Great Astra Review

[enzl]

He loves it...

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automoti...0,7606964.story

[Guest aatbloke]

The Astra has always been a fine car. The police here love 'em ... but then again, so do criminals.

[SuperSport623]

it looks so goofy with the little blue light tacked on top

[Guest aatbloke]

it looks so goofy with the little blue light tacked on top

In this country, police cars used for urban work such as the Astra usually have shorter light bars. Motorway patrol police cars have the full-width light bars.

[siegen]

Weak engine, heavy car, poor fuel economy. But it has European styling!

Wait, I figured out a tag-line GM can use: "The sporty hatchback, with blazing CR-V performance!"

I'm surprised GM has managed to get as many journalists on board as they have.

[Guest aatbloke]

138bhp from a 1.8 litre engine isn't weak, especially in a C-segment car in which this sort of power is quite ample. This car isn't designed for use on drag strips. Like most small European cars, the Astra excels in its handling abilities.

Edited May 7, 2008 by aatbloke

[siegen]

138bhp from a 1.8 litre engine isn't weak, especially in a C-segment car in which this sort of power is quite ample. This car isn't designed for use on drag strips. Like most small European cars, the Astra excels in its handling abilities.

The strength of an engine is relative to the car it is in. 138bhp is average for a 1.8 liter, however the engine is weak for the Astra, due to the Astra's heft. The Astra's performance might fly as a base model Cobalt, but the Astra is supposed to be sporty, and certainly not slower than the Cobalt. The Astra would really benefit from the 2.2L Cobalt engine, which is something I've said from the start.

European tastes are different of course. A 1.8 liter 118 HP Audi A4 would never fly over here, yet sells well in Europe.

Edited May 7, 2008 by siegen

[The O.C.]

The strength of an engine is relative to the car it is in. 138bhp is average for a 1.8 liter, however the engine is weak for the Astra, due to the Astra's heft. The Astra's performance might fly as a base model Cobalt, but the Astra is supposed to be sporty, and certainly not slower than the Cobalt. The Astra would really benefit from the 2.2L Cobalt engine, which is something I've said from the start.

European tastes are different of course. A 1.8 liter 118 HP Audi A4 would never fly over here, yet sells well in Europe.

They are using what they have available to them.....and the 1.8L is the best bet for right now.

The 2.2L and 2.4L Ecotecs aren't available in the European Astra.....and it's not feasible to just "ship some over there" to install in the U.S.-bound Astras.....

[siegen]

They are using what they have available to them.....and the 1.8L is the best bet for right now.

The 2.2L and 2.4L Ecotecs aren't available in the European Astra.....and it's not feasible to just "ship some over there" to install in the U.S.-bound Astras.....

I know why GM only offers the 1.8L here, being the only engine offered with both manual and automatic. They could have at least brought over the high-performance 2.0 version, even in small quantities. The 2.2L Ecotech, being such an efficient and good engine, why doesn't GM ship it over there for use in European markets?

[deftonesfan867]

A LNF version would be bad ass.

[Guest aatbloke]

The strength of an engine is relative to the car it is in. 138bhp is average for a 1.8 liter, however the engine is weak for the Astra, due to the Astra's heft. The Astra's performance might fly as a base model Cobalt, but the Astra is supposed to be sporty, and certainly not slower than the Cobalt. The Astra would really benefit from the 2.2L Cobalt engine, which is something I've said from the start.

European tastes are different of course. A 1.8 liter 118 HP Audi A4 would never fly over here, yet sells well in Europe.

138bhp is pretty good for a 1.8; the Mitsu Lancer's 1.8 MIVEC produces 142bhp and that's all-new; the 1.8 zetec in the 1.8 litre Ford Focus produces 122bhp, up from 115bhp when that engine debuted ten years ago. Most 1.6 litres without turbos produce in the range of 100-130bhp these days, primarily in C-segment cars but also in many B-segment and D-segment models. The Astra isn't the heaviest car in its class, either.

The 1.8 Audi A4 flies in Europe because in a number of countries, it is one of the engine capacity dividing lines between different company car tax rates.

