Cobalt XFE

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: harry j
This is good news, it's good to see GM offering a good economical car.

it's ridiculous. they DID have an economical car- the Saturn S series. SL1's get 40hwy, and the SL2 even get 36hwy! how can they brag about this cobalt?
you can't say that the EPA ratings are different now- S Series owners DO get those numbers still, and many owners beat them.
I don't understand how these new cars aren't getting better mpg. I had an '02 Saturn L200 (mid size), and I got 34hwy in that, almost 450 miles on a tank!
a cobalt w/ these 'tricks' should be good for 50mpg at least. if it ain't, well, then, it's pointless.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: 02Pilot
FWIW, my girlfriend's 05 Cobalt 5-speed gets around 30mpg in mixed driving and an honest 40mpg on the highway at 70mph. It is a base model with no extras, so it's about as light a Cobalt as you can find. Not a bad car, really, if you don't mind the simplicity and, erm..., "frugality" of the interior fittings.


That is unusually high MPGs for a delta chassis. My basic 2007 LS auto tops out at an average of ~32.5mpg per tank (warm weather). Most usage is 65mph highway travel. I do enjoy driving this car. It has a surprising amount of scoots to it. W/out cruise or a center console/armrest, I'd hate to use it for very long hywy trips.

 

[wapacz]

Emissions stuff shockingly can cause worse gas millage. Not saying it all that but is most likely part of it.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
When I read this GM news release, I was reminded of Ford's Pinto MPG of the 1970's.

...


Ah yes, the Pinto... So I wonder what happens to your mpg performance when your entire tank of gas goes up on flames all at the same time.

 

[Jim74]

I already get 36 mpg from a cobalt. I bought a '07 with a manual shift a couple months ago. Average 36 - 37 on the highway, doing 65 mph.

 

[Rabbler]

Originally Posted By: ffracer


Automatics cannot and do not get better mileage apples to apples because of coupling losses (not direct drive)



Torque converter lock up = direct drive

It's been around for over 20 years

I do believe a manual can get better economy if driven properly but the automatics have certainly narrowed the gap in the real world.

It didn't specify in that article but I wonder if this version of ecotec uses variable cam timing or direct injection? That would certainly increase economy but would also increase purchase price.

With the electric assist steering and Smart charging system they offer they have removed a lot of the accessory load off the engine which should translate into a MPG increase.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: Jim74
I already get 36 mpg from a cobalt. I bought a '07 with a manual shift a couple months ago. Average 36 - 37 on the highway, doing 65 mph.


I can see it per the DIC MPG readout, but averaging 36-37mpg out of an entire tank of gasoline? (total miles driven divided by gallons pumped into the tank) Probably not.

Joel

 

[MrCritical]

The real world fuel mileage hasn't changed. Only difference is changes in the drive cycle the EPA uses to get the estimates.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Rabbler
Originally Posted By: ffracer


Automatics cannot and do not get better mileage apples to apples because of coupling losses (not direct drive)



Torque converter lock up = direct drive

It's been around for over 20 years

I do believe a manual can get better economy if driven properly but the automatics have certainly narrowed the gap in the real world.



Of course they have. Like the previous guy said, because in the "real world" a manual is never geared the same as an automatic. The automatic is always geared higher (lower ratio). There is no way for the torque converter based automatic to match a manual.

Having said that, that means nothing in the real world because you don't see that situation ever appear.

 

[02Pilot]

Originally Posted By: JTK
That is unusually high MPGs for a delta chassis. My basic 2007 LS auto tops out at an average of ~32.5mpg per tank (warm weather). Most usage is 65mph highway travel. I do enjoy driving this car. It has a surprising amount of scoots to it. W/out cruise or a center console/armrest, I'd hate to use it for very long hywy trips.


I knew it was significantly better than the EPA numbers, but it's nice to hear that it's better than most in the real world as well.

FWIW, I verified those numbers on a long highway trip from NY to Pittsburgh and on a couple of normal driving cycle fill-ups as well. They are not just OBC numbers, though the OBC seems to be quite accurate in that car.

I never use an armrest, so that's no problem for me, but the lack of cruise could get me in trouble if I were driving. It really isn't a bad car at all: it's easy to work on (just maintenance so far), has decent power and controls, and is fairly amusing to drive up to about 8/10ths. That said, long trips are usually conducted in my 01 BMW 525i, which is a bit more refined but only manages around 30mpg highway.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
When I read this GM news release, I was reminded of Ford's Pinto MPG of the 1970's.

...


Ah yes, the Pinto... So I wonder what happens to your mpg performance when your entire tank of gas goes up on flames all at the same time.


My first car was a used '73 Pinto, purchased in June '74. I was only 16 and racked up the miles pretty quickly, driving all over the place, sometimes with friends in both front and rear passenger seats. It wasn't until late in 1978 that I got the recall notice to fix the 'rear collision, exploding fuel tank" problem.

