nitpicking.
>. What GM models are you referring to when you speak of these floaty, midwest focused cars that cant handle a lousy CR test loop?
I didn't see where this came from, but it sounds more like people just trying to pick their preferred car with the gokart ride because it will take those curves grinding off rubber faster than other cars. Frankly most people don't drive like that. That's the same problem with testers in MT and CD, e.g., but at least they admit they are interested in driving hard, fast and at the edge.
>Ah, so you're the one who holds everybody up.
From one other post that I did read I caught this. I had to laugh about the speeds vs what people wanna go. Twice while driving to the ball park the State Patrol were waiting around the double lane ramp merging off I70 where the construction speed limit is 55. They had two cars waiting for the people who wanted to make it 65 and over because it's a long, gradual curve ramp; but it's in a construction zone. They even had the pleasure of a Toyota broken down or our-of-gas to block them from view until you were farther around the ramp and your speed was recorded. The early part of the curve has the rest of the ramp where the patrol was parked blocked by an overpass abutment.
It was amusing watching the car ahead hit the brakes who had gone around me as if I were an impediment at 60 and then seeing the patrol car shift into drive and pull out behind him. I waved as I passed them half a mile down I75...
1487: how can you be so naive? Do you really think that ALL the american cars CR tests are really so bad that they cant handle a few curves and dips in the road? Are you saying that is the reason CR places nearly every American car at the bottom of its rankings?
1487, read the road tests carefully, and then criticize them. Otherwise, you are proving yourself to be both naive and lacking good reading comprehension skills.
Consumer Reports never said that all American cars can't handle a few curves and dips in the road. They said that some cars handle better than others, and, in most cases, GM cars do not handle better than the foreign competition.
Sorry, but not every car can be best, and some cars are better than others.
1487: Come on, this is 2007. The Fusion, Aura, G6, etc. are surely as capable as any Camry or Passat when it comes to handling.
And your proof is found where? Sorry, but, "because I said so" isn't good enough.
Which, when the indigation and old-fashioned huffing-and-puffing are eliminated, is what your posts boil down to.
1487: And lets not get into sales justifying CR results.
I agree. Let's blame Honda-loving space aliens taking over the bodies of American car buyers, or evil, secret mind-control radar waves being broadcast from Japan, as the culprits.
1487: In case you missed it they pan plenty of domestic models (like Impala) that do well in sales.
So, not everyone reads Consumer Reports, or they let other factors determine their purchasing decision.
Which undermines the contention that the magazine's brainwashed followers - marching zombie-like to Honda and Toyota dealerships, with the latest copy of Consumer Reports in a death grip - are artificially propping up the sales figures for those marques.
Which seems to be the contention of GM's supporters.
Can't have it both ways, here.
1487: The fusion is one of the only domestic cars they actually ranked high.
Because it is a very good car that has received excellent reliability scores. Imagine that...
1487: do wonder if people like you are talking about products on sale today. What GM models are you referring to when you speak of these floaty, midwest focused cars that cant handle a lousy CR test loop? The Aura? Malibu? Lucerne? Please let us know.
Lucerne, LaCrosse, current Malibu (don't know about the upcoming one), Impala, Grand Prix, for starters.
1487: You are basing your assertions on GM boats of old that dont even exist anymore.
Consistency, 1487. First, you post the above sentence, and in the next sentence, you say this:
I would say the base model Lucerne is one of GM's last "traditional" cars that has an old school ride with lots of float.
The base-model Lucerne still exists, by your own admission, so you've just contradicted yourself.
1487: Trust me, CR is not flunking GM cars because they cant handle curves.
True. They also tend not to do well in noise/vibration/harshness levels, ergonomics and build quality, either.
1487: The Auras low rating made absolutely no sense.
Well, Car & Driver didn't rate it above the Accord.
And as for your claim that Automobile said it was better than the Accord or Camry, I looked at my October 2006 issue, and what they said was that the top-of-the-line Aura (with the 3.6 V-6) was at least as enjoyable to drive as an Accord or Camry.
