CNN / Money rips ASTRA

[regfootball]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/...stra/index.html

Cost-saving and category-beating don't go hand in hand though. In this case, the Astra is a solid base-hit but, ultimately, it fails to score.

Maybe later GM will find some money in its strained coffers to really fit this car out for the American market. In the meantime, if you're looking for a compact car, you'll find others that perform better, hold your drink for you and speak your language.

the moron who writes the article hates the interior and basically trashes the car because of cupholders.

[Robert Hall]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/...stra/index.html

the moron who writes the article hates the interior and basically trashes the car because of cupholders.

The cupholder design does seem poor though....behind the armrest? Awkward.

[regfootball]

true. however, he is using it as a main reason to trash the car.

[PurdueGuy]

I'm sure we'll hear people whine about the cupholder for years (especially in saturn enthusiast circles). It's the downside of a stopgap product. If cupholders are a dealbreaker for a customer, they they probably should buy something else. It doesn't make the car inherently bad, but it could certainly be a daily frustration for some drivers. Of course there will be car reviewers that hate the whole car because of little things like this.

[Robert Hall]

I'm sure we'll hear people whine about the cupholder for years (especially in saturn enthusiast circles). It's the downside of a stopgap product. If cupholders are a dealbreaker for a customer, they they probably should buy something else. It doesn't make the car inherently bad, but it could certainly be a daily frustration for some drivers. Of course there will be car reviewers that hate the whole car because of little things like this.

How was the cupholder design in the Ion? My preferred design are two fixed cupholders behind the shifter ahead of the armrest..

[Intrepidation]

Buy a Journey and you'll get what like 10 cupholders if that's your fetish.

[thegriffon]

That is why the Golf scored badly in some surveys—not enough cupholders in the right place. It's a European thing. You're not supposed to drink anything while driving.

[Cadillacfan]

It's understandable that this guy's complaining that GM didn't spend a lot on the interior, but I get the feeling that this journalist would be complaining if GM didn't bother bringing it here. This car may have a few quirks that Americans may not like, but it's better then any other American branded compact and is more attractive then all of the domestic and foreign vehicles in the same class (with the exception of the Mazda 3).

Ford is still struggling with an out of date compact and enthusiasts are still scratching their heads and wondering why Ford says it's impossible to bring the Euro Focus over but GM is able to bring the Astra over with no problem.

We all know Ford is strapped for cash right now, but you really need to spend money to make money.

[balthazar]

I HATE cupholders between the shifter & armrest- haven't been in a car yet that had them where any drink would interfere with your arm. I would pay & change out the console in my wife's car could I get a matching one that would put the drinks either anyplace else or behind the armrest.

[Robert Hall]

I HATE cupholders between the shifter & armrest- haven't been in a car yet that had them where any drink would interfere with your arm. I would pay & change out the console in my wife's car could I get a matching one that would put the drinks either anyplace else or behind the armrest.

I've never had an issue w/ that arrangement in my Jeep, but it's an automatic, so I don't shift much (and the armrest is high relative to the cupholders). I can't stand the flimsy pop-out ones that some cars have that block the HVAC or radio controls when in use...

[Intrepidation]

He could shove the drink up his ass...that would keep it warm if it was a htt drink.

[PurdueGuy]

How was the cupholder design in the Ion? My preferred design are two fixed cupholders behind the shifter ahead of the armrest..

here's a pic of the ion interior

lol @ bumper car steering wheel. Some Ions had a better steering wheel... but yeah.

Edited February 19, 2008 by PurdueGuy

[Croc]

The cupholders in my Aurora have proven to be a mild irritant on an almost daily basis...but that's like the one thing between it and perfection so I won't complain too much. I actually like the fold-out design, but not being completely enclosed allows drinks to "sweat" onto the wood console right where the heated seat switches are--not good.

[ocnblu]

When I test drove the Asstra, honestly, I spent about 2 seconds checking out the cupholder that pops out of the backseat. I was more interested in how the car drove.

[Intrepidation]

My car has to cupholders that deploy out of the center armrest I like that they hide away. if there's a flaw to the design it's that smaller drinks tend to move around, and if they are narrow and somewhat tall like a thermos, they can, and halve tipped over. Later models had fixed cupholders. Models with the option armrest, which my lacks, ad two more cupholders.

