New gas mileage ratings helps Cobalt

[Dsuupr]

The new gas mileage figures for the 2.2 liter 4cyl in the Cobalt is spot on with 95% of the foreign small cars. It gets better or near the same gas mileage as any scion, versa, civic . . .

Funny, when they start to use real life figures GM cars shine. Something us fans of GM have been saying for a long time!

[Intrepidation]

In the city I got as low as 16.8. How is that good?

[the_yellow_dart]

*goes to google and finds*

16.8 miles per gallon = 14.0008681 L/100km

Holy crap!!

Were you using the brake and gas pedal at the same time???

[CARBIZ]

I have been saying this for years!!!!!!

The high (?) horsepower/low torque Japanese engines suffer badly under real world conditions, especially when someone like Dodgefan is driving them

If you drive like my great aunt, then the Civic and others look great, but of all the cars I have driven (and I drive pretty hard, too), the Malibu (same engine as the Cobalt) has given me better gas mileage than the Aveo, Optra, Cobalt, G5 and any other 'small' cars I have driven in the past few years. Gearing, programming and the tranny itself are everything.

See how much the Prius' numbers have dropped with the new rating system?

[CARBIZ]

*goes to google and finds*

16.8 miles per gallon = 14.0008681 L/100km

Holy crap!!

Were you using the brake and gas pedal at the same time???

Don't forget to do the mental 'Canadian conversion.' In my first two tanks of real world driving, I am averaging just under 30 mpg (Imperial gallons) with my Optra 5. Interestingly, that is exactly the same as what I used to get with my '87 Shadow ES with the 2.2 turbo and 5 spd.

My Caprice wagon, however, used to give me 23 mpg. Ouch.

[Flybrian]

In the city I got as low as 16.8. How is that good?

You seriously have to suck at driving to achieve that.

[CaddyXLR-V]

In the city I got as low as 16.8. How is that good?

What are you doing to that poor Cobalt? My GTO doesn't even do that bad.

[siegen]

Checking www.fueleconomy.gov submitted ratings, the Cobalt beats the Civic by 2.4 mpg with manual, while the Civic beats the Cobalt by 3 mpg with automatic. Those are mean averages, and there aren't a whole lot of Cobalts on there to sample, around 40 total with 2.2L, while there are well over a 100 Civic samples. So the results may not be quite as accurate for the Cobalt (for example, only one person with a 2007 manual transmission has submitted results, which makes up only 12 total results for manual transmission Cobalts - I wouldn't be surprised if the average drops a little with more people's submissions).

[K.C.]

With each GM vehicle I've owned, I've always achieved a rating within the EPA estimate, except on the highways, and its always been better mileage on the sticker. On a trip this summer in the Av, I achieved a 24 mpg at 60 mph with the AFM kicking in quite a bit. I've gotten used to looking at the EPA ratings on the stickers and thinking that the vehicle will get towards the upper end of that range.

[Dsuupr]

My HHR has been getting 35 mpg+ for the past couple of tanks.

[Intrepidation]

Nope, this is standard driving anywhere between 30 and 45 mph top speed depending on the area of town. No I don't floor it (usually), drive like a maniac or ride with the parking brake on, thank you.

It's best on the highway was 32.2 (all highway...it started dipping down once we got off into the city..that trip ended with 27.4 average)

It doesn't get that 16.8 every time but that was the tank of gas that was all city. It usually averages 17-18 in the city and 25-27 on the highway

It's inexcusable though, as my bigger, heavier car with 2 more cylinders gets 17-18 in the city and 27-29 on the highway.

My girlfriend's car will do 24-26 city and 40-43 on the highway.

I drive all of the cars the same. (I'm not one of those people who beat the $h! out of a rental).

Oh, and my coworker with an `07 Civic gets 24-25 mpg all city.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Dodgefan

[the_yellow_dart]

My highway average is somewhere around

6.5 L/100km = 36.1868591 miles per gallon

which includes traffic jams.

Maybe your Cobalt wasn't maintained properly, or was badly abused?