 

[Jim74]

Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: Jim74
I already get 36 mpg from a cobalt. I bought a '07 with a manual shift a couple months ago. Average 36 - 37 on the highway, doing 65 mph.


I can see it per the DIC MPG readout, but averaging 36-37mpg out of an entire tank of gasoline? (total miles driven divided by gallons pumped into the tank) Probably not.

Joel


Uh, actually yes. I do almost all my driving on the highway. DIC mpg readout tells me 40.

 

[ekpolk]

LTV:

Thankfully, you were lucky and never suffered a "lightoff" event. I know exactly how you feel. Back in my flying days, we landed a jet one time after a roughly 2.5 hour mission, and discovered on post-flight inspection that there was fuel all over and dripping out of, one of the engine bays. There was a pretty nice leak going on. We could have gone off like a bomb at pretty much any time. Not my day, I guess. But not a comfortable feeling either.

But hey, we both lived to one day join BITOG.

 

[WishIhadatruck]

Originally Posted By: Rabbler
It didn't specify in that article but I wonder if this version of ecotec uses variable cam timing or direct injection? That would certainly increase economy but would also increase purchase price.


No variable cam timing or direct injection yet. The '09 models get VVT and the fuel economy should go up on the auto equipped cars when that happens. I've heard the hwy mpg will be 35 on the auto's next year. I've also heard that the manual trans will no longer be offered on the sedan, not sure if that part is true. It will still be offered on the coupe.

I've heard GM is working on offering a 1.4L DI Turbo in the future, not sure what cars it would go in (I'd guess small and midsize). They have been testing the 2.0L DI Turbo in full size cars already.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: Jim74

Uh, actually yes. I do almost all my driving on the highway. DIC mpg readout tells me 40.


That is amazing. ~400mi for a ~10gal fillup is unheard of for a 2.2L Delta chassis. They are economical, but usually not that good!

Joel

 

[JustinH]

There is a difference between what the miles per gallon guage tells you, and an old fashioned calculator does.

Go by amount of fuel used and miles driven. I use the pump readout at the gas station to get a very accurate reading.

A slight bump in tire pressure does affect these things, but too much isn't good for the suspension.

As for the gent saying that the manual gets 8% more fuel economy, please post a model from fueleconomy.gov.

The newer cars are all within 1-2 miles per gallon.

I would think that with the newer cars with more gears in the automatic transmission, they will do better than the 5 speed manual. You can't shift the thing for economy as well as the computer can.

Flash that back to my girlfriends 2000 neon, with a 3 speed automatic. A 5 speed manual will surely show an improvement.

 

[artificialist]

Why can't we just have a turbo diesel compact car already?

 

[MrCritical]

You will notice a different shift pattern in later model computer controlled auto trans when vehicle is cold, and especially when vehicle is cold and it's cold outside too. Shifts will be later.

That's where a manual transmission can tear them a new one, mpg wise.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: JustinH
..Go by amount of fuel used and miles driven. I use the pump readout at the gas station to get a very accurate reading.


I would never base a MPG statement on anthing but calculating it out miles driven/gals pumped = avg MPG per tank. The one cool thing about the DIC MPG readouts on my Cobalt is; Tthe less you reset it, the more accurate it's calcuations will be.

Joel

 

[wapacz]

Originally Posted By: JustinH
There is a difference between what the miles per gallon guage tells you, and an old fashioned calculator does.

Go by amount of fuel used and miles driven. I use the pump readout at the gas station to get a very accurate reading.

A slight bump in tire pressure does affect these things, but too much isn't good for the suspension.

As for the gent saying that the manual gets 8% more fuel economy, please post a model from fueleconomy.gov.

The newer cars are all within 1-2 miles per gallon.

I would think that with the newer cars with more gears in the automatic transmission, they will do better than the 5 speed manual. You can't shift the thing for economy as well as the computer can.

Flash that back to my girlfriends 2000 neon, with a 3 speed automatic. A 5 speed manual will surely show an improvement.



He said all things being equal that there would be an 8% difference. However from what has been said earlier in the thread autos have a lower ratio last gear than manuals. The reason of this is to make the auto and manual mpg be closer togther.

Also you can absolutely shift better than an auto for mileage. The auto mixes drive ability with fuel economy.I see this all the time in cars that have autos that let the driver shift them. The aura I drive every now and then has the 6speed with tap shift. When I am driving 45 the auto chooses to leave the car in 5th gear as it has a bit of room for change becuase it doesn't know what the road is going to be like or what the traffic is like. But I as a driver do, I can see that the traffic is flowing, that the road is flat and that the speed is pretty constant. So I put the car in 6th gear and reduce my rpms by about 500 and save my self some gas.