A decade or so back, all the GM-haters could state was how awful it was that GM offered a 4-speed auto and Honda, e.g., had that wonderful 5-speed transmission and GM was so far behind the times, blah, blah, blah.
Now GM has had a six-speed tranny and some of those other wunderbar companies have 5 speeds. What's in the Accord and Odyssey these days? 5-speeds and I assume that's the same design in both despite the weight difference that Honda had to "fix" the oiling to the one gear inside by putting a spray tube in the fill hole?
Where are the people ranting and raving about how awful it is that Honda, for one, can't put in 6-speeds. When GM had a great 4-speed, I've had it in 3 leSabres and it was perfect, all we heard was the mantra of 6-speed, 6-speed, 6-speed.
Nox was the most fuel efficient on that trip and is probably the biggest inside as well.
Credit where credit is due...
True, the Nox seems like a nice CUV. I only went to CU to check what kind of mileage they got out of it. It was a bit better than all of the other CUVs. The 0-60 time CU quoted could be off I don't know. I read in MT that GM claims 9.6 so if we use that number acceleration would be tolerable.
I've driven my buddies '10 LT1 4cyl 'nox briefly. It is nice overall. I really don't care for the 4cyl powertrain, but I didn't drive it far or long enough to determine if it had enough power and I was the only one in it at the time.
Being that I'm used to driving v8s and v6s it came across a bit harsh and buzzy. That said, the interior of the 'Nox seems nice and a huge upgrade from the crap GM has used in the past. I can certainly understand why sales have improved dramatically.
As for the CRV, I have another friend who has one and I like it too (for what it is). It's definitely a handler. He lives in the hills of southern Missouri and it handles great and it IMO honda 4cyl and transmission programing are top notch. Honda's certainly aren't the quietest vehicles, but their powertrains are smooth and perform well.
As for 5 vs 6 speeds. I'd take a 5 speed that is geared properly and is quick to downshift over a 6 speed that is geared to tall and slow to downshift. The few 6 speed gm vehicles I've driven tend to be the latter and I find it irritating. But that's only my opinion. I'd give up a bit of mileage for more responsiveness, but that's simply my preference.
What's in the Accord and Odyssey these days? 5-speeds and I assume that's the same design in both despite the weight difference that Honda had to "fix" the oiling to the one gear inside by putting a spray tube in the fill hole?
The Odyssey now offers a 6speed. The Accord doesn't.
My dad has an '09 Accord v6. It's his first non domestic car and ironically it's the first car he's ever owned that didn't have to go to the dealer for a non routine repair during the first 60k miles. I still prefer my brother's '10 Fusion Sport over it, but the Accord is a very good car.
Hows the fuel economy between a v6 Malibu and a v6 Accord? 17/26 vs 20/30.
Heck, a Honda Odyssey with the 6speed trans gets better mileage 19/28.
When GM had a great 4-speed, I've had it in 3 leSabres and it was perfect, all we heard was the mantra of 6-speed, 6-speed, 6-speed.
It wasn't just the transmission, but the engine attached to it. I know many GM faithful liked the 3800 but other than maybe FE it was far outclassed by competing powertrains in other makes.
My wife recently replaced her '07 3800/4speed grand prix with a '11 Taurus with a 3.5DOHC/6speed. The difference is night and day. The Taurus is far more responsive and gets better mileage despite weighing 600lbs more. It doesn't sound like a spoon's in the garbage disposal either. Though v6's from Toy/honda are better at NVH than Ford's 3.5. I certainly prefer GM's 3.6 or Ford's 3.5 mated to 6 speeds vs the pushrod v6's with 4speeds.
I've rented my share of LeSabre's and perfect never came to mind when I drove them. Sluggish and sloppy did though.
imid - you'll be happy to know that Lutz's book has reached the top of my reading list (it got backed up behind a novel that I had to finish...). I should be quoting soon....
That old 3800 engine and a four speed are perfectly fine in my book. They aren't my first choice but nothing wrong with them.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Hows the fuel economy between a v6 Malibu and a v6 Accord? 17/26 vs 20/30.
That's one thing I never understood about GM, when they started using 6-speed automatics. It doesn't seem like the extra couple gears are really giving you much of a fuel economy boost. I think the older 3.5 pushrod V-6/4-speed was rated around 19/29. Now granted, it wasn't as powerful. I think 0-60 times might have been similar, but the 3.6/6-speed most likely gives you better performance in other areas (quarter mile, high speed passing, etc).
They had better luck with the 4-cyl though. The 6-speed is rated at 22/33, while the 4-speed was 20/30.
That's one thing I never understood about GM, when they started using 6-speed automatics. It doesn't seem like the extra couple gears are really giving you much of a fuel economy boost.
It is a bit odd. Another thing that's strange is if you compare an Accord, CRV, Malibu, and Equinox is the Equinox gets better mileage than the CRV, but the Accord gets better mileage than the Malibu.
Both the Accord and CRV use the same engine and trans as does the Malibu and 'Nox.