The Astra here has a choice of five petrol engines ranging from the base 1.4 to the 2.0 turbo in the VXR. In addition, you can also choose from four turbodiesels, ranging from 1.3 litres to a 150bhp 1.9. I've driven many 1.6 litre (for example) Astras over the years and they're perfectly fine motorway cruisers. They get up to 70mph quickly enough and you can spend all day at 90mph on the M6 in one quite effortlessly. Real-world freeway driving conditions in the States are no different (aside from the lack of lane discipline but that's another story) and acceleration requirements are certainly no greater.

Much of the problem in my opinion is US perception of small engines and small cars in general, which I find as irksome as the general US perception of Japanese cars does to GM fans.

Europeans don't define "sporty" only by top flat-out speed; handling plays a vital part too. The Astra 1.8 doesn't set the world alight, but it has terrific handling (like all Astras) and decent enough performance for most needs.

Edited May 7, 2008 by aatbloke

[The O.C.]

I know why GM only offers the 1.8L here, being the only engine offered with both manual and automatic. They could have at least brought over the high-performance 2.0 version, even in small quantities. The 2.2L Ecotech, being such an efficient and good engine, why doesn't GM ship it over there for use in European markets?

Probably they don't use them overseas because, for Europe, a 1.8L is already relatively large for a petrol L4......bigger Ecotecs' increased performance probably wouldn't justify the mpg and CO2 increases.....

Also, bringing over the VXR powertrain would probably have been too cost-prohibitive for certification purposes....considering they probably wouldn't have sold enough of them.

[pow]

138bhp is pretty good for a 1.8; the Mitsu Lancer's 1.8 MIVEC produces 142bhp and that's all-new; the 1.8 zetec in the 1.8 litre Ford Focus produces 122bhp, up from 115bhp when that engine debuted ten years ago. Most 1.6 litres without turbos produce in the range of 100-130bhp these days, primarily in C-segment cars but also in many B-segment and D-segment models. The Astra isn't the heaviest car in its class, either.

The 1.8 Audi A4 flies in Europe because in a number of countries, it is one of the engine capacity dividing lines between different company car tax rates.

The Astra here has a choice of five petrol engines ranging from the base 1.4 to the 2.0 turbo in the VXR. In addition, you can also choose from four turbodiesels, ranging from 1.3 litres to a 150bhp 1.9. I've driven many 1.6 litre (for example) Astras over the years and they're perfectly fine motorway cruisers. They get up to 70mph quickly enough and you can spend all day at 90mph on the M6 in one quite effortlessly. Real-world freeway driving conditions in the States are no different (aside from the lack of lane discipline but that's another story) and acceleration requirements are certainly no greater.

Much of the problem in my opinion is US perception of small engines and small cars in general, which I find as irksome as the general US perception of Japanese cars does to GM fans.

Europeans don't define "sporty" only by top flat-out speed; handling plays a vital part too. The Astra 1.8 doesn't set the world alight, but it has terrific handling (like all Astras) and decent enough performance for most needs.

In the European market, the Astra does fine, but over here it needs more power to be competitive or class leading. No one "needs" 414 hp in an RS4, but it certainly makes for a more entertaining car.

There's nothing wrong with the Astra having a 1.8, but in the US, we already have powertrains (many of them 1.8 liters, too) that offer more performance, lower highway revs, less noise, and better fuel economy.

From a C&D small car comparison test... 0-60, mpg (2008 EPA city/highway), dB at max acceleration, and mph/1000 rpm

3: 7.3 sec

Rabbit: 7.6 sec

Civic: 7.7 sec

Elantra: 7.9 sec

xD: 7.9 sec

Focus: 8.1 sec

Sentra: 8.3 sec

Corolla: 8.6 sec

Astra: 9.3 sec

Corolla: 27/35 (1.8L)

Civic: 26/34 (1.8L)

xD: 27/33 (1.8L)

Focus: 24/35 (2.0L)

Elantra: 25/33 (2.0L)

Sentra: 25/33 (2.0L)

3: 24/32 (2.3L)

