Some GM cars meet their EPA ratings better than others. It can even vary within trim line and model year. Example on this board: Nick R's 2011 Cruze LT with the 1.4T/automatic got 32-33 mpg highway, while my Cruze Eco with the 1.4T/manual gets 43-44 mpg highway. Similar car, same engine, different trim line. 2011 automatic owners were always griping about not meeting EPA, while 2012+ automatics consistently meet/beat EPA thanks to a programming and gearing change. And the manuals did better than everybody else...
Ongoing Rental Car Review - 2012 Malibu LT
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
You must be stomping on them, where are you letting that motor shift?
Nope, not at all. In fact, driving from West Palm Beach, FL to Savannah, GA is mostly highway. And I use cruise control. I'm interested in MPG, so I always make an effort to determine what a car will achieve with very reasonable, but not "hypermiling" driving techniques.
Sorry, but the '12 Malibu 4 cylinder falls very short of it's EPA ratings.
You must be stomping on them, where are you letting that motor shift?
Nope, not at all. In fact, driving from West Palm Beach, FL to Savannah, GA is mostly highway. And I use cruise control. I'm interested in MPG, so I always make an effort to determine what a car will achieve with very reasonable, but not "hypermiling" driving techniques.
Sorry, but the '12 Malibu 4 cylinder falls very short of it's EPA ratings.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
V6 powered GM's from the 90's always got low 20's around town and just about 30 on the highway.
I completely agree. And, they had much more torque/power too. Those cars were excellent performers.
Even the new Camaro V6 achieves excellent highway MPG when driven with a very light foot. The new crop of large 4 cylinder sedans don't seem to be any better in the MPG department. And, often worse. The cars have become heavier and the engines work hard to move them.
V6 powered GM's from the 90's always got low 20's around town and just about 30 on the highway.
I completely agree. And, they had much more torque/power too. Those cars were excellent performers.
Even the new Camaro V6 achieves excellent highway MPG when driven with a very light foot. The new crop of large 4 cylinder sedans don't seem to be any better in the MPG department. And, often worse. The cars have become heavier and the engines work hard to move them.
Are we talking about a 'Bu with the 170 hp 2.4 I4, or the 252 hp 3.6 V6 version? The I4 is rated at 22/33 mpg, while the V6 is rated at 17/26. I can totally see a V6 'Bu not getting much more than 22-23 mpg on a 75-80 mph highway trip.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Are we talking about a 'Bu with the 170 hp 2.4 I4, or the 252 hp 3.6 V6 version? The I4 is rated at 22/33 mpg, while the V6 is rated at 17/26. I can totally see a V6 'Bu not getting much more than 22-23 mpg on a 75-80 mph highway trip.
SERIOUSLY?!?! That little car is only rated 1MPG better than my 2-ton, 340HP Magnum?!?!?!?! That is...honestly, discrageful is too mild! I recall that even a blower Bonneville or Park Avenue would handily top that.
Are we talking about a 'Bu with the 170 hp 2.4 I4, or the 252 hp 3.6 V6 version? The I4 is rated at 22/33 mpg, while the V6 is rated at 17/26. I can totally see a V6 'Bu not getting much more than 22-23 mpg on a 75-80 mph highway trip.
SERIOUSLY?!?! That little car is only rated 1MPG better than my 2-ton, 340HP Magnum?!?!?!?! That is...honestly, discrageful is too mild! I recall that even a blower Bonneville or Park Avenue would handily top that.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
V6 powered GM's from the 90's always got low 20's around town and just about 30 on the highway.
I completely agree. And, they had much more torque/power too. Those cars were excellent performers.
Even the new Camaro V6 achieves excellent highway MPG when driven with a very light foot. The new crop of large 4 cylinder sedans don't seem to be any better in the MPG department. And, often worse. The cars have become heavier and the engines work hard to move them.
I think you hit the nail on the head. They get a lot of power out of those 4 cylinders, but they have to yank a heavy car around.
Last time I was in FL I rented a Buick Regal, I think it was the 13 with the base 4cylinder. Great car, returned in the low 20's and I wasn't trying to get good mileage.
I liked that car so much if I'm ever in the market for a sub $30k FWD sedan I'll buy a slightly used one of those over a new one from one of the Japanese makers.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
V6 powered GM's from the 90's always got low 20's around town and just about 30 on the highway.
I completely agree. And, they had much more torque/power too. Those cars were excellent performers.
Even the new Camaro V6 achieves excellent highway MPG when driven with a very light foot. The new crop of large 4 cylinder sedans don't seem to be any better in the MPG department. And, often worse. The cars have become heavier and the engines work hard to move them.
I think you hit the nail on the head. They get a lot of power out of those 4 cylinders, but they have to yank a heavy car around.
Last time I was in FL I rented a Buick Regal, I think it was the 13 with the base 4cylinder. Great car, returned in the low 20's and I wasn't trying to get good mileage.
I liked that car so much if I'm ever in the market for a sub $30k FWD sedan I'll buy a slightly used one of those over a new one from one of the Japanese makers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: The Critic
- My fuel economy has been about 18 mpg with mostly in-town driving. In comparison,
Finally, somebody who confirms my MPG results. I rent these cars all the time. I cannot get EPA rated MPG, no matter what speed I drive.
On the highway, AC off, windows up, 65MPH, Cruise Control ON, I got something like an "instant" mpg of 30. And overall of 26MPG, mostly highway, driving as smoothly and carefully as possible. Not good at all with today's technology.
Wow, I do that well with cruise set at 80mph, (75mph speed limit...I was one of the slow cars), A/C on, into a headwind with a V6.
I've recommended the car to others based on a few short drives but that fuel economy may make me withdraw it.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
- My fuel economy has been about 18 mpg with mostly in-town driving. In comparison,
Finally, somebody who confirms my MPG results. I rent these cars all the time. I cannot get EPA rated MPG, no matter what speed I drive.
On the highway, AC off, windows up, 65MPH, Cruise Control ON, I got something like an "instant" mpg of 30. And overall of 26MPG, mostly highway, driving as smoothly and carefully as possible. Not good at all with today's technology.
Wow, I do that well with cruise set at 80mph, (75mph speed limit...I was one of the slow cars), A/C on, into a headwind with a V6.
I've recommended the car to others based on a few short drives but that fuel economy may make me withdraw it.
- Status