The difference is for some reason the CRV mileage drops off from the Accord where the 'Nox gets similar mileage to the Malibu. THe EPA rates the overall mileage of the 'Bu and 'Nox the same at 26 mpg overall, the CRV is 24 and Accord is 27. I used the 2wd versions of the CRV and 'Nox.
That's one thing I never understood about GM, when they started using 6-speed automatics. It doesn't seem like the extra couple gears are really giving you much of a fuel economy boost.
Andre,
It could be the the gear ratio, gear spread and the final gear ratio (or any combination inbetween) that is the culprit.
It's like the 700R4 / 4L60 and it's later E/65E/80E derivatives. They have a horrible 1st - 2nd gear drop and the final ratio was .70:1. With the 1-2 shift the RPM dropped way low, so most people compensate(d) by either pressing down hard on the 1st gear accel, resulting in staying in first a tad longer or mashing the accelerator a little more once the shift occurred. After a few times most people do it subconsciously & don't even know they do it. Whereas the 200-4R had a better gear spread (similar to a TH350) and slightly taller .67:1 4th gear ratio. Add in a 3.42 axle ratio, a reluctance to downshift, load and viola...
If GM took the 4L60 / 4T60 4 basic ratios and just added a couple more gears in between somewhere, similar to what FOMOCO and Chrysler did on their early 5-speeds, then you may not gain anything or very little.
The 3.6 in the Malibu is is 252HP and I don't know the torque output.
I just googled it... 251 ft-lb. So the Accord and Malibu are close in torque and honestly, those hp numbers aren't THAT far apart. Theoretically, if the Accord was more peaky and the Malibu had a nice, broad torque curve, it could be the better performer, but I have a feeling that's not the case.
As for acceleration, I found a 0-60 time of 6.7 listed by Edmunds for a V-6 Malibu. Couldn't find one for the Accord, but did catch a blurb that said it was the fastest car in its class.
I just googled it... 251 ft-lb. So the Accord and Malibu are close in torque and honestly, those hp numbers aren't THAT far apart.
That is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Accord has over 7% more horsepower than the Malibu, while getting over 10% better fuel economy. I find that to be substantial.
Also, the Accord has 2 more lb.-ft. of torque!
And it's 2011 last I checked, I thought GM was supposed to catch up to the Japanese like 10 years ago?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Accord has over 7% more horsepower than the Malibu, while getting over 10% better fuel economy. I find that to be substantial.
Honestly, I'm not crazy about the V-6 Malibu's fuel economy, anyway, so I'll agree with you there. And the Accord V-6 does seem to be a pretty impressive engine.
However, my original point with the hp numbers is that, simply by themselves, they can be deceptive. Heck, I have a 1979 Chrysler with 150 hp and a 1976 Pontiac with 175. Similar displacement engines (Pontiac 350 and Mopar 360), similar weight (~4000 lb), similar gearing, etc. In this case, the Pontiac actually has 16-17% MORE hp than the Chrysler. Yet, it's not as fast, and gets worse fuel economy.
There are a lot of factors involved in performance. Not just gear ratios, displacement, peak hp, peak torque, etc, but also how broad the hp and torque curves are, where the peak comes on, how efficient the transmission is at keeping the engine at peak power when needed, etc.
Yes, did you ever DYNO check the HP on your 79 Mopar and '76 Pontiac?
I think some manufacturers might be guilty of overstating HP while others may even understate it.
Condition of vehicle also comes into play, as even Inside Line has done several long term comparisons (or vintage vs. new model comparos) where a car lost some steam over the years.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yes, did you ever DYNO check the HP on your 79 Mopar and '76 Pontiac?
Nah, never have done that. I've been curious, but those dyno tests aren't cheap. Plus, I've heard they're not always accurate, either, but don't know the specifics. I've just heard that they can be twisted around to "dial in" almost any number you want.
I think some manufacturers might be guilty of overstating HP while others may even understate it.
Yeah, I've heard that pop up from time to time. It was more prevalent back in the old days when they used gross hp instead of net, but it still pops up from time to time.
Condition of vehicle also comes into play, as even Inside Line has done several long term comparisons (or vintage vs. new model comparos) where a car lost some steam over the years.
As for vehicle condition, yeah, that can definitely be a big factor. In my case though, my '79 New Yorker is on its original engine, at roughly 96,000 miles, while the LeMans, at only 81,000 miles, has had some minor work done to it. Maybe the previous owner botched it up somehow, but it does seem to run pretty well. Has a nice, healthy sound to it.
The transmission might be a factor, too. The Chrysler Torqueflite seems like it'll hold first gear longer, and when it shifts, it does it quicker.
Ody got a 6 speed, but only on the Touring models, $40k and above. Most people (LX/EX/EX-L) still get a 5 speed auto. They advertise the 28mpg highway, but Consumer Reports only managed 19, nothing special, not even best in the V6 minivan class.
Wow, that's not even in the same ball park. That's a different sport and league all together. And to top it off, isn't the Accord's V6 more powerful?
My wife has a 2008 Saturn Aura XR 3.6 with the 6 speed. That is the same combo in the Malibu. Road and Track had a 0-60 for this car of 5.9 seconds, much better than the Honda Accord V-6 and she gets around 20 MPG combined and on a Road trip I have seen about 31.
