By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The reason I mentioned a V8 is because Americans want torque and almost every major luxury car has a V8 option. Now, to be honest, there are a lot of good V6s out there as well, but again, the same issue rears its head. If Ford can design a 300hp v6 that gets 30mpg, why not design a 200hp v6 instead that gets 40mpg?
The Mercedes Kompressor sedans were a great example of this in practice. They get a reliable 35mpg(U.S. gallons) highway. But the real show-stopper is the "Not in the U.S." C180K. It gets 30/52/41 (Imperial), which translates to 25/43, and combined average of 34mpg. HP is 156, which while not great, is without a doubt in the "hybrid" range in terms of power and efficiency.
I'd love to have a C class diesel option.
I kind of liked the E200 CDI I drove for a day...reminded me of my fintail, just a bit heavier. Similar performance and aura of heft. It would be far too slow and basic a car to make it to NA, especially in the cloth version I drove.
1995 Aurora 4.0 V8 had 250 hp. It was 26 mpg hwy rated but I took one on a trip and got close to 30 mpg.
Today, on a 6.0L, the sc knocks 3 mpg off hwy mpg, from 22 to 19 mpg. More air = more fuel because the fuel/air mass ratio needs to be maintained. It shoves more mass of mixture into the same size combustion chamber. A taller geared (6-8 spd) tranny could be used to adjust mpg up.
Actually it's different engine. The current supercharged engine in the CTS-V and ZR-1 is a 6.2 liter. But I guess if you drove it, it would get 30mpg. You must drive slow. I've taken a number of different vehicles on long trips (more than one tank full) and I've only had one routinely meet or beat high way mileage. That was my 2000 VW Jetta TDI with a 5 speed. I could get 48-51 mpg out of it during highway and it averaged around 45mpg during the 18 mos I owned it, but that was probably an 80/20 mix on the highway. (IIRC it was rated for something like 41/49 old ratings and 35/44 under new rules). I've certainly NEVER have had or driven a vehicle which consistently beat it's EPA estimates by 5 mpg. One trip doesn't mean a whole lot.
Regards:
OldCEM
and GTO is a much heavier car. "
Numbers I see published for the GTO are just over 3,800.
The Camaro V8 numbers I see are also just over 3,800...
Camaros couldn't get 30 mpg with LS1 or any other V8,
Oh, of course they are! Why, just at the GM show in Carlisle this past weekend, I talked to an old blow-hard who said he could get 24 mpg out of a 1965 GTO with a 421-TriPower! And the 1969 Catalina convertible he had on the show field, which had a 400 with a TriPower setup that he put on it, was capable of 20 mpg, easily! So, if those old, primitive brutes could get that kind of economy, naturally these new engines can!
Of course, I believed him. :P
after the 2002 model year....
Andre, you misunderstood him. He probably meant he was getting 24mpg while towing his '65 GTO with his heavily modified duramax 1 ton Silverado;)
But the second you *drove* it like a real red-blooded person or got into city traffic, the 8-9mpg other side of the coin reared its head. And, as for the 2004 GTO, it also had that problem. 30 highway and something like 15 city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=19648-
Automatic - this is what you would expect. 16/21, and maybe 22-23 with cruise control on at 65-70mph for purely highway runs.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=19649-
Manual. Just this year only.(switched engines for 2005 and lost *5* mpg) 17/29 original window sticker. 30mpg easy on the highway, since 6th gear at 65mph is less than 2000rpm. Perhaps the biggest mpg difference between manual and automatic that I've seen in a decade or more. Most owners report getting 23-25 mpg average, or exactly what the typical GM 3.8 V6s got.
GM certainly could make a 250HP 4.0L V8 with similar gearing, and maybe a few hundred lbs lighter while they're at it and get 35mpg. Stick that in a higher-end Cadillac or Buick. Sure, they could use a V6, but their top-end models always have been V8s, and to compete at the top end, you really need one. So make a small one with 4 cylinder fuel economy.
And I have a feeling the only reason the car did as well as it did was because coming home, it started to overheat.
Regards,
OW
Now that's just wrong. Funny, but wrong! I was sweating bullets every time he drove that thing in the narrow space between my car and his on the show field. But, I haven't found any new battle damage on the car...so I guess he's better at handling that Hoveround better than he is with his '69!
I had seen that guy the night before driving out on the road, and I'd swear he was drunk. So the next morning when I saw him trying to back into the space beside my car, I'm sure anybody watching saw my face turn white as a sheet. That would be a helluva a thing, for my car to survive 43 years, only to get smashed by another Catalina!
Have to agree with andre & diesel, there's no way you could get a 24mpg with a stock tri-powered Poncho, even using the method you stated. Leaning out a Tri-Power to it's max (like that'll ever happen :P ), tip-toeing it and having it in 4th with a 2.14:1 ratio you still wouldn't break 18. I highly doubt you could do it with a 6-spd with a VERY tall OD in 6th, like .5:1. You might get a blip if you're going down hill but even then...
Maybe if it was a stripped Tempest with a 326 / 2BBL, granny gear rear and you drove it like Grandma Moses you might break 20mpg.