[SuperSport623]

the cupholder in my nova? my legs...

[Blake Noble]

Elsewhere, GM saved pennies by not changing any of the user interface features on the Astra. That means you'll have to spend some time figuring out the button with a picture of a telephone receiver on wheels (CD player) or the one with a diagram of a screaming ball trapped in a birdhouse (radio).

No wonder Europeans rip on us for being stupid.

[The O.C.]

No wonder Europeans rip on us for being stupid.

Lots of people laugh at the dash-concealed cupholders in the new BMWs....but on second thought, I think BMW has gotten it right.....!

Granted I have two manual-trans cars....but I HATE cupholders behind the shifter and in front of the armrest. I always have something in the cupholder (coffee? Propel? bottled water?) and I have to contort my hand/arm around the drink(s) to shift. UGH.

Auto-trans cars are prolly not a big deal though.

[!!!TED!!!]

The Astra actually has a cup holder in the front.

Its inside the glovebox!!!

Look inside when you sit in one. Its completely useless unless you are travelling alone, have an empty glovebox and stop the car to use it.

[Cory Wolfe]

I like my Millenia's... They pop out of the dash, though, they are on the small side.

[Blake Noble]

The Astra actually has a cup holder in the front.

Its inside the glovebox!!!

Look inside when you sit in one. Its completely useless unless you are travelling alone, have an empty glovebox and stop the car to use it.

Oh, like a 1988 GMC S-15 or an old '70s GMC pickup?

Edited February 19, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[PurdueGuy]

I've also had frustrations with the cupholders between the shifter & dash on my saturns, but accidentally found a solution in my gold car. Short throw shifter. The shifter doesn't move far enough forward for the cups to be an obstruction, plus I love being able to shift with practically a flick of the wrist. The stock shifter feels like rowing a boat now. lol

[!!!TED!!!]

Oh, like a 1988 GMC S-15 or an old '70s GMC pickup?

Yeah, sorta.

Ill snap a picture today.

[siegen]

I saw an ad for the Astra the other day tauting 32 hwy mpg, which prompted me to look into it (I didn't even know it was available here yet). I am quite astonished at the EPA ratings. It has a 1.8L engine slightly weaker than the Civic's, yet only achieves 24/32. The automatic looks even more grim at 24/30.

Getting barely better mileage than a considerably larger, heavier, and probably faster mid-size sedan isn't a good selling point:

Accord 2.4L Automatic

21/31

Astra 1.8L Automatic

24/30

The Astra weighs about 100 lbs more than the Civic in base form (the gap narrows to only a few lbs in the high end model), has one less gear on the automatic, and less hp and tq. I can't imagine driving it is going to be that exciting. Why didn't GM put a larger engine in it? I bet the mileage would be the same.

[turbo200]

the Astra's most compelling points will be its style and uniqueness. It's a stylish auto that I know I would be happy being seen in, since it'll be percieved as cool. And mostly people who are drawn to its looks will snap it up. From that perspective, mileage won't be all that much of a factor.

[Robert Hall]

Oh, like a 1988 GMC S-15 or an old '70s GMC pickup?

I remember that type of glovebox door..not very useful as a cupholder, unless you drill it out so the cups can be held securely..

[!!!TED!!!]

Here is the Astra front cupholder:

[ocnblu]

That pen clip really gets on my nerves. :AH-HA_wink:

[CARBIZ]

I think it all boils down to this: the Rest of the World generally prefers manual trannies. When you are shifting in real traffic (not the crap they show you on the car commercials), you have no time to be drinking lattes; therefore, cupholders are pointless. In North America, we love automatics; therefore, we have time to do our make up and drink our coffees while sitting in awful traffic.

If you put the automatic shifter up on the steering column (where God intended), forget about manual transmissions altogether (those are, after all, so very low-tech), then there would be room for 4 or even 6 cupholders on the console.

I have to chuckle about all this debating. I remember when cars had NO cupholders. I also remember a time when a car with an automatic was not only 'cool,' but proof that you had 'arrived' (or your parents at least had money.) The DVD nav system of today is the automatic transmission of 40 years ago. It is amazing how the car magazines dictate what is important to us and what is not.