As for those EPA fuel economy figures, I wonder if this is one instance where the car doesn't test too well on the EPA ciruit, but in the real world, it's pretty easy to beat those estimates? I've heard that happens from time to time. With some cars, it's really easy to beat the EPA, but with others, it's a struggle.
Here's what I don't get; back in the 80's full size FWD GM cars like LeSabres and 88's could get 30 on the highway, but today a 6 cyl LaCrosse or Impala can't.
Here's what I don't get; back in the 80's full size FWD GM cars like LeSabres and 88's could get 30 on the highway, but today a 6 cyl LaCrosse or Impala can't.
It is probably a combination of stricter air polution controls and the use of ethanol in gasoline, which contains less energy per volume.
Here's what I don't get; back in the 80's full size FWD GM cars like LeSabres and 88's could get 30 on the highway, but today a 6 cyl LaCrosse or Impala can't.
I have a feeling a modern LaCrosse or such could get 30 on the highway, but it's just that the EPA test they use nowadays yields lower ratings. That 17/27 a LaCrosse gets rated at would probably be around 19/29 by the older 1985-2007 algorithm. Maybe even 19/30. FWIW, a 1988 LeSabre with the 3.8/4-speed is rated 17/26 by today's standards, and was 19/29 in its day.
In addition to the extra power and emissions controls, a modern LaCrosse probably weighs about 500-600 lb more than a late 80's LeSabre, 88, etc.
I've heard that in the right conditions (warm air temp, level ground, a/c off, not driving too fast yet keeping a constant speed) could actually get close to 40 mpg with those late 80's cars.
Personally, I'd love to know what GM did to the 2012 Impala, to get it to 18/30 with the 3.6 and 6-speed, when that same combo is only good for 17/27 in the LaCrosse, and 17/26 in the Malibu! My guess is that they played around with the gearing a bit, perhaps detuned it?
Also, a big engine can have really tall gearing for the overdrive. They can loaf along on the highway at 1200-1500 rpms.
Here's what's funny, my minivan has a 3.5l revving at around 1500rpm on the highway, while my roadster has a 2.0l screaming at double the rpm. The minivan often is more efficient on the highway.
I let my wife drive my Malibu with the DIC reading 28.6 avg mpg. She drives it for a few days and the DIC now says 25.6 avg. She gets 10-15% less mpg than me regardless of what vehicle it is. The only difference is on a trip where we both get about the same. She probably can't match the combined EPA numbers for a vehicle and I can usually beat them by 10%.
To take the 17/26 rating of the Malibu that outruns anything similar per R&T, and trash it over mpg's is something that would only be done to a GM. I have a Buick rated 18/27 that is 3650 dry wt. 282 ft-lbs SC V6 that got over 30 on trips and consistently averaged over 27.5 in my 60% hwy commute. I didn't use Premium in it, in fact, I used 10% ethanol. It was loaded to the gills on trips. The Malibu 3.6 is less Torque but more HP. The Malibu is 12 yrs newer and 200 lbs heavier. I had about 1200 lbs in the Buick on trips where I got between 30 and 31. More than 10% over EPA. Then they lowered the EPA numbers from 27 to 26. With 2 more gears, I would expect to get 31-32 out of a 3.6 Malibu on a trip. I currently top the EPA hwy number with my 2.4 L Malibu 6 spd by 3 mpgs. With Ethanol in the gas.
The GM 3.6 Torque peak is at a very useful 3200 rpm and 6.0/14.6 sec was impressive with 3850 lb car. My Sonoma 4.3 2WD ext cab is the same weight, slightly more Torque, and got 24.7 mpg on the last trip, even with over 120k mi on it. The Malibu is very aerodynamic in comparison, has 2 more gears, has 71 more HP, and is rated 6 more hwy mpg by the EPA. I'd be suprised if I couldn't get 26 combined out of it.
The focus of comparison between Honda and GM shift to gas mileage. The 3.6 malibu is better performing. The Malibu looks better. The Malibu has a longer warranty. I guess I'd go after anything I could if I were an Accord fan. The focus used to be quality reputation. All quiet on that front now.
OK, GM is doing better on quality...just not the best.
The top 10 based on the least number of problems reported in the first three months of operation were Lexus, Honda, Acura, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda, Porsche, Toyota, Infiniti, Cadillac and GMC.
Domestic nameplates, which have been pushing the new technologies, were hurt the most, allowing imports to regain their lead in reliability after losing that distinction for the first time last year, according to the J.D. Power & Associates annual U.S. Initial Quality Study.
"General Motors will recall more than 4,000 2012 Buick LaCrosses in the U.S. and Canada, and about 10,000 2012 Chevy Impalas, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
A software glitch in the LaCrosse is causing a sensor to malfunction, which "might" cause the vehicle’s electronic stability control to falsely activate, resulting in sudden changes in vehicle handling and deceleration. While GM says that it is unaware of any crashes, injuries or complaints related to the defect, the recall is expected to begin sometime this month.