I just don't see how you can get numbers that bad with a Cobalt.

[Intrepidation]

My highway average is somewhere around

6.5 L/100km = 36.1868591 miles per gallon

which includes traffic jams.

Maybe your Cobalt wasn't maintained properly, or was badly abused?

I just don't see how you can get numbers that bad with a Cobalt.

Besides running, sounding, shifting, looking, and driving like a new car I don't see how the "poor maintenance" idea would work since it's a 2007 and it only had 5,000 miles when I got it.

Also, if it can get up to 32.2 on the highway it means that on the highway it's in line with the EPA estimates...but not around town.

Even 32.2 doesn't impress me considering what the other 2 cars get. Also it only got that high once.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Dodgefan

[pow]

The new gas mileage figures for the 2.2 liter 4cyl in the Cobalt is spot on with 95% of the foreign small cars. It gets better or near the same gas mileage as any scion, versa, civic . . .

Funny, when they start to use real life figures GM cars shine. Something us fans of GM have been saying for a long time!

Really?

Cobalt auto: 22/31

Cobalt manual: 24/33

Civic auto: 25/36

Civic manual: 26/34

Corolla auto: 26/35

Corolla manual: 28/37

Versa CVT: 27/33

Versa manual: 26/31

All are 2008s

[Drew Dowdell]

Only 1mpg better than my Avalanche?

[Newbiewar]

My highway average is somewhere around

6.5 L/100km = 36.1868591 miles per gallon

which includes traffic jams.

Maybe your Cobalt wasn't maintained properly, or was badly abused?

I just don't see how you can get numbers that bad with a Cobalt.

maybe certain things go into it that no one is looking at...

for one, air conditioning... if he's got remote start, maybe he left it sitting for extended periods of time...

i know i've been stuck in traffic so bad, a 45 mile trip took 6 hours... from los angeles to the outskirts... blew through 13 galons in that amount of time in my firebird...because i was basically idling the whole distance... does that mean it gets only 3mpg... no.. but it sure sucked that i filled up before and after that trip to the funeral...

it really has a lot to do with certain things, if its hot or cold, the air density can change fuel ecconomy, your tires, the road, concreete or asphalt have effects on fuel ecconomy, wether you like to shift at 2300 or 5600... or wether you go from 0-60-0 between lights in 11.5 seconds... if you drive like a jackass your automatic transmission knows your habits, and will use them even when your tring to conserve...

i'm not saying 16mpg is good, i'm not saying it was unreasonable for what he was doing at the time either...

i know i've seen low 20's in a cobalt driving to customers houses... it wasnt my car who cares?

maybe he was driving against the wind... against 60mph wind its not uncommon here at fort bliss to experiance 80mpg gusts of wind, does it shake cars, sure... does the sand take the paint off, yep... so why wouldnt it affect fuel ecconomy... there are always extreme cases... when my lt1 averaged 11mpg, it was running on 6 cyl and dumping fuel out the other 2... eventually clogged my o2 sensors... when i averaged 26mpg, i was driving 100% highway 85 the whole way...

[Intrepidation]

maybe certain things go into it that no one is looking at...

for one, air conditioning... if he's got remote start, maybe he left it sitting for extended periods of time...

i know i've been stuck in traffic so bad, a 45 mile trip took 6 hours... from los angeles to the outskirts... blew through 13 galons in that amount of time in my firebird...because i was basically idling the whole distance... does that mean it gets only 3mpg... no.. but it sure sucked that i filled up before and after that trip to the funeral...

it really has a lot to do with certain things, if its hot or cold, the air density can change fuel ecconomy, your tires, the road, concreete or asphalt have effects on fuel ecconomy, wether you like to shift at 2300 or 5600... or wether you go from 0-60-0 between lights in 11.5 seconds... if you drive like a jackass your automatic transmission knows your habits, and will use them even when your tring to conserve...

i'm not saying 16mpg is good, i'm not saying it was unreasonable for what he was doing at the time either...

i know i've seen low 20's in a cobalt driving to customers houses... it wasnt my car who cares?

maybe he was driving against the wind... against 60mph wind its not uncommon here at fort bliss to experiance 80mpg gusts of wind, does it shake cars, sure... does the sand take the paint off, yep... so why wouldnt it affect fuel ecconomy... there are always extreme cases... when my lt1 averaged 11mpg, it was running on 6 cyl and dumping fuel out the other 2... eventually clogged my o2 sensors... when i averaged 26mpg, i was driving 100% highway 85 the whole way...