[ZL-1]

I think it all boils down to this: the Rest of the World generally prefers manual trannies. When you are shifting in real traffic (not the crap they show you on the car commercials), you have no time to be drinking lattes; therefore, cupholders are pointless. In North America, we love automatics; therefore, we have time to do our make up and drink our coffees while sitting in awful traffic.

true

[Robert Hall]

I think it all boils down to this: the Rest of the World generally prefers manual trannies. When you are shifting in real traffic (not the crap they show you on the car commercials), you have no time to be drinking lattes; therefore, cupholders are pointless. In North America, we love automatics; therefore, we have time to do our make up and drink our coffees while sitting in awful traffic.

I like manuals also, but automatics make more sense in heavy traffic (like rush hour gridlock on California's 405 or 880, both of which I've sat through on occasion).

I have to chuckle about all this debating. I remember when cars had NO cupholders.

That's pretty recent...there are cars from the early '90s without cupholders, and most '80s cars didn't have them.

[Blake Noble]

I don't think there could be a set of more half-assed cupholders than what you'd find in a second-generation S-Series truck with a manual transmission. There's a total of three cupholders: one just in front of the shifter, to the left hand-side ... and two right in the door panels.

That's today's totally useless fact.

[siegen]

Gotta love the glove-box cup holders. Probably made by the same people who did the old EPA rating system. You know, the people who think everyone drives calmly and slowly all the time.

The way I drive, a drink wouldn't make it out of my driveway before ending up on my passenger's lap. (it probably wouldn't make it out of the garage.... hell I'd probably knock it over just getting into my car --which is through the window like a racecar driver.... err j/k on that last part .

Edited February 20, 2008 by siegen

[regfootball]

column shifters suck.

to me, paddle shifters are the way to go, and the floor shifter I still like to go with it.

[Cory Wolfe]

The Cutlass lacks cupholders and it's really not that fun.

[Robert Hall]

I wonder how much the budget is of GM's cup holder R&D department...

[Guest aatbloke]

I saw an ad for the Astra the other day tauting 32 hwy mpg, which prompted me to look into it (I didn't even know it was available here yet). I am quite astonished at the EPA ratings. It has a 1.8L engine slightly weaker than the Civic's, yet only achieves 24/32. The automatic looks even more grim at 24/30.

Getting barely better mileage than a considerably larger, heavier, and probably faster mid-size sedan isn't a good selling point:

Accord 2.4L Automatic

21/31

Astra 1.8L Automatic

24/30

The Astra weighs about 100 lbs more than the Civic in base form (the gap narrows to only a few lbs in the high end model), has one less gear on the automatic, and less hp and tq. I can't imagine driving it is going to be that exciting. Why didn't GM put a larger engine in it? I bet the mileage would be the same.

140bhp is more than ample for a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback. By comparison, the new 1.8 litre MIVEC used in the European-spec Mitsubishi Lancer produces 143bhp, and that's one of the heaviest cars in its class. The 1.8 litre Zetec used in the Ford Focus since 1998, and now due for replacement, produces 123bhp so as you can see, the average output for a car of this engine capacity has increased in recent years.

The Astra's biggest assets are its handling and its build quality - the doors shut with the solid clunk of a Golf, for example.

The Astra here also comes with a 237bhp VXR model with a 2 litre turbo, but as with all VXRs it suffers from horrendous torque steer. A 230bhp Golf GTi is a better prospect.

Edited February 21, 2008 by aatbloke

[EMan]

140bhp is more than ample for a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback. By comparison, the new 1.8 litre MIVEC used in the European-spec Mitsubishi Lancer produces 143bhp, and that's one of the heaviest cars in its class. The 1.8 litre Zetec used in the Ford Focus since 1998, and now due for replacement, produces 123bhp so as you can see, the average output for a car of this engine capacity has increased in recent years.

The Astra's biggest assets are its handling and its build quality - the doors shut with the solid clunk of a Golf, for example.

The Astra here also comes with a 237bhp VXR model with a 2 litre turbo, but as with all VXRs it suffers from horrendous torque steer. A 230bhp Golf GTi is a better prospect.