The Impala's issue is with its power steering system. According to NHTSA, certain models of the 2012 Chevy Impala have power-steering hoses placed too close to the cars' catalytic converters. High heat from the converter might melt the hose and ignite the flammable hydraulic steering fluid.
Luckily, I bet there are extremely few 2012 Impalas out there...they've just been starting to trickle onto dealer lots in the past month or so. For the Buick, 4,000 is a pretty small number. Remember Toyota's recall numbers....13 million...and even Hyundai's numbers on the 2011 Sonata. The GM numbers don't jump out in comparison...truly.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It was a smash hit at the 2009 Auto Show and is planned as a 2014 model. Called the Converj. The article said the Volt is sold out and a second GM line of plug ins could lower the costs per vehicle.
Re.: Malibu V6--I cannot remember when I last saw a new Malibu V6 on a dealer's lot. Last year, maybe it was 2009, I really liked the unique wheels you got with a 2LT Malibu V6--rarely seen, however.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Also, a big engine can have really tall gearing for the overdrive. They can loaf along on the highway at 1200-1500 rpms.
When those smaller FWD full-sizers first came out for 1985, the Electra and 98 used a 2.84:1 axle, while the DeVille/Fleetwood used a 2.97:1. That's a bit odd IMO, because 0.13:1 doesn't seem like much of a spread to be of much use. But the Caddy used a 4.1 V-8, while the other two had a 3.8 V-6, so maybe they tried to mate the ratio as close to the engine as possible for peak performance or something? Oddly, the V-6 put out more torque, 195 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm, versus 190 ft-lb@2200 for the Caddy 4.1 V-8. So maybe the Caddy did need just a little extra boost to give similar performance?
Both also put out 125 hp that first year. The Buick peaked at 4400 rpm, the Caddy at 4200.
I think the overdrive ratio was 0.67:1, so that would effectively knock down a 2.97:1 to 1.99:1 and a 2.84 to ~1.90:1
Those cars weren't all that efficient in the first year, though. In fact, my 1985 Consumer Guide got an 18 mpg average out of their old school B-body LeSabre with a 307 V-8 and 17 with the new, trim C-body Electra with the 231.
GM definitely worked hard on those engines though. They got the 231 up to 150 hp and then 165 before too long, and the cars they went in were still pretty lightweight, so they were able to stay with fairly tall axles.
Even my 2000 Park Ave Ultra only has something like a 2.93:1 axle. Oddly, the regular Park Ave has a 3.05:1. Strange, since they usually put a quicker axle with a higher performance car, but maybe they figured the supercharged engine was more than enough, so they could make the axle a bit taller to give it a bit better economy?
When it's in top gear, I think it does around 1600 rpm@60 mph, and around 2000 rpm@75. In contrast, my old Intrepid, which had a 3.89:1 axle, did around 2000 rpm@60 and 2500@75. My Park Ave is probably way too heavy to try to hyper-mile to 40 mpg like you could with the late 80's models, but I've been able to break 30, which ain't bad for a car that size.
'Anyone here know when Buick cuts off the model year for the Lacrosse? Help out our friend'
...scheduled start of regular production dates for most 2012 GM models. The below list is accurate as of this week, though we caution that the SORP dates can change between now and the date listed.
Our sources have been combing through the 2012 information that is currently available and have not reported any major changes to the lineup at this time outside of what is already known. GMI will continue to post updates regarding 2012 model-year changes over the next few months.
2012 SORP Dates
Buick:
Enclave - June 13 LaCrosse - June 13 ... Last edited by nsap; 06-28-2011 at 10:10 PM.
When it's in top gear, I think it does around 1600 rpm@60 mph, and around 2000 rpm@75. In contrast, my old Intrepid, which had a 3.89:1 axle, did around 2000 rpm@60 and 2500@75.
My wifes's '11 Taurus is geared fairly tall. At 80mpg it's only spinning 1900 rpm or so. My Expedition turns 2k rpm at 75, but it does have the shorter 3.73 gears with the 6speed.
I've yet to break 30mpg in the Taurus. It's rated for 28 and I can get that on the hwy but no better. Granted I don't drive 65 either.
Kind of like the Malibu and Impala, the Taurus is rated for higher hwy mileage than the 3.5 powered Fusion. Odd considering how much bigger and heavier the Taurus is. I'm guessing the Fusion Sport must be geared lower.
She gets 10-15% less mpg than me regardless of what vehicle it is. The only difference is on a trip where we both get about the same. She probably can't match the combined EPA numbers for a vehicle and I can usually beat them by 10%.
That's me. I've only beat the EPA mileage with one vehicle and that was my '00 VW Jetta TDI. Other than that car I rarely meet the EPA estimates. I guess I accelerate and drive to fast. I've hit 17 with the Expedition a few times, but that was usually with a tail wind. My Suburban wasn't much different, I was happy to get 16mpg on the hwy.
We never saw more than 25 or so with my wife's '07 GP. She's averaging almost 26 with her Taurus during her same type of drive she had with the GP where it averaged around 24. Best we've seen so far is 28 with the Taurus and that's what the hwy rating is.