Which is quite different, and much more limited, than what you are alleging that the magazine's reviewers said.
But how many see the USA in their Chevrolet Impala rent-a-car? But yeap, you are right. All those mentioned will take a few shaky asphalted turfed roads without catastrophic occurrence.
imidazol97: I didn't see where this came from, but it sounds more like people just trying to pick their preferred car with the gokart ride because it will take those curves grinding off rubber faster than other cars. Frankly most people don't drive like that.
No rubber is being ground from my tires, because the car is engineered to handle those speeds.
If a car is grinding off rubber from the tires just because it exceeds the posted speed limit for that curve, it either has a poorly engineered chassis, or needs much better tires.
imidazol97: From one other post that I did read I caught this. I had to laugh about the speeds vs what people wanna go.
Most people "wanna go" faster because they know that speed limits on interstate highways are underposted.
Riding on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or I-81, I've noticed that most people "wanna go" 75-80 mph, even though the posted speed limit is 65 mph. And the rubber isn't flying off their tires, either. That's the bonus of driving a car with superior chassis engineering, which includes capable tires.
Car & Driver did a comparison test that included the Saturn Aura XE, and pitted it against the usual rivals. It ended up in 4th place, ahead of the Chrysler Sebring and Toyota Camry (I'm surprised by that), but behind the Kia Optima, Nissan Altima, and ever reigning champ, the Honda Accord.
In reading the review of the Saturn, they pretty much said that GM ALMOST got it right, but then shot themselves in the foot over the details. Despite having a pushrod, the Aura performed pretty well. It was second quickest from 0-60 (7.7 seconds, only the Altima bested it, at 7.4), had the best quarter mile speed (but in time, was tied for the Altima, so I guess that's in indication that the Altima was running out of breath), and the quickest 0-100 time.
The Aura also tied the Altima for best skidpad performance and had the second shortest braking distance.
So, while the Aura came up in the bottom half overall in rankings, that doesn't make it a bad car, not by a long shot. For people that want what the Aura has to offer, it seems to be a good choice. When it comes to these types of tests, it's not like there's just one winner and everything else is a piece of crap!
I don't know what kind of wussy drivers CR has. I can very well handle curves, mountains, rotten weather conditions etc. in many "old school" cars like my 1988 Buick Park Avenue.
CR testers are just mad because their fathers who didn't approve of their hippie lifestyles drove Buicks and Cadillacs back in the '60s. "Oh, boo-hoo! My Daddy won't let me grow my hair like a girl, experiment with various mind-expanding drugs, and have casual sex with a vast number of anonymous partners of both genders in a consequence-free environment! I'll get even with him and all those other Establishment types!"
When these CR testers' kids and grandkids can't get jobs or have graduate degrees and are working at Starbucks, maybe they'll see the damage they did with their petty biases.
I like taking the 805 South to 8 East innerchange here in San Diego at anywhere up to 90 MPH in my Audi A3. I can safely do so without a problem or any squealing or peeling of tire.
I took the same innerchange at no more than about 80 MPH in my Accord Coupe. I could safely do so.
I wouldn't go much over 70 miles per hour in my wife's old 2005 Civic on that same turning freeway ramp. In her newer 2007 Civic I think you could safely do 80 as it has bigger and wider tires.
If I was in my parents' old 95 Camry, I would spin out at any speed over 70 mph!!! You could not SAFELY go that fast. It's all about suspension, chassis, and tire design (size too) and engineering.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I can very well handle curves, mountains, rotten weather conditions etc. in many "old school" cars like my 1988 Buick Park Avenue.
But a modern day sports sedan or any sedan with a decent suspension can easily outperform your "old school" 88' Park Avenue. Don't believe me? Why don't you drive the Park Ave, m1miata drives his Accord V6 SE and I drive my IS350 and let's see which one handles the curves, mountains with more confidence.
CR testers are just mad because their fathers who didn't approve of their hippie lifestyles drove Buicks and Cadillacs back in the '60s.