What he is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Astra could have come with the 2.4L with about 170 HP and have an EPA rating of 22city and 31hwy. So why not go with more HP and about the same mileage.

[PurdueGuy]

What he is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Astra could have come with the 2.4L with about 170 HP and have an EPA rating of 22city and 31hwy. So why not go with more HP and about the same mileage.

The 2.4L isn't an engine available at the factory where they're building the Astra. This is a stopgap product, and they weren't interested in reengineering the car just to bring it over for a couple years. Wait for the next gen, and hope that CAFE doesn't castrate it too badly.

[Guest aatbloke]

What he is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Astra could have come with the 2.4L with about 170 HP and have an EPA rating of 22city and 31hwy. So why not go with more HP and about the same mileage.

I was referring to the comment "I can't imagine driving it is going to be that exciting. Why didn't GM put a larger engine in it? I bet the mileage would be the same." The Astra is exciting to drive by virtue of its handling. I've seen roughly 45mpg (38mpg US) from a 1.6 Astra.

I'd be surprised to see a large 4-pot 2.4 achieving similar fuel economy to a 1.8, especially around town. 22mpg in an urban environment for a 2.4 is pretty optimistic in most real-world stop-start driving conditions. There should be less difference at highway speeds though, within 3-4mpg realistically, due to better power-to-weight ratios.

[siegen]

140bhp is more than ample for a 1.8 litre C-segment hatchback. By comparison, the new 1.8 litre MIVEC used in the European-spec Mitsubishi Lancer produces 143bhp, and that's one of the heaviest cars in its class. The 1.8 litre Zetec used in the Ford Focus since 1998, and now due for replacement, produces 123bhp so as you can see, the average output for a car of this engine capacity has increased in recent years.

The Astra's biggest assets are its handling and its build quality - the doors shut with the solid clunk of a Golf, for example.

The Astra here also comes with a 237bhp VXR model with a 2 litre turbo, but as with all VXRs it suffers from horrendous torque steer. A 230bhp Golf GTi is a better prospect.

I'm not disagreeing that a 1.8L is fine for this size vehicle (most others on this board will be the ones to disagree), I'm saying that GM could have used a 2.0L or 2.2L and probably achieved very close on mileage and given the car some performance over the Civic, Corolla, and others. I realize that GM wanted to bring over the Astra as quickly as possible, which is the reason for the no engine choices. The 2.2L from the Cobalt will hopefully find its way into the Astra in the next model year or 2, and should be a much better performer.

Cobalt 2.2L Sedan 2,747 lbs

24/33 (MT)

22/31 (AT)

Astra 1.8L 5-door 2,778 lbs

24/32 (MT)

24/30 (AT)

From Car and Driver:

Saturn's 0-to-60-mph forecast for Astras equipped with manual transmissions is 9.7 seconds, which is nearly a second slower than the cheaper Honda Fit. With the four-speed automatic—the Astra's major competitors offer five- and six-speeds—the same sprint will take almost 10.5 seconds, according to Saturn.

Regardless of how good it handles, that kind of acceleration is going to hurt.

C&D tested the manual-trans base civic at 7.7 seconds 0-60.

And just for the record, I am quite used to compact cars. I drive a 1.8L Integra and 2.0L Escort wagon, and used to have a 1.6L Civic.

[Guest aatbloke]

I'm not disagreeing that a 1.8L is fine for this size vehicle (most others on this board will be the ones to disagree), I'm saying that GM could have used a 2.0L or 2.2L and probably achieved very close on mileage and given the car some performance over the Civic, Corolla, and others. I realize that GM wanted to bring over the Astra as quickly as possible, which is the reason for the no engine choices. The 2.2L from the Cobalt will hopefully find its way into the Astra in the next model year or 2, and should be a much better performer.

Cobalt 2.2L Sedan 2,747 lbs

24/33 (MT)

22/31 (AT)

Astra 1.8L 5-door 2,778 lbs

24/32 (MT)

24/30 (AT)

From Car and Driver:

Regardless of how good it handles, that kind of acceleration is going to hurt.

C&D tested the manual-trans base civic at 7.7 seconds 0-60.