LOL remote start? It doesn't even have power windows! 60mph winds? No offense but did you pull this out of your ass or what?

The only thing that has validity might be A/C which I use from time to time...just like our cars...so that's not a good excuse.

[CaddyXLR-V]

LOL remote start? It doesn't even have power windows! 60mph winds? No offense but did you pull this out of your ass or what?

The only thing that has validity might be A/C which I use from time to time...just like our cars...so that's not a good excuse.

You need to have service done on your car then. I use my AC 90% of the time, and I averaged almost 24mpg on my last tank of gas. Even pure city driving, I don't get 17mpg. My car almost has 3 times the power, and weighs about 800lbs more than a Cobalt.

[Drew Dowdell]

when I was in France I noted to my friend that the Europeans prefer manual shifters yet have roads that require more shifting while the Americans prefer automatics while having roads that require less shifting.

My friend responded that manuals are more efficient than automatics, thats why they prefer them.

The next time it was his turn to drive I caught him leaving the car in 4th or 5th gear <out of 6 possibilities> for long stretches of road. This was in a diesel which thought nothing of being in 6th gear at 45mph.

I pointed out to him that manuals are only more efficient if you're not a lazy shifter.

[Dsuupr]

Really?

Cobalt auto: 22/31

Cobalt manual: 24/33

Civic auto: 25/36

Civic manual: 26/34

Corolla auto: 26/35

Corolla manual: 28/37

Versa CVT: 27/33

Versa manual: 26/31

All are 2008s

These spreads aren't as bad as the 2007 and earlier ones. Given the extra power and size of the Cobalt vs the versa & civic it compares well. I'm not sure how the corolla gets those figures (wimpy engine I guess). Check out the scion line from toyota for comparison.

[Intrepidation]

You need to have service done on your car then. I use my AC 90% of the time, and I averaged almost 24mpg on my last tank of gas. Even pure city driving, I don't get 17mpg. My car almost has 3 times the power, and weighs about 800lbs more than a Cobalt.

Once more, if it achieves the EPA highway ratings then that would indicate that fuel consumption is working properly.

Anyway, that's something for enterprise to deal with if there's something wrong with it, which I highly doubt.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I pointed out to him that manuals are only more efficient if you're not a lazy shifter.

How is that true? My car gets it's best mileage in 6th gear, staying at steady speeds. I have found that my car gets better mileage when I shift from 1st, to 4th, to 6th.

Manuals are more efficient, because they put more power to the wheels when compared to automatics.

[Sixty8panther]

DF: You deliver Pizza for a living... enough said. That's about as stop-n-go & idle all day as it gets.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Once more, if it achieves the EPA highway ratings then that would indicate that fuel consumption is working properly.

Anyway, that's something for enterprise to deal with if there's something wrong with it, which I highly doubt.

That's not necessarily true. Just because it can achieve it's ratings while cruising, doesn't mean there nothing is wrong. Computers continuously adjust based on a number of factors. The car can be running lean while cruising, then running rich when accelerating. Supercharged Grand Prixs were usually tuned to run rich under heavy acceleration, to curb detonation, because the richer fuel mixture was cooler.

[Drew Dowdell]

How is that true? My car gets it's best mileage in 6th gear, staying at steady speeds. I have found that my car gets better mileage when I shift from 1st, to 4th, to 6th.

Manuals are more efficient, because they put more power to the wheels when compared to automatics.

He was a lazy shifter in that he wouldn't shift up to 6th gear whenever he could. We would be in 4th or 5th for long stretches and he would use engine breaking to slow down.