How about CR testers were just trying to tell things like the way they think it is and you just frankly disagree. That's fine really since we are in a free country. But insulting them and their family members like that with totally whacky assumptions will not give credibility to your post.
When these CR testers' kids and grandkids can't get jobs or have graduate degrees and are working at Starbucks, maybe they'll see the damage they did with their petty biases.
Well, maybe those CR testers' kids and grandkids will end up with a graduate degrees and working for major multi-billion dollar US corporations which are not in the automobile industry like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, IBM, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, HP, or even Google and Yahoo.
Sorry, but CR does not build cars. They do test cars. Most importantly the survey ratings of cars over the years, as a whole, closely match the real world experiences of the owners of those makes. Don't shoot the messenger!
I am a baby boomer, and my dad owns a Camry. He was no youngster when he bought his first Japanese car, a '91 Camry, which he drove for nine years, then bought another one. Why? The why is due to it being easier to drive, handling better than his Olds, more fun to drive, no issues as in it was never back in for repairs - period, got great gas mileage, and looked new when he traded the car in on another one. The current one, a 2000, I think is not as good overall however. Their cars are getting to be more Oldsmobile Delta88 like. That is to say, average overall. Dad did not have to rely on CR data though, as every mechanic and friend he talked to praised the Toyota. Actually, he could have sold it several times to mechanic which loved the simple little car. GM left the customer, the customer was not to blame. GM builds cars - CR reports on those cars.
Twice while driving to the ball park the State Patrol were waiting around the double lane ramp merging off I70 where the construction speed limit is 55.
Yellow signs are advisory, not regulatory. Says so right in the MUTCD.
Well, maybe those CR testers' kids and grandkids will end up with a graduate degrees and working for major multi-billion dollar US corporations which are not in the automobile industry like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, IBM, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, HP, or even Google and Yahoo.
Yeah, that is until those jobs are also outsourced to India and China. It's already happening.
I'm in here, because as I see it, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are all in the same boat, did the same things, have the same track record, have the same performance, the same reputation, and simply, all seem to be ran the same way.
I'm here to let people know the truth and the facts. I don't know why people want poor companies to succeed. They only succeed at a great cost to the consumer and a waste of good hard earned money.
We should not need so many auto mechanics and tow truck driver's in the world! We'd probably have 1/10th as many if it wasn't for the big 3!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I second the Accord's real world mileage being in the 23-30 range with mostly city getting about 24MPG, and all HWY getting 30MPG. That's with the V6! Typically, overall with my leadfoot and agressive driving style, I'd get 25 or 26 MPG in San Diego traffic!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You guys (not you Louiswei) want to tone it down a notch? - you'll scare off the lurkers who might otherwise want to participate but for the gratuitous personal potshots.
it sounds ok. I'll wait for the SX4 sedan this fall. Check it out(although hatches are better, imho). It will be about Elantra sized(176-177 in length) 143HP. MPG may only be 30-31, though( Suzuki always has had lower MPG than Asian automakers). But MPG would be similar to the Astra(but no hatch, but a larger vehicle, think the hatch is 167.3 inches long, iirc, if what I heard is correct, and the SX4 is 177 inches long... 10 more inches of"Crunch room" in case of an accident... I believe the Civic is longer than this car, or close to it...so not as small as the Astra?). The Astra will be labeled a sub-compact, but with larger interior than most? I like it. I just don't understand how a car, 2.4Liter, I-4, with 160HP, similar size and weight , can get same, or better mpg as the Astra with 1.8 liter/140HP engine? Is it tighter tolerances(in the engine.....)? That's what one mechanic told me. The tighter the internal tolerances(and if done correctly)the higher the MPG they can get? This MPG is Suzuki-like.