And just for the record, I am quite used to compact cars. I drive a 1.8L Integra and 2.0L Escort wagon, and used to have a 1.6L Civic.

I'll stand by comments. I'd be very surprised to see a 2.2 or 2.4 achieve a constant 22-24mpg around town, I think that's very optimistic in real world driving conditions. Good power-to-weight ratios will help it get closer to a 1.8 in the same sized car at highway speeds, however.

0-60 times for Astra 1.8 and its main rivals here:

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 9.5 secs (1.6 non-turbo 11.5 secs)

Ford Focus 1.8 10.3 secs (1.6 11.9 secs)

Peugeot 308 1.6 10.8 secs

Honda Civic 1.8 8.6 secs

VW Golf 1.6 10.8 secs

Toyota Auris 1.6 10.4 secs

Mazda 3 1.6 11.2 secs

Fiat Bravo 1.6 10.5 secs

Skoda Octavia 1.8 11.2 secs

Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 9.8 secs

Dodge Caliber 1.8 12.2 secs

Citroen C4 1.6 10.6 secs

The Astra is right up there, save for the ultra-lightweight Civic hatch. The C-segment is the largest segment here and I'm more than au fait with the genre and the expectations of engines within it.

Personally I'm not quite sure how 9.5 secs 0-60 would hurt in the United States, where people tend to drive at a far more sedate pace, even on motorways, than people do in Europe.

Edited February 21, 2008 by aatbloke

[Drew Dowdell]

people drive at an over all slower top speed here, however we're quite heavy on the acceleration.

[siegen]

I'll stand by comments. I'd be very surprised to see a 2.2 or 2.4 achieve a constant 22-24mpg around town, I think that's very optimistic in real world driving conditions. Good power-to-weight ratios will help it get closer to a 1.8 in the same sized car at highway speeds, however.

0-60 times for Astra 1.8 and its main rivals here:

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 9.5 secs (1.6 non-turbo 11.5 secs)

Ford Focus 1.8 10.3 secs (1.6 11.9 secs)

Peugeot 308 1.6 10.8 secs

Honda Civic 1.8 8.6 secs

VW Golf 1.6 10.8 secs

Toyota Auris 1.6 10.4 secs

Mazda 3 1.6 11.2 secs

Fiat Bravo 1.6 10.5 secs

Skoda Octavia 1.8 11.2 secs

Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 9.8 secs

Dodge Caliber 1.8 12.2 secs

Citroen C4 1.6 10.6 secs

The Astra is right up there, save for the ultra-lightweight Civic hatch. The C-segment is the largest segment here and I'm more than au fait with the genre and the expectations of engines within it.

Personally I'm not quite sure how 9.5 secs 0-60 would hurt in the United States, where people tend to drive at a far more sedate pace, even on motorways, than people do in Europe.

You have to remember though, the competition is completely different here, as almost every car has a bigger engine. And the Civic here and in Europe are entirely different models; C&D tested the manual-transmission Sedan at 7.7 0-60, the coupe might be a tenth or so quicker as it is 30-40lbs lighter weight than the Sedan in each trim level. Oldsmoboi is right in that we all have lead feet. I like to accelerate to 65mph by the time I'm at the end of the on-ramp, and I think everyone should be able to as people entering the freeway at 50mph who are still accelerating are slowing everyone down.

The Cobalt does quite well with the 2.2L. Based on user reports here, it averages 28mpg with auto (31 submissions), and 35mpg with manual (only 12 submissions). That is combined of course, and there aren't a whole lot of submissions to draw a solid conclusion from, but it gives an idea.

[Guest aatbloke]

You have to remember though, the competition is completely different here, as almost every car has a bigger engine. And the Civic here and in Europe are entirely different models; C&D tested the manual-transmission Sedan at 7.7 0-60, the coupe might be a tenth or so quicker as it is 30-40lbs lighter weight than the Sedan in each trim level. Oldsmoboi is right in that we all have lead feet. I like to accelerate to 65mph by the time I'm at the end of the on-ramp, and I think everyone should be able to as people entering the freeway at 50mph who are still accelerating are slowing everyone down.