[pow]

These spreads aren't as bad as the 2007 and earlier ones. Given the extra power and size of the Cobalt vs the versa & civic it compares well. I'm not sure how the corolla gets those figures (wimpy engine I guess). Check out the scion line from toyota for comparison.

According to thegriffon, GM made engineering changes (hence new horsepower figures) to optimize performance for the '08 EPA tests, so be careful when comparing '07s and '08s. Similarly, the xB and xD are all new models for '08 with larger engines and significantly greater curb weights. It stands to reason there will be a greater drop in MPG, even without accounting for the new real-world testing procedures.

[pow]

Here's the definitive list for '08 compact sedan fuel economy. I used the figures from automatic transmission models.

Honda Civic   140 hp  25/36
Toyota Corolla   126 hp  26/35
Nissan Versa   122 hp  27/33
Nissan Sentra  140 hp  25/33
Hyundai Elantra   138 hp  25/33
Ford Focus   140 hp  24/33
Kia Spectra   138 hp  24/32
Mazda 3   148 hp  23/31
Suzuki SX4   143 hp  23/31
Chevy Cobalt   148 hp  22/31
Mitsu Lancer   152 hp  22/29
VW Jetta   170 hp  21/29
Subaru Impreza   170 hp  20/27
Suzuki Forenza   127 hp  19/28

Edited October 3, 2007 by empowah

[Cory Wolfe]

In the city I got as low as 16.8. How is that good?

As with others have noted, something is up with that Cobalt. My Millenia got better gas mileage than that with a malfunctioning distributor.

[Intrepidation]

DF: You deliver Pizza for a living... enough said. That's about as stop-n-go & idle all day as it gets.

I never leave the car idling but anyway...

I've do it with the Prizm all the time, the Shadow a few times, and even my car a few times, and they all get better mpg.

Anyway, it's out of my hands now...no more Cobalt

Edited October 3, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Satty]

Check out the scion line from toyota for comparison.

How 'bout not, since the Cobalt is huge compared to the Scions, like two feet longer than the xD, which gets 27/33 or 26/32 depending on transmission.

[Eric77TA]

DodgeFan, did you get rid of that Cobalt? I'd have certainly either had it at the dealer or looked into lemon lawing it if they couldn't fix it.

In the 2 years I've had my Cobalt LS (auto) which has nothing on it but remote keyless entry I've never gotten below 26 MPG - and that was when I had a primarliy city commute. Now my commute is about 2/3 hwy (though rarely above 40 during rush hour) and 1/3 city and I get 30 MPG with the A/C and 32-34 without it.

[bowtie_dude]

You seriously have to suck at driving to achieve that.

Hell, I flog my 5-spd Cavalier and get like 25mpg in city driving.

Edited October 23, 2007 by bowtie_dude

[PurdueGuy]

+1 for thinking there was something wrong with dodgefan's cobalt. You say it had to have been working fine because it could get the EPA rating on the highway, but considering how many other people report getting better than EPA mpgs on the highway, I don't think that's a good assumption.

[pow]

Anything is possible in city driving. Cars (non-hybrid) get 0 MPG at idle, 3 to 6 MPG while accelerating from a stop, 10-15 MPG if you're accelerating from a roll, 45 MPG cruising at 40 mph, and infinite MPG coasting in gear. It just depends on your commute.

Try predicting traffic lights. If you think the red is going to turn green, begin slowing down (coast) from far away, so you're still rolling as the other cars are accelerating from a stop. If you're at a light, leave a bigger gap between the car in front of you, and take off early so you can build momentum while still accelerating very slowly. Park and shut off the engine immediately once you've found a spot; don't crawl around in the parking lot waiting for your favorite song to end. Try to brake as little as possible; without regenerative braking, you're just turning precious energy into wasted heat. Plan an alternate route that has fewer stops.

The old EPA city test's max acceleration is 3.3 mph/sec, while the highway test's top speed is 60 mph. If you accelerate to 30 in fewer than 10 seconds, or exceed 60 mph on the highway, your fuel economy will be poorer than the EPA estimates. But then, of course, my V-8 W-Body gets 30 MPG uphill both ways with the A/C on while traveling 70 MPH!!!o~mg!~

YMMV.