The focus of comparison between Honda and GM shift to gas mileage. The 3.6 malibu is better performing. The Malibu looks better. The Malibu has a longer warranty. I guess I'd go after anything I could if I were an Accord fan. The focus used to be quality reputation. All quiet on that front now.
No question the Accord is getting dated. The refinement of the Accord is still impressive, though road noise is a weak spot. My dad's '09 Ex-L is tight as a drum at 60k miles. It's far tighter than my wife's '11 Taurus and while Honda's 3.5 v6 needs to be revved for power it's far smoother than Ford's 3.5 and the few 3.6's I've sample from GM. I guess that's what I appreciate from Honda. How smooth their powertrains are.
That said, I wouldn't buy an Accord, but it's still a very competent car.
Comments
Mr. Caddy, meet Mr. Lincoln! Bogus luxury with an inflated price! :shades:
Regards,
OW
But Caddy is "the new standard of the world", right?
Nox was the most fuel efficient on that trip and is probably the biggest inside as well.
Credit where credit is due...
Each manufacturer is different, could be any time. What model specifically?
Ironic what you're asking ... the 'Nox has it while the CR-V and RAV4 still don't, even now.
Ironic what you're asking ... the 'Nox has it while the CR-V and RAV4 still don't, even now.
Our (departed) 2008 Saturn VUE XR had a 6-speed automatic.
A decade or so back, all the GM-haters could state was how awful it was that GM offered a 4-speed auto and Honda, e.g., had that wonderful 5-speed transmission and GM was so far behind the times, blah, blah, blah.
Now GM has had a six-speed tranny and some of those other wunderbar companies have 5 speeds. What's in the Accord and Odyssey these days? 5-speeds and I assume that's the same design in both despite the weight difference that Honda had to "fix" the oiling to the one gear inside by putting a spray tube in the fill hole?
Where are the people ranting and raving about how awful it is that Honda, for one, can't put in 6-speeds. When GM had a great 4-speed, I've had it in 3 leSabres and it was perfect, all we heard was the mantra of 6-speed, 6-speed, 6-speed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Credit where credit is due...
True, the Nox seems like a nice CUV. I only went to CU to check what kind of mileage they got out of it. It was a bit better than all of the other CUVs. The 0-60 time CU quoted could be off I don't know. I read in MT that GM claims 9.6 so if we use that number acceleration would be tolerable.
I've driven my buddies '10 LT1 4cyl 'nox briefly. It is nice overall. I really don't care for the 4cyl powertrain, but I didn't drive it far or long enough to determine if it had enough power and I was the only one in it at the time.
Being that I'm used to driving v8s and v6s it came across a bit harsh and buzzy. That said, the interior of the 'Nox seems nice and a huge upgrade from the crap GM has used in the past. I can certainly understand why sales have improved dramatically.
As for the CRV, I have another friend who has one and I like it too (for what it is). It's definitely a handler. He lives in the hills of southern Missouri and it handles great and it IMO honda 4cyl and transmission programing are top notch. Honda's certainly aren't the quietest vehicles, but their powertrains are smooth and perform well.
As for 5 vs 6 speeds. I'd take a 5 speed that is geared properly and is quick to downshift over a 6 speed that is geared to tall and slow to downshift. The few 6 speed gm vehicles I've driven tend to be the latter and I find it irritating. But that's only my opinion. I'd give up a bit of mileage for more responsiveness, but that's simply my preference.
The Odyssey now offers a 6speed. The Accord doesn't.
My dad has an '09 Accord v6. It's his first non domestic car and ironically it's the first car he's ever owned that didn't have to go to the dealer for a non routine repair during the first 60k miles.
I still prefer my brother's '10 Fusion Sport over it, but the Accord is a very good car.
Hows the fuel economy between a v6 Malibu and a v6 Accord? 17/26 vs 20/30.
Heck, a Honda Odyssey with the 6speed trans gets better mileage 19/28.
It wasn't just the transmission, but the engine attached to it. I know many GM faithful liked the 3800 but other than maybe FE it was far outclassed by competing powertrains in other makes.
My wife recently replaced her '07 3800/4speed grand prix with a '11 Taurus with a 3.5DOHC/6speed. The difference is night and day. The Taurus is far more responsive and gets better mileage despite weighing 600lbs more. It doesn't sound like a spoon's in the garbage disposal either. Though v6's from Toy/honda are better at NVH than Ford's 3.5. I certainly prefer GM's 3.6 or Ford's 3.5 mated to 6 speeds vs the pushrod v6's with 4speeds.
I've rented my share of LeSabre's and perfect never came to mind when I drove them. Sluggish and sloppy did though.
That old 3800 engine and a four speed are perfectly fine in my book. They aren't my first choice but nothing wrong with them.
That's one thing I never understood about GM, when they started using 6-speed automatics. It doesn't seem like the extra couple gears are really giving you much of a fuel economy boost. I think the older 3.5 pushrod V-6/4-speed was rated around 19/29. Now granted, it wasn't as powerful. I think 0-60 times might have been similar, but the 3.6/6-speed most likely gives you better performance in other areas (quarter mile, high speed passing, etc).