Anyway, how was the Carlisle show andre?
The GM show was great, except for the hot temps. I took some pics, and when I finally get around to uploading them, I'll post a link over in the classic cars forum. Well, I guess I could post it here too, since this is a GM forum!
My Catalina has a 2.56:1 axle, and I hate it. I can't imagine what it must be like with those even taller gears. It seems like it's good from 0-60, but out on the highway if you're doing around 60-70 and punch it, there's just not much there. But oddly, if you get up to higher speeds, say around 80, it seems to to get its power back, with a vengeance.
52.4MPG in a Crown Vic. I think 24mpg is quite possible, though 0-60 in 60 seconds might get you in trouble with the locals.
Of course, you have to love the responses on sites like that such as:
"i get 88 mpg in neutral idling @ 900 rpm going 34 mph lol"
:P
As for myself, well, I manage 17mpg in a 4 cylinder truck. That's *8* mpg less than the EPA. So, yeah, I'm kind of the other extreme who isn't happy unless it's in the 3-4K range all the time.
Did you see the other numbers. 896 rpm and 34 mph and probably going down hill. Try that on the interstate I used to get 99 mpg in my dad's '92 Crown Vic.
But if I stay under 70 I'll get close to my EPA hwy estimate, over that and it drops fast.
Regards:
OldCEM
Your Pontiac should do better than that. If it's still got a Quadrajet on it, I suspect its not working right or leaking internally. Over the years I've rebuilt a number of them with leaking well plugs, stuck secondary metering rod assemblies, and so on
Regards:
OldCEM.
Mine does have a Quadrajet...originally came with a 2-bbl, but the engine was rebuilt and supposedly beefed up at some point in its life before I bought it in 1994. In local driving I'll often get 8-10 mpg, but the car does sit alot, and I have a very short commute to work, about 3.8 miles. It'll break 17 mpg on the highway, and interestingly, seems to do a bit better at higher speeds.
Anyway, I figure on these last two tanks of gas, if I averaged 10 mpg in the local driving and 17 mpg on the highway, well with a 40/60 city/highway split, that comes out to a weighted average of about 13.3. So, maybe that's not really so bad? Still, if it can do better, I'd gladly take it!
I'll have to check my records, but I think that, among all the other things, my mechanic did rebuild the carburetor about a year and a half ago. Of course, that doesn't mean he rebuilt it correctly!
Edit: I just found the writeup that was on the window of the car when I bought it, way back in 1994. The actual paper was getting ratty, so I re-typed it in Powerpoint. Here it is...
1967 Pontiac Catalina Convertible
Original rebuilt 400 engine
Rebuilt Turbo 400 transmission
Dual exhaust, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning
Power convertible top and tilt steering
1000 miles on stock 400 rebuild
New pistons and rings
New rod, main, and cam bearings
New timing chain and gears
New water pump
New oil pump and screen
New Pontiac blueprint Ram Air cam and lifters
Rebuilt 4-barrel Rochester Carb
(Original 2-barrel and intake included)
Heads rebuild, block machined
(All machine work done by NAPA)
I wonder if one reason the car doesn't seem to realize its full potential is that it had all that engine work done, but still has the tall 2.56:1 axle ratio? Maybe a quicker axle would let it rev up more and hit its sweet spot better?
My Father in Law had a Pontiac Bonnie of about that vintage with the 400 Deuce engine. From what I remember =, he claimed it got 18 MPG highway. Do you have any idea what compression ratio it was rebuilt to?? Anyway - back then, the Quadrajet engines typically got a bit better mileage than the 2 Bbl ones - because of the smaller primaries on the Quadrajet, and, usually, a higher compression ratio. Do you have to run it on 93 Octane gas to keep it from pinging?? Anyway - my oldest son currently owns a 68 Olds Cutlass Convertible with a built 425 CID big block, headers, duals, ram air, Turbo 400, and a 3.08 Posi rear end. He says it'll get 14 at interstate speeds - if he manages to keep his foot out of it.
Regards:
OldCEM
My old dentist, who was a long-time family friend (served in the Army with my Dad back in the 1960's), said the same thing about 2-bbl engines versus 4-bbl. He'd always buy Impalas and Caprices back in the day, and said that it was better to get the 4-bbl, because of the smaller primaries. The last car I remember him having, before he retired and moved away, was a 1990's Roadmaster. I don't know the year though, so I dunno if it was the TBI 350 or the LT1.
My '76 LeMans, which has a 350-4-bbl and 2.41:1 axle, will get around 17-18 on the highway, but around town, like the Catalina, I'm lucky to get 10. On the surface, I guess that sounds kinda sad that a midsized car isn't getting much better mileage than a fullsized car with a bigger engine, but looking up the weights, the cars are actually similar! I think the base weight on the Catalina was 3910 lb, while the base weight on my LeMans is around 3870.