Edited October 23, 2007 by empowah

[dwightlooi]

These spreads aren't as bad as the 2007 and earlier ones. Given the extra power and size of the Cobalt vs the versa & civic it compares well. I'm not sure how the corolla gets those figures (wimpy engine I guess). Check out the scion line from toyota for comparison.

Well, for one, the Cobalt uses a DOHC 16v 2.2 or 2.4 liter engine (both has the same EPA fuel economy numbers w an automatic tranny) and uses a 4-speed automatic. It is also about 100 lbs heavier than the Civic despite being a smaller car on the outside and especially on the inside.

The Honda Civic (2008) uses a SOHC 16v 1.8 liter engine with both variable camlobe switching and variable camshaft timing, is about 1 passenger lighter comparably equipped and uses a more modern 5-spd automatic.

A 3~4 mpg differential is about what I expect.

If Chevy wants to play the economy game (and win) its time to not be stingy on technology and get better at managing weight growth in product development (not traditionally GM's strong suit). For starters, pile on what you have in your arsenal and utilize the technologies you have at your disposal but had previously bean-counted out. Whatever the Cobalt replacement is should use an improved version of the 2HO 1.8 liter engine with Dual VVT, HCCI, Direct Injection, all roller cam followers and most importantly the 6T40 6-spd transverse automatic transmission. The alternator-motor + 48v electrics based "mild hybrid" system should not be on a special Hybrid model, it should be standard on every Cobalt. The car should weigh in at 2600 lbs not 2800. It should have an interior at least equal to the CTS. Do that and you have a winner. The costs should fall wherever it falls as long as it is reasonable.

The selling points will be:-

(1) Best interior in class.

(2) Tightest construction in class.

(3) First Compact Car with Direction Injection, Variable Timing and HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition).

(4) First Compact Cart with a mild Hybrid drive train as Standard.

(5) Best Fuel Economy in class.

(6) Best NVH suppression in class.

(7) Best warranty and service in class.

It'll also be the most expensive Compact FWD in class -- say $4K more than a Corolla.

The USA is a high cost country. US manufacturers cannot and should not compete on price or value. We'll never win against the Koreans and soon the Chinese and Indians. GM has been casting herself as the "value leader" for the last decade or two. That in and of itself is the BIGGEST strategic blunder. The only way you can be the value leader is if you bean count out all the quality, technology and attention to detail that the consumer expects. You end up with an inferior product line which -- due to high US labor costs -- will still be no cheaper or barely cheaper than the competition. You then slap on rebates and discounts and take it out of your bottom line. It doesn't take a PhD to understand this basic flaw in their business model. A US car company can be a BMW or a M-B, it cannot be a Hyundai or a Chery! It's time to wake up!

Edited January 6, 2008 by dwightlooi

[GXT]

I can vary my city fuel economy by 20% just be changing my driving habits. Winter seems to affect me by ~15% as well. Just moving from one house to another changed my city fuel economy by ~10%.

A coworker was saddled with a G6 which he drove in a somewhat spirited manner (not crazy) and the trip computer was easily over 16L/100KM (14-15 MPG). I would imagine that 14L/100KM is certainly achievable in a Cobalt with a little aggressive driving.

[thegriffon]

Cobalt Fuel economy is as good or better than he Corolla and Civic when you compare similar engines, but the Japanese models have it beat when you add their standard 1.8 liter powertrains. The Astra should be better, but then the 1.8 is a performance, not an economy option there, and doesn't yet offer the Aisin 6-speed auto or GM 6-speed manual. For comparable or better economy GM really needs to use the 1.4 and 1.6 turbos.

[CARBIZ]

Well, for one, the Cobalt uses a DOHC 16v 2.2 or 2.4 liter engine (both has the same EPA fuel economy numbers w an automatic tranny) and uses a 4-speed automatic. It is also about 100 lbs heavier than the Civic despite being a smaller car on the outside and especially on the inside.