They had better luck with the 4-cyl though. The 6-speed is rated at 22/33, while the 4-speed was 20/30.
It is a bit odd. Another thing that's strange is if you compare an Accord, CRV, Malibu, and Equinox is the Equinox gets better mileage than the CRV, but the Accord gets better mileage than the Malibu.
Both the Accord and CRV use the same engine and trans as does the Malibu and 'Nox.
The difference is for some reason the CRV mileage drops off from the Accord where the 'Nox gets similar mileage to the Malibu. THe EPA rates the overall mileage of the 'Bu and 'Nox the same at 26 mpg overall, the CRV is 24 and Accord is 27. I used the 2wd versions of the CRV and 'Nox.
Wow, that's not even in the same ball park. That's a different sport and league all together. And to top it off, isn't the Accord's V6 more powerful?
The 3.5 in the Accord has 271hp and 254ft-lbs of torque.
The 3.6 in the Malibu is is 252HP and I don't know the torque output.
Also I need to make a revision to a previous post. The 2.4 in the Equinox has DI and 182 HP or so vs the 2.4 in the Malibu having 169HP w/o DI.
Andre,
It could be the the gear ratio, gear spread and the final gear ratio (or any combination inbetween) that is the culprit.
It's like the 700R4 / 4L60 and it's later E/65E/80E derivatives. They have a horrible 1st - 2nd gear drop and the final ratio was .70:1. With the 1-2 shift the RPM dropped way low, so most people compensate(d) by either pressing down hard on the 1st gear accel, resulting in staying in first a tad longer or mashing the accelerator a little more once the shift occurred. After a few times most people do it subconsciously & don't even know they do it. Whereas the 200-4R had a better gear spread (similar to a TH350) and slightly taller .67:1 4th gear ratio. Add in a 3.42 axle ratio, a reluctance to downshift, load and viola...
If GM took the 4L60 / 4T60 4 basic ratios and just added a couple more gears in between somewhere, similar to what FOMOCO and Chrysler did on their early 5-speeds, then you may not gain anything or very little.
I just googled it... 251 ft-lb. So the Accord and Malibu are close in torque and honestly, those hp numbers aren't THAT far apart. Theoretically, if the Accord was more peaky and the Malibu had a nice, broad torque curve, it could be the better performer, but I have a feeling that's not the case.
As for acceleration, I found a 0-60 time of 6.7 listed by Edmunds for a V-6 Malibu. Couldn't find one for the Accord, but did catch a blurb that said it was the fastest car in its class.
That is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the Accord has over 7% more horsepower than the Malibu, while getting over 10% better fuel economy. I find that to be substantial.
Also, the Accord has 2 more lb.-ft. of torque!
And it's 2011 last I checked, I thought GM was supposed to catch up to the Japanese like 10 years ago?
Honestly, I'm not crazy about the V-6 Malibu's fuel economy, anyway, so I'll agree with you there. And the Accord V-6 does seem to be a pretty impressive engine.
However, my original point with the hp numbers is that, simply by themselves, they can be deceptive. Heck, I have a 1979 Chrysler with 150 hp and a 1976 Pontiac with 175. Similar displacement engines (Pontiac 350 and Mopar 360), similar weight (~4000 lb), similar gearing, etc. In this case, the Pontiac actually has 16-17% MORE hp than the Chrysler. Yet, it's not as fast, and gets worse fuel economy.
There are a lot of factors involved in performance. Not just gear ratios, displacement, peak hp, peak torque, etc, but also how broad the hp and torque curves are, where the peak comes on, how efficient the transmission is at keeping the engine at peak power when needed, etc.
I think some manufacturers might be guilty of overstating HP while others may even understate it.
Condition of vehicle also comes into play, as even Inside Line has done several long term comparisons (or vintage vs. new model comparos) where a car lost some steam over the years.
Nah, never have done that. I've been curious, but those dyno tests aren't cheap. Plus, I've heard they're not always accurate, either, but don't know the specifics. I've just heard that they can be twisted around to "dial in" almost any number you want.
I think some manufacturers might be guilty of overstating HP while others may even understate it.
Yeah, I've heard that pop up from time to time. It was more prevalent back in the old days when they used gross hp instead of net, but it still pops up from time to time.
Condition of vehicle also comes into play, as even Inside Line has done several long term comparisons (or vintage vs. new model comparos) where a car lost some steam over the years.
As for vehicle condition, yeah, that can definitely be a big factor. In my case though, my '79 New Yorker is on its original engine, at roughly 96,000 miles, while the LeMans, at only 81,000 miles, has had some minor work done to it. Maybe the previous owner botched it up somehow, but it does seem to run pretty well. Has a nice, healthy sound to it.
The transmission might be a factor, too. The Chrysler Torqueflite seems like it'll hold first gear longer, and when it shifts, it does it quicker.
Ody got a 6 speed, but only on the Touring models, $40k and above. Most people (LX/EX/EX-L) still get a 5 speed auto. They advertise the 28mpg highway, but Consumer Reports only managed 19, nothing special, not even best in the V6 minivan class.