The Cobalt does quite well with the 2.2L. Based on user reports here, it averages 28mpg with auto (31 submissions), and 35mpg with manual (only 12 submissions). That is combined of course, and there aren't a whole lot of submissions to draw a solid conclusion from, but it gives an idea.

I understand that in the States, cars of this class tend to have larger engines. But saving a second or two 0-60 means very little in real-world driving - especially when merging onto a motorway where there's greater reliance on general lane discipline than tearing off in a cloud of dust. Whatsmore, as I said motorway driving in the States tends to be much more leisurely than in western Europe, where 80-90mph average speeds are more commonplace and you have to get to a higher speed relatively quickly to merge into it. If a 1.8 litre C-segment car works there, then it should in the States without major concerns.

I understand the Cobalt may do well overall, but I think its power-to-weight saves the day. With that sort of engine, pottering around town or traffic jams are unlikely to see the upside of 20mpg (US).

More importantly than acceleration or fuel economy is the vehicle's emissions. A 1.8 litre VVC Astra emits 175g/km of C02, comparable with other cars of this engine size. Compare this with say, a Ford Focus ST 2.5, which emits 224g/km. That's almost enough to throw it into a far more expensive London congestion charge bracket (225g/km and above), for example, as it would other cities which may eventually adopt similar systems as congestion worsens.

Edited February 21, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

people drive at an over all slower top speed here, however we're quite heavy on the acceleration.

Not what from I saw of almost eight years of life over there.

[ZL-1]

Not what from I saw of almost eight years of life over there.

Whenever I go to Florida I think thet driving there = yawn. So boring!

Edited February 21, 2008 by ZL-1

[regfootball]

astra should have a 180hp 2.4 option so it can be fun 0-60 in nearly 9 seconds is not fun

[PurdueGuy]

astra should have a 180hp 2.4 option so it can be fun 0-60 in nearly 9 seconds is not fun

I agree for next gen - squeeze more mpgs out of the 1.8 and keep offering it, offer the VVT 2.4L for a "sport" engine, and a redline offering in the 220-240hp range. Though it's going to be interesting to see what they do with that turbo engine they're planning for the US small cars, and whether it's a performance or economy engine.

[CARBIZ]

I understand that in the States, cars of this class tend to have larger engines. But saving a second or two 0-60 means very little in real-world driving - especially when merging onto a motorway where there's greater reliance on general lane discipline than tearing off in a cloud of dust. Whatsmore, as I said motorway driving in the States tends to be much more leisurely than in western Europe, where 80-90mph average speeds are more commonplace and you have to get to a higher speed relatively quickly to merge into it. If a 1.8 litre C-segment car works there, then it should in the States without major concerns.

I understand the Cobalt may do well overall, but I think its power-to-weight saves the day. With that sort of engine, pottering around town or traffic jams are unlikely to see the upside of 20mpg (US).

More importantly than acceleration or fuel economy is the vehicle's emissions. A 1.8 litre VVC Astra emits 175g/km of C02, comparable with other cars of this engine size. Compare this with say, a Ford Focus ST 2.5, which emits 224g/km. That's almost enough to throw it into a far more expensive London congestion charge bracket (225g/km and above), for example, as it would other cities which may eventually adopt similar systems as congestion worsens.

Having driven the Cobalt on and off for the past 3 years, I managed to average 29 mpg (Imperial), with mostly city and some city highway driving. Interestingly, I got the same mileage 20 years ago with my '87 Shadow ES, with the 2.2 turbo and 5 spd. I would have to say, however, that the Cobalt is still quicker than my old Shadow was and I prefer the automatic over stick anyway (especially in and around Toronto which has the Universe's Worst Traffic, BTW.) Anyone who gets 20 mpg (American) with the Cobalt would have to be doing brake stands! Smaller engines do not automatically garner better mpg ratings. I can attest to that, being as I am driving a 2.0 litre Optra these days and its gas mileage is slightly worse than the Cobalt while being noticeably slower off the mark.

I'll have to get out and drive an Astra soon. I've heard good things about it. I've had a couple of my customers inquire about it, so I should size up the competition. From what I can see around here, just the fact that Saturn has the Astra is driving people to their stores - perhaps more so than either the Aura or Outlook were able to do.