Then others may say"Fusion gets 31MPG, is a larger car", and that's true. Who knows? Unfortuantely, no matter what i like, due to upside-down in loan/trade-in, I ain't getting nothing new for 1-2 more years. So, I may have time. Maybe the 173(one site said 178? Think Edmunds has a first drive on Astra now,on blogs?)...turbo would suffice....maybe by 09- 2010? If that's the case, hmmmmm.
Oh, btw... if yer in a small(Yaris sized, at least) car, pull up to some of the larger suv's and trucks... see where the bumper hits... about head-level :surprise: Now ya can see why I am thinking of larger cars. Around here, GM country... 65% of all vehicles are still trucks. see ya.
I just don't understand how a car, 2.4Liter, I-4, with 160HP, similar size and weight , can get same, or better mpg as the Astra with 1.8 liter/140HP engine?
Gearing, and how unaggressively the fuel maps are set up.
Comments
If Astra makes it here as it appears - unchanged other than the front&rear bumper and some cup holders, and GM price it right, it should sell very well. It has the best looking interior on the small car market - I dare the say even better than the Mazda3.
I assume most of you by know that the new 2008 Saab 9-3 has be freshened with some new goodies in hardware and technology. I'd like to know what y'all think ?????
I myself am excited about the 2008 saab 9-3 because it gives me everything I'd personally want in a car in one beautiful package. The top model is the Aero 9-3 with "XWD" or otherwise known to the public as
(CROSS WHEEL DRIVE) What a piece of Gadgetology :shades:
The 2.8 turbo now is rated at 280 hp. and from the way I understand it a "Viggen" like
(Black Turbo) project is in the works with 300-320 hp. Boy that would be very very exciting !!!!! If I'm able to buy a new car within' the next year or two the Saab 9-3 will more than just fit the bill !
I am honestly fired up about this new car. I love everything about it. The Convertible is #1 on my list but boy the Sedan looks very hot as well. I guess the Saab 9-3 being the safest automobile in the world is added peace of mind if you want to press down on the gas pedal and see what it feels like to travel once again at turbocharged warp speeds.
Well y'all take care and give me a opinion on the 08'
Saab 9-3 as it's another clear example of how GM, is staying on the offensive and why Saab, has made me fall in love with em' once again.
-Rocky
3.5L V-6, 211 hp, 18/29 mpg
3.9L V-6, 233 hp, 17/25 mpg
5.3L V-8, 303 hp, 16/24 mpg
Unfortunately, with the new ratings, Chevy can no longer claim the Impala as a +30 mpg highway car.
Note to Chevy: Couple that 3.5L with a 6-speed and make it happen again!
I do not buy into the "GM" bulb problem in the first place but since I have no data I cannot make the assumption there is not a problem.
As far as bulbs, they all come down the same line at the sources. The supplier does not/cannot "pick" the good ones and send the to Honda and the bad ones to GM. Now that may not be true for other parts on the car but bulbs are a generic commodity component.
This will happen all over the industry and the public, if they care, will have to get used to it. may take a couple years to get their minds back in order.
Anyone have a link showing all manufacturers new MPG's? I know there is a site that does a model at a time but someone must have them all listed.
And talking of lightbulbs, my Volvo (and almost all Volvos) have lightbulb and electrical issues beyond almost any other car- acknowledged! You would think that after building cars for almost 80 years, they could get it right (haha).
And I really don't think that Consumer Reports has a bias toward anything. It has been alleged and not proven over the years.
Compared to what? The Impala V6 is only 1 MPG less than the V6 Camry, and the Impala is a LOT bigger than the Camry. The V8 gets as good a mileage as any other V8 of its size.
PS
You can buy a Malibu that is the exact same size as the Camry and get better rated mileage than the Camry 4 cylinder.
I have met the CR car tester guys. Do they have a bias? Depends on your definition. They like the way Accord/Civics handle. They even like the harsher ride. Why, the roads they test on are full of curves and whoop de doos and swells.
And again, does anyone know the new MPG ratings for all cars?