Camry V6 and Siennas have 6 speeds now, though.
I have no idea, sorry.
My wife has a 2008 Saturn Aura XR 3.6 with the 6 speed. That is the same combo in the Malibu. Road and Track had a 0-60 for this car of 5.9 seconds, much better than the Honda Accord V-6 and she gets around 20 MPG combined and on a Road trip I have seen about 31.
As for those EPA fuel economy figures, I wonder if this is one instance where the car doesn't test too well on the EPA ciruit, but in the real world, it's pretty easy to beat those estimates? I've heard that happens from time to time. With some cars, it's really easy to beat the EPA, but with others, it's a struggle.
It is probably a combination of stricter air polution controls and the use of ethanol in gasoline, which contains less energy per volume.
I have a feeling a modern LaCrosse or such could get 30 on the highway, but it's just that the EPA test they use nowadays yields lower ratings. That 17/27 a LaCrosse gets rated at would probably be around 19/29 by the older 1985-2007 algorithm. Maybe even 19/30. FWIW, a 1988 LeSabre with the 3.8/4-speed is rated 17/26 by today's standards, and was 19/29 in its day.
In addition to the extra power and emissions controls, a modern LaCrosse probably weighs about 500-600 lb more than a late 80's LeSabre, 88, etc.
I've heard that in the right conditions (warm air temp, level ground, a/c off, not driving too fast yet keeping a constant speed) could actually get close to 40 mpg with those late 80's cars.
Personally, I'd love to know what GM did to the 2012 Impala, to get it to 18/30 with the 3.6 and 6-speed, when that same combo is only good for 17/27 in the LaCrosse, and 17/26 in the Malibu! My guess is that they played around with the gearing a bit, perhaps detuned it?
Here's what's funny, my minivan has a 3.5l revving at around 1500rpm on the highway, while my roadster has a 2.0l screaming at double the rpm. The minivan often is more efficient on the highway.
To take the 17/26 rating of the Malibu that outruns anything similar per R&T, and trash it over mpg's is something that would only be done to a GM. I have a Buick rated 18/27 that is 3650 dry wt. 282 ft-lbs SC V6 that got over 30 on trips and consistently averaged over 27.5 in my 60% hwy commute. I didn't use Premium in it, in fact, I used 10% ethanol. It was loaded to the gills on trips. The Malibu 3.6 is less Torque but more HP. The Malibu is 12 yrs newer and 200 lbs heavier. I had about 1200 lbs in the Buick on trips where I got between 30 and 31. More than 10% over EPA. Then they lowered the EPA numbers from 27 to 26. With 2 more gears, I would expect to get 31-32 out of a 3.6 Malibu on a trip. I currently top the EPA hwy number with my 2.4 L Malibu 6 spd by 3 mpgs. With Ethanol in the gas.
The GM 3.6 Torque peak is at a very useful 3200 rpm and 6.0/14.6 sec was impressive with 3850 lb car. My Sonoma 4.3 2WD ext cab is the same weight, slightly more Torque, and got 24.7 mpg on the last trip, even with over 120k mi on it. The Malibu is very aerodynamic in comparison, has 2 more gears, has 71 more HP, and is rated 6 more hwy mpg by the EPA. I'd be suprised if I couldn't get 26 combined out of it.
The 3.6 malibu is better performing.
The Malibu looks better.
The Malibu has a longer warranty.
I guess I'd go after anything I could if I were an Accord fan.
The focus used to be quality reputation. All quiet on that front now.
The top 10 based on the least number of problems reported in the first three months of operation were Lexus, Honda, Acura, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda, Porsche, Toyota, Infiniti, Cadillac and GMC.
Domestic nameplates, which have been pushing the new technologies, were hurt the most, allowing imports to regain their lead in reliability after losing that distinction for the first time last year, according to the J.D. Power & Associates annual U.S. Initial Quality Study.
Auto quality slumps in 2011; imports regain edge
Slightly old article but the point is it's still work-in-progress here in the USA.
If I was a GM fan, I'd be sure to keep quite for a few more years...I am surprised Buick is not up there. Used to be the best GM had. :confuse:
Regards,
OW
A software glitch in the LaCrosse is causing a sensor to malfunction, which "might" cause the vehicle’s electronic stability control to falsely activate, resulting in sudden changes in vehicle handling and deceleration. While GM says that it is unaware of any crashes, injuries or complaints related to the defect, the recall is expected to begin sometime this month.
The Impala's issue is with its power steering system. According to NHTSA, certain models of the 2012 Chevy Impala have power-steering hoses placed too close to the cars' catalytic converters. High heat from the converter might melt the hose and ignite the flammable hydraulic steering fluid.
For more information, call your local GM dealer."
What, if or any year end incentives will be offered on 2011 Lacrosse? How much ?
Anyone with actual knowledge on this or guesses on the subject ?
2012 MSRP is about $1000 more than comparably equiped 2011.
Trying to decide which to get 2011 with year end incentives or 2012 which are offering $500 off now.
going to buy one or the other within 30 days !