The Honda Civic (2008) uses a SOHC 16v 1.8 liter engine with both variable camlobe switching and variable camshaft timing, is about 1 passenger lighter comparably equipped and uses a more modern 5-spd automatic.

A 3~4 mpg differential is about what I expect.

If Chevy wants to play the economy game (and win) its time to not be stingy on technology and get better at managing weight growth in product development (not traditionally GM's strong suit). For starters, pile on what you have in your arsenal and utilize the technologies you have at your disposal but had previously bean-counted out. Whatever the Cobalt replacement is should use an improved version of the 2HO 1.8 liter engine with Dual VVT, HCCI, Direct Injection, all roller cam followers and most importantly the 6T40 6-spd transverse automatic transmission. The alternator-motor + 48v electrics based "mild hybrid" system should not be on a special Hybrid model, it should be standard on every Cobalt. The car should weigh in at 2600 lbs not 2800. It should have an interior at least equal to the CTS. Do that and you have a winner. The costs should fall wherever it falls as long as it is reasonable.

The selling points will be:-

(1) Best interior in class.

(2) Tightest construction in class.

(3) First Compact Car with Direction Injection, Variable Timing and HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition).

(4) First Compact Cart with a mild Hybrid drive train as Standard.

(5) Best Fuel Economy in class.

(6) Best NVH suppression in class.

(7) Best warranty and service in class.

It'll also be the most expensive Compact FWD in class -- say $4K more than a Corolla.

The USA is a high cost country. US manufacturers cannot and should not compete on price or value. We'll never win against the Koreans and soon the Chinese and Indians. GM has been casting herself as the "value leader" for the last decade or two. That in and of itself is the BIGGEST strategic blunder. The only way you can be the value leader is if you bean count out all the quality, technology and attention to detail that the consumer expects. You end up with an inferior product line which -- due to high US labor costs -- will still be no cheaper or barely cheaper than the competition. You then slap on rebates and discounts and take it out of your bottom line. It doesn't take a PhD to understand this basic flaw in their business model. A US car company can be a BMW or a M-B, it cannot be a Hyundai or a Chery! It's time to wake up!

I can't speak to GM's actual profit/vehicle, but as to comparisons with price/value, the Cobalt has the Koreans and the Japanese beat hand's down. In this market, the Cobalt is $30-$50/mo cheaper on a lease than a Civic (difficult to make direct comparisons because of 'decontenting' in the base Civic), and $5-$10 cheaper thann the Korean stuff. Keep in mind, there are all kinds of variables, from market to market and within makes. For example, Kia/Hyundai do not write their own paper and you will pay $350 for an 'acquisition fee,' something that Ford, GM and others do not charge.

I have driven the Cobalt on and off since inception, and I have found its gas mileage to be okay: better than the Optra, worse than the last generation Malibu 2.2. As has been discussed, the Japanese build their vehicles to look good on paper, but the real world is a different matter. NO way, no how are you going to get 35+ mpg at 5,000 rpm, which is where you have to drive a 1.8 engine half the time to get any power.

If GM is guilty of anything, they are guilty of providing a small engine that provides respectable power with decent gas mileage. I challenge anyone to drive the Corolla automatic and the Cobalt automatic and tell me they would seriously buy the Corolla. I don't think 2 or 3 mpg is a deal breaker for anyone, but a rattling, shaking driving experience with no guts would be.

[Drew Dowdell]

How is that true? My car gets it's best mileage in 6th gear, staying at steady speeds. I have found that my car gets better mileage when I shift from 1st, to 4th, to 6th.

Manuals are more efficient, because they put more power to the wheels when compared to automatics.

He was leaving it in 4th or 5th for long stretches of road when the incredibly torquey diesel we were in can handle 6th at 45mph.

He would do that so he could use engine braking if we needed to slow down slightly for a curve.

When I was driving I would shift 1st - 3rd - 4th or 5th - 6th. I would leave it in 6th as much as possible for fuel economy reasons... we were not in a sporty car.