The mileage ratings of the 2008 Impala are dismal (to me anyway)- with gasoline now at $3/gallon with normal supply and demand- and with the distinct possibility of $5/gallon if there is a serious terrorist disruption in the Persian Gulf or military action against Iran- well, you get the picture, but I guess that GM doesn't want to be bothered with possibilities like that, they just assume that people will elect to buy big vehicles with big powerful engines no matter what.
Everyone is going to drop, not just GM. And yes, the big V8 is not as efficient as the 4 cylinders. If that bothers you buy the 4's and V6's. And to actually get 25 mpg on the highway with a V8 is pretty darn good. My old vette with less hp is lucky to get 12 mpg being pushed by the wind!!
I like the look of that 9-3. Of course I'm kind of half looking at an 02 or so 9-3 convertibles. Nice cars - especially in the Midnight Blue or Merlot Red. I need to find some more money around....
Judging by the sales figures, so do plenty of retail customers. And in their preference for firmer ride/handling compromise, those testers are hardly alone.
Consumer Reports is biased towards certain features and ride/handling compromise. Every reviewer brings certain preferences to the table when reviewing anything - whether it is a car, a movie or a washing machine. That does not mean that the results are unfair.
Their tests would be unfair if Car A scored higher under their own criteria than Car B, and they still recommended Car B anyway, because it was made by a certain brand.
62vetteefp: Why, the roads they test on are full of curves and whoop de doos and swells.
In other words, they test cars on roads that duplicate real-world conditions, as those sound like the roads around here. Billiard-smooth interstate roads are nice, but I don't spend most of my time driving on them.
I've thought for a long time that the problem with many American cars is that the designers and engineers are in Michigan which for a large part is very friendly to boulevard cruisers - smooth and flat and largely straight line.
Not so. They design the test to be different than the driving of 90% or more of the car buyers for most cars other than sports cars. This is equivalent to giving kids a test to qualify for college where the content questions are related to the curriculum at a certain, select prep school. Guess which kids (cars) do better on the test and are recommended for college (for purchase) by the testers...?
<Billiard-smooth interstate roads are nice, but I don't spend most of my time driving on them.
I spend most of my time driving on roads that are not winding and don't require grinding rubber off the tires. I slow down to the recommended speed for the curves/corners.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, so you're the one who holds everybody up. The recommended speed is really the lowest common denominator speed: that which every vehicle on the road can safely take a corner at, even old spongy Buicks. Many cars these days have good enough suspensions to safely corner at higher speeds.
No. These tests do have a connection to how a vehicle is used in the real world. How a vehicle reacts in a handling test indicates how it will react in an emergency maneuver while on the road. Braking tests show how a vehicle will react when the person has to slam on the brakes in an emergency (does it stop straight and true? do the brakes fade after several stops? what is the stopping distance?).
A car's composure at the limit is a good indication of its composure - and capabilities - in daily use.
And every test - not just the ones in Consumer Reports - includes a reviews on the ergonomics and interior sound levels, which potential customers will have to live with on a day-to-day basis.
If anything, Consumer Reports focuses on the more mundane aspects of car ownership, as opposed to the buff books, who are more likely to go bananas over a car that can do 0-60 in four seconds, even if other aspects of the car make it annoying on a daily basis.
So you should FAVOR the Consumer Reports approach.
imidazol97: This is equivalent to giving kids a test to qualify for college where the content questions are related to the curriculum at a certain, select prep school. Guess which kids (cars) do better on the test and are recommended for college (for purchase) by the testers...
In other words, they should test only for mediocrity, and never push either the cars (or the children).
Seems to me that sort of attitude is what got GM into trouble in the first place...
imidazol97: I spend most of my time driving on roads that are not winding and don't require grinding rubber off the tires.
You live in the Midwest, where the roads are relatively flat, straight and wide.
Drive on some of the two-lane backroads around here, which are narrow, have very little shoulder and are very bumpy. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike - west of the Blue Mountain interchange - appears to have been designed by someone unfamiliar with the concept of a straight line.