What, if or any year end incentives will be offered on 2011 Lacrosse? How much ?
Anyone with actual knowledge on this or guesses on the subject ?
2012 MSRP is about $1000 more than comparably equiped 2011.
Trying to decide which to get 2011 with year end incentives or 2012 which are offering $500 off now.
going to buy one or the other within 30 days !
When those smaller FWD full-sizers first came out for 1985, the Electra and 98 used a 2.84:1 axle, while the DeVille/Fleetwood used a 2.97:1. That's a bit odd IMO, because 0.13:1 doesn't seem like much of a spread to be of much use. But the Caddy used a 4.1 V-8, while the other two had a 3.8 V-6, so maybe they tried to mate the ratio as close to the engine as possible for peak performance or something? Oddly, the V-6 put out more torque, 195 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm, versus 190 ft-lb@2200 for the Caddy 4.1 V-8. So maybe the Caddy did need just a little extra boost to give similar performance?
Both also put out 125 hp that first year. The Buick peaked at 4400 rpm, the Caddy at 4200.
I think the overdrive ratio was 0.67:1, so that would effectively knock down a 2.97:1 to 1.99:1 and a 2.84 to ~1.90:1
Those cars weren't all that efficient in the first year, though. In fact, my 1985 Consumer Guide got an 18 mpg average out of their old school B-body LeSabre with a 307 V-8 and 17 with the new, trim C-body Electra with the 231.
GM definitely worked hard on those engines though. They got the 231 up to 150 hp and then 165 before too long, and the cars they went in were still pretty lightweight, so they were able to stay with fairly tall axles.
Even my 2000 Park Ave Ultra only has something like a 2.93:1 axle. Oddly, the regular Park Ave has a 3.05:1. Strange, since they usually put a quicker axle with a higher performance car, but maybe they figured the supercharged engine was more than enough, so they could make the axle a bit taller to give it a bit better economy?
When it's in top gear, I think it does around 1600 rpm@60 mph, and around 2000 rpm@75. In contrast, my old Intrepid, which had a 3.89:1 axle, did around 2000 rpm@60 and 2500@75. My Park Ave is probably way too heavy to try to hyper-mile to 40 mpg like you could with the late 80's models, but I've been able to break 30, which ain't bad for a car that size.
You don't actually believe that, do you?
People troll threads for every brand, not just GM.
In the city, though, you're moving a heavy car, idling a big engine when you're not moving...hence the low overall averages.
Looking for low road noise, comfort in ride and overall mileage. Snow traction is not a consideration.
Brand / model / styke ?
...scheduled start of regular production dates for most 2012 GM models. The below list is accurate as of this week, though we caution that the SORP dates can change between now and the date listed.
Our sources have been combing through the 2012 information that is currently available and have not reported any major changes to the lineup at this time outside of what is already known. GMI will continue to post updates regarding 2012 model-year changes over the next few months.
2012 SORP Dates
Buick:
Enclave - June 13
LaCrosse - June 13
...
Last edited by nsap; 06-28-2011 at 10:10 PM.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/updated-2012-model-production-dates-10010- - 7/
CU tested the 5 speed model and overall was 19 with a range of 12/31 and 24mpg on the 150 mile trip.
My wifes's '11 Taurus is geared fairly tall. At 80mpg it's only spinning 1900 rpm or so. My Expedition turns 2k rpm at 75, but it does have the shorter 3.73 gears with the 6speed.
I've yet to break 30mpg in the Taurus. It's rated for 28 and I can get that on the hwy but no better. Granted I don't drive 65 either.
Kind of like the Malibu and Impala, the Taurus is rated for higher hwy mileage than the 3.5 powered Fusion. Odd considering how much bigger and heavier the Taurus is. I'm guessing the Fusion Sport must be geared lower.
That's me. I've only beat the EPA mileage with one vehicle and that was my '00 VW Jetta TDI. Other than that car I rarely meet the EPA estimates. I guess I accelerate and drive to fast. I've hit 17 with the Expedition a few times, but that was usually with a tail wind. My Suburban wasn't much different, I was happy to get 16mpg on the hwy.
We never saw more than 25 or so with my wife's '07 GP. She's averaging almost 26 with her Taurus during her same type of drive she had with the GP where it averaged around 24. Best we've seen so far is 28 with the Taurus and that's what the hwy rating is.
The 3.6 malibu is better performing.
The Malibu looks better.
The Malibu has a longer warranty.
I guess I'd go after anything I could if I were an Accord fan.
The focus used to be quality reputation. All quiet on that front now.
No question the Accord is getting dated. The refinement of the Accord is still impressive, though road noise is a weak spot. My dad's '09 Ex-L is tight as a drum at 60k miles. It's far tighter than my wife's '11 Taurus and while Honda's 3.5 v6 needs to be revved for power it's far smoother than Ford's 3.5 and the few 3.6's I've sample from GM. I guess that's what I appreciate from Honda. How smooth their powertrains are.
That said, I wouldn't buy an Accord, but it's still a very competent car.