My '66 Impala, I never counted the mileage (didn't want to upset myself) but the '65 Impala, when I had it on a stretch of I-40 through Indy, I got about 17 calculated. Granted it had a swapped in 305/4bbl but is running highway gears; the '66, that was another story
Buddy of mine had a 67 Catalina and now a 66 Tri-Power goat. Got up to 20mpg in the Cat highway but swapped the 2bbl carb / intake for a Q-Jet, very tall gears in the rear and nothing but himself in it and was "holding up" traffic on I-94W up to Gurnee. Again, he did it, but at the anger of the passing traffic. The Goat on the other hand, it'll never hit 20mpg - the high compression, 4.11 gears & cement foot take care of that
Sorry, should we get back to talking about current GM models?
Yeah, for those being kind of larger those slant 6s weren't too bad. They were darn near indestructible (maybe the not aluminum ones).
I guess your Catalina gets its second wind at 80.
Fleet sales are expected to once again prop up June car and truck sales when figures are released Thursday, masking weak demand among retail customers.
Fleet sales are serving an important purpose for GM, in particular, which is loading rental cars with more options like DVD players and navigation systems, which are helping fetch higher prices and boosting resale values.
GM's four core brands sold 83,305 fleet vehicles in May, a 44 percent spike from a year earlier. Fleet sales of Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac are up 64 percent this year, largely driven by higher rental sales. Fleet sales represented about 38 percent of GM's total sales in May, but the Detroit automaker expects that percentage to drop to about 25 percent by the end of the year.
IMHO it is going to be very difficult for them to survive even at their current size. GM's biggest hope is a strong, quick rebound in the US economy.
Ain't happening. I can't wait to see the ipo. Best way to play it is sell short after the first few days...
Like I predicted, sales are lucky to hit 11M units for 2010 after they put this year into the garage.
Regards,
OW
Well things aren't so rosy as Wall St. is currently realizing their irrational exuberance of the last year is just that. The official unemployment rate is about 10%, and another 10% are underemployed or too depressed to look for work. Housing is going no where but down. States are cutting employees and the census workers will soon be cut, and the government has bankrupted itself over the last few years trying to stimulate the economy. And consumers are still broke, from years of overconsumption.
So all in all, things are not looking so rosy for the country or for any IPO from GM. We're going to be real lucky if we avoid a Depression in the next few years.
Besides they have lied to us multiple times. Why trust them now? This is coming right from the CEO of the company..lol.
May the best car win, yes your right GM. Time will tell if they are telling the truth about the new look!
Chevrolet-Buick-GMC-Cadillac Sales Increase
* Sixth straight month that GM's four brand's sales increased by more than 20 percent
* Calendar-year-to-date sales for GM's four brands are up 32 percent
* GM full-size pickup sales increase 27 percent; up 12 percent year-to-date
* GM crossover sales are up 81 percent year-to-date
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/sales_prod/index.jsp
How many sales were to fleets, and how does that compare with the last few months?
How is their market share holding up, relative to the last few months?
It's easy to look good when you compare to the year ago month, which was a horrible year. The real issue is how well they are doing relative to the competition.
Color me skeptical that this is an accurate representation of their sales month.
Courtesy of thetruthaboutcars.com
"Even against this backdrop, however, GM’s sales show some signs of continued weakness. Though Chevrolet gained 32 percent in overall, its retail sales improved a mere 11 percent, meaning a huge number of Chevy’s sales went to fleets. Out of Buick’s 53 percent volume gain, retail sales increased only 28 percent. Cadillac had much less of a fleet problem than Buick and Chevy, increasing sales 339 percent and retail sales 35 percent. GMC did not release retail numbers for GMC, but noted that GM’s overall fleet sales were 59,571 for the month. That means nearly one in three vehicles sold by GM last month went to a fleet, a percentage that accounts for the lion’s share of GM’s sales growth. Once again, Detroit seems addicted to fleet sales "
"But, as is always the case, new products eventually lose their luster, and several of GM’s once hot-selling products are slackening off. Camaro is down nearly 20 percent from its high last June, moving 7,540 units."
"GM’s hot products continue to drive growth, with heartening signs coming from Buick (staying strong with the LaCrosse) and Cadillac (which benefitted from improved CTS (+31%) and strong SRX sales). Chevy, meanwhile, is likely seeing strong retail growth for its Equinox and Traverse, but it’s dead in the water on the sedan front, with only the Malibu likely making retail progress. With the launch of the Cruze looming, GM had better hope the response is strong, otherwise GM seems destined to grow only as a supplier to fleets. And as The General (and Detroit a large) has already learned, that short term growth always comes at the expense of long-term resale and brand equity."
Automakers saw their U.S. sales drop from May to June, a sign that this year's slow recovery in the industry may be stalling.
He said declines in sales to government and rental fleets were a major reason for the sales slowdown from May to June. GM sold 25,000 fewer vehicles to fleets in June, as heavier than usual fleet demand in the first half of the year subsided.
GM's overall sales increased 11% from a year earlier. Still, last June was a relatively weak month as GM headed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the industry was in the midst of its worst annual sales in 30 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-07-01-car-sales_N.htm
Wonderful - GM sold 11% more vehicles than their worst month in 30 years! :P And that's with all these wonderful new models people here mention, which very shortly are not going to be so new to the market.
Agreed. They've just only been doing it for 5-8 years rather than for 20-35 years like GM!