We also have roads that cross our mountains - and our mountains aren't even that high compared to the mountain ranges in the Western states. They require very good handling and braking capabilities - unless the mountain is crossed at 25 mph.
Building cars for midwestern conditions is part of what got GM in trouble into the first place.
As far as professional testing for car abilities? Well, is it not good for all to have a car which is overqualified to take on any road and win? You may only normally use 60% of the ability, but having a reserve is a good thing indeed. Just trying to be helpful.
Loren
I do wonder if people like you are talking about products on sale today. What GM models are you referring to when you speak of these floaty, midwest focused cars that cant handle a lousy CR test loop? The Aura? Malibu? Lucerne? Please let us know. You are basing your assertions on GM boats of old that dont even exist anymore. I would say the base model Lucerne is one of GM's last "traditional" cars that has an old school ride with lots of float. Trust me, CR is not flunking GM cars because they cant handle curves. In fact CR probably cant even tell you exactly why they rate GM cars so low since they dont have a numerical scoring system. Makes it kind of hard to see where they got their scores. All the readers know is that imports somehow outscore their US competitors by 10-20 points in spite of having similar performance ratings and subjective evaluations. Check their recent midsize sedan comparo for reference. The Auras low rating made absolutely no sense.
If you read for example a 5 car test comparison and then read each of the car reviews and study the values they do present on their summary page, you'll usually find inconsistencies where they dislike one car because its slalom speeds are on 50.5 mph and then their car ranked higher will have nothing mentioned about being only able to take the slalom course at 50.5 and they actually only did it at 50.1 but are preferred for other reasons. They aren't consistent in their nitpicking.
>. What GM models are you referring to when you speak of these floaty, midwest focused cars that cant handle a lousy CR test loop?
I didn't see where this came from, but it sounds more like people just trying to pick their preferred car with the gokart ride because it will take those curves grinding off rubber faster than other cars. Frankly most people don't drive like that. That's the same problem with testers in MT and CD, e.g., but at least they admit they are interested in driving hard, fast and at the edge.
>Ah, so you're the one who holds everybody up.
From one other post that I did read I caught this. I had to laugh about the speeds vs what people wanna go. Twice while driving to the ball park the State Patrol were waiting around the double lane ramp merging off I70 where the construction speed limit is 55. They had two cars waiting for the people who wanted to make it 65 and over because it's a long, gradual curve ramp; but it's in a construction zone. They even had the pleasure of a Toyota broken down or our-of-gas to block them from view until you were farther around the ramp and your speed was recorded. The early part of the curve has the rest of the ramp where the patrol was parked blocked by an overpass abutment.
It was amusing watching the car ahead hit the brakes who had gone around me as if I were an impediment at 60 and then seeing the patrol car shift into drive and pull out behind him. I waved as I passed them half a mile down I75...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
1487, read the road tests carefully, and then criticize them. Otherwise, you are proving yourself to be both naive and lacking good reading comprehension skills.
Consumer Reports never said that all American cars can't handle a few curves and dips in the road. They said that some cars handle better than others, and, in most cases, GM cars do not handle better than the foreign competition.
Sorry, but not every car can be best, and some cars are better than others.
1487: Come on, this is 2007. The Fusion, Aura, G6, etc. are surely as capable as any Camry or Passat when it comes to handling.
And your proof is found where? Sorry, but, "because I said so" isn't good enough.
Which, when the indigation and old-fashioned huffing-and-puffing are eliminated, is what your posts boil down to.
1487: And lets not get into sales justifying CR results.
I agree. Let's blame Honda-loving space aliens taking over the bodies of American car buyers, or evil, secret mind-control radar waves being broadcast from Japan, as the culprits.
1487: In case you missed it they pan plenty of domestic models (like Impala) that do well in sales.
So, not everyone reads Consumer Reports, or they let other factors determine their purchasing decision.
Which undermines the contention that the magazine's brainwashed followers - marching zombie-like to Honda and Toyota dealerships, with the latest copy of Consumer Reports in a death grip - are artificially propping up the sales figures for those marques.
Which seems to be the contention of GM's supporters.
Can't have it both ways, here.
1487: The fusion is one of the only domestic cars they actually ranked high.
Because it is a very good car that has received excellent reliability scores. Imagine that...
Lucerne, LaCrosse, current Malibu (don't know about the upcoming one), Impala, Grand Prix, for starters.
1487: You are basing your assertions on GM boats of old that dont even exist anymore.
Consistency, 1487. First, you post the above sentence, and in the next sentence, you say this:
I would say the base model Lucerne is one of GM's last "traditional" cars that has an old school ride with lots of float.
The base-model Lucerne still exists, by your own admission, so you've just contradicted yourself.
1487: Trust me, CR is not flunking GM cars because they cant handle curves.
True. They also tend not to do well in noise/vibration/harshness levels, ergonomics and build quality, either.
1487: The Auras low rating made absolutely no sense.
Well, Car & Driver didn't rate it above the Accord.
And as for your claim that Automobile said it was better than the Accord or Camry, I looked at my October 2006 issue, and what they said was that the top-of-the-line Aura (with the 3.6 V-6) was at least as enjoyable to drive as an Accord or Camry.
Which is quite different, and much more limited, than what you are alleging that the magazine's reviewers said.
enjoy the ride :shades:
Loren
No rubber is being ground from my tires, because the car is engineered to handle those speeds.
If a car is grinding off rubber from the tires just because it exceeds the posted speed limit for that curve, it either has a poorly engineered chassis, or needs much better tires.
imidazol97: From one other post that I did read I caught this. I had to laugh about the speeds vs what people wanna go.
Most people "wanna go" faster because they know that speed limits on interstate highways are underposted.
Riding on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or I-81, I've noticed that most people "wanna go" 75-80 mph, even though the posted speed limit is 65 mph. And the rubber isn't flying off their tires, either. That's the bonus of driving a car with superior chassis engineering, which includes capable tires.
In reading the review of the Saturn, they pretty much said that GM ALMOST got it right, but then shot themselves in the foot over the details. Despite having a pushrod, the Aura performed pretty well. It was second quickest from 0-60 (7.7 seconds, only the Altima bested it, at 7.4), had the best quarter mile speed (but in time, was tied for the Altima, so I guess that's in indication that the Altima was running out of breath), and the quickest 0-100 time.
The Aura also tied the Altima for best skidpad performance and had the second shortest braking distance.
So, while the Aura came up in the bottom half overall in rankings, that doesn't make it a bad car, not by a long shot. For people that want what the Aura has to offer, it seems to be a good choice. When it comes to these types of tests, it's not like there's just one winner and everything else is a piece of crap!
CR testers are just mad because their fathers who didn't approve of their hippie lifestyles drove Buicks and Cadillacs back in the '60s. "Oh, boo-hoo! My Daddy won't let me grow my hair like a girl, experiment with various mind-expanding drugs, and have casual sex with a vast number of anonymous partners of both genders in a consequence-free environment! I'll get even with him and all those other Establishment types!"
When these CR testers' kids and grandkids can't get jobs or have graduate degrees and are working at Starbucks, maybe they'll see the damage they did with their petty biases.
And may I assume parts are expensive?
Loren
I took the same innerchange at no more than about 80 MPH in my Accord Coupe. I could safely do so.
I wouldn't go much over 70 miles per hour in my wife's old 2005 Civic on that same turning freeway ramp. In her newer 2007 Civic I think you could safely do 80 as it has bigger and wider tires.
If I was in my parents' old 95 Camry, I would spin out at any speed over 70 mph!!! You could not SAFELY go that fast.
It's all about suspension, chassis, and tire design (size too) and engineering.
But a modern day sports sedan or any sedan with a decent suspension can easily outperform your "old school" 88' Park Avenue. Don't believe me? Why don't you drive the Park Ave, m1miata drives his Accord V6 SE and I drive my IS350 and let's see which one handles the curves, mountains with more confidence.
CR testers are just mad because their fathers who didn't approve of their hippie lifestyles drove Buicks and Cadillacs back in the '60s.
How about CR testers were just trying to tell things like the way they think it is and you just frankly disagree. That's fine really since we are in a free country. But insulting them and their family members like that with totally whacky assumptions will not give credibility to your post.
When these CR testers' kids and grandkids can't get jobs or have graduate degrees and are working at Starbucks, maybe they'll see the damage they did with their petty biases.
Well, maybe those CR testers' kids and grandkids will end up with a graduate degrees and working for major multi-billion dollar US corporations which are not in the automobile industry like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, IBM, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, HP, or even Google and Yahoo.
Get the point? No? :sick:
I am a baby boomer, and my dad owns a Camry. He was no youngster when he bought his first Japanese car, a '91 Camry, which he drove for nine years, then bought another one. Why? The why is due to it being easier to drive, handling better than his Olds, more fun to drive, no issues as in it was never back in for repairs - period, got great gas mileage, and looked new when he traded the car in on another one. The current one, a 2000, I think is not as good overall however. Their cars are getting to be more Oldsmobile Delta88 like.
That is to say, average overall. Dad did not have to rely on CR data though, as every mechanic and friend he talked to praised the Toyota. Actually, he could have sold it several times to mechanic which loved the simple little car. GM left the customer, the customer was not to blame. GM builds cars - CR reports on those cars.
Loren
Yellow signs are advisory, not regulatory. Says so right in the MUTCD.
Yeah, that is until those jobs are also outsourced to India and China. It's already happening.
You think jobs in Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics will ever be outsourced to India and China?
Give me a break...
Cheeeessssshh. Where do you see "yellow"? The signs are appropriate speed limits signs for construction area speeds in Ohio.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm here to let people know the truth and the facts. I don't know why people want poor companies to succeed. They only succeed at a great cost to the consumer and a waste of good hard earned money.
We should not need so many auto mechanics and tow truck driver's in the world! We'd probably have 1/10th as many if it wasn't for the big 3!
Loren
Manufacturing? Yes.
Design? No.
You guys (not you Louiswei) want to tone it down a notch? - you'll scare off the lurkers who might otherwise want to participate but for the gratuitous personal potshots.
I'll wait for the SX4 sedan this fall.
Check it out(although hatches are better, imho).
It will be about Elantra sized(176-177 in length) 143HP. MPG may only be 30-31, though( Suzuki always has had lower MPG than Asian automakers).
But MPG would be similar to the Astra(but no hatch, but a larger vehicle, think the hatch is 167.3 inches long, iirc, if what I heard is correct, and the SX4 is 177 inches long... 10 more inches of"Crunch room" in case of an accident... I believe the Civic is longer than this car, or close to it...so not as small as the Astra?).
The Astra will be labeled a sub-compact, but with larger interior than most?
I like it.
I just don't understand how a car, 2.4Liter, I-4, with 160HP, similar size and weight , can get same, or better mpg as the Astra with 1.8 liter/140HP engine?
Is it tighter tolerances(in the engine.....)? That's what one mechanic told me.
The tighter the internal tolerances(and if done correctly)the higher the MPG they can get?
This MPG is Suzuki-like.
Then others may say"Fusion gets 31MPG, is a larger car", and that's true.
Who knows?
Unfortuantely, no matter what i like, due to upside-down in loan/trade-in, I ain't getting nothing new for 1-2 more years. So, I may have time. Maybe the 173(one site said 178? Think Edmunds has a first drive on Astra now,on blogs?)...turbo would suffice....maybe by 09- 2010? If that's the case, hmmmmm.
Oh, btw... if yer in a small(Yaris sized, at least) car, pull up to some of the larger suv's and trucks... see where the bumper hits... about head-level :surprise: Now ya can see why I am thinking of larger cars.
Around here, GM country... 65% of all vehicles are still trucks.
see ya.
Gearing, and how unaggressively the fuel maps are set up.