Astra: 24/32 (1.8L)

Rabbit: 22/29 (2.5L)

Rabbit: 74 dB

Focus: 74dB

Sentra: 75 dB

3: 75 dB

Elantra: 76 dB

Corolla: 78 dB

Civic: 79 dB

xD: 79 dB

Astra: 84 dB

Rabbit: 25.6 mph

Sentra: 23.7 mph

Focus: 23.6 mph

3: 23.4 mph

Corolla: 23.0 mph

Civic: 22.9 mph

xD: 22.7 mph

Elantra: 21.9 mph

Astra: 20.3 mph

A constant 4000 rpm at 80 mph makes for tiresome and frantic long-distance traveling, and with the sensitive throttle response at higher revs, a slight twitch of the foot instantly increases fuel consumption.

Edited May 7, 2008 by empowah

[The O.C.]

In the European market, the Astra does fine, but over here it needs more power to be competitive or class leading. No one "needs" 414 hp in an RS4, but it certainly makes for a more entertaining car.

There's nothing wrong with the Astra having a 1.8, but in the US, we already have powertrains (many of them 1.8 liters, too) that offer more performance, lower highway revs, less noise, and better fuel economy.

From a C&D small car comparison test... 0-60, mpg (2008 EPA city/highway), dB at max acceleration, and mph/1000 rpm

3: 7.3 sec

Rabbit: 7.6 sec

Civic: 7.7 sec

Elantra: 7.9 sec

xD: 7.9 sec

Focus: 8.1 sec

Sentra: 8.3 sec

Corolla: 8.6 sec

Astra: 9.3 sec

Corolla: 27/35 (1.8L)

Civic: 26/34 (1.8L)

xD: 27/33 (1.8L)

Focus: 24/35 (2.0L)

Elantra: 25/33 (2.0L)

Sentra: 25/33 (2.0L)

3: 24/32 (2.3L)

Astra: 24/32 (1.8L)

Rabbit: 22/29 (2.5L)

Rabbit: 74 dB

Focus: 74dB

Sentra: 75 dB

3: 75 dB

Elantra: 76 dB

Corolla: 78 dB

Civic: 79 dB

xD: 79 dB

Astra: 84 dB

Rabbit: 25.6 mph

Sentra: 23.7 mph

Focus: 23.6 mph

3: 23.4 mph

Corolla: 23.0 mph

Civic: 22.9 mph

xD: 22.7 mph

Elantra: 21.9 mph

Astra: 20.3 mph

A constant 4000 rpm at 80 mph makes for tiresome and frantic long-distance traveling, and with the sensitive throttle response at higher revs, a slight twitch of the foot instantly increases fuel consumption.

Good post.

I'm gonna here......

If GM had the foresight many years ago to develop an Astra (and Corsa?) that could have been built over here (or Mexico...whatever) and could have been certified with bigger and more powerful engines to accommodate the U.S. market, but still provide those tangible and intangible assets that makes European GM products so seemingly desirable, GM might be in a much different situation.

[AAS]

If GM had the foresight many years ago to develop an Astra (and Corsa?) that could have been built over here (or Mexico...whatever) and could have been certified with bigger and more powerful engines to accommodate the U.S. market, but still provide those tangible and intangible assets that makes European GM products so seemingly desirable, GM might be in a much different situation.

Mexico offers the Astra with the 2.0L (200 hp @ 5,400 rpm, 193 @ 4,200 rmp) and 6M. Is it not assembled in Mexico? If the Astra is manufactured in Mexico, then why don't ours come from there too? Certification?

[pow]

Good post.

I'm gonna here......

If GM had the foresight many years ago to develop an Astra (and Corsa?) that could have been built over here (or Mexico...whatever) and could have been certified with bigger and more powerful engines to accommodate the U.S. market, but still provide those tangible and intangible assets that makes European GM products so seemingly desirable, GM might be in a much different situation.

Agreed... like the PZEV (Tier 2 Bin 3), 25/36 mpg, 148 hp/152 lb-ft 2.2 in the current Cobalt. The ASTRA, btw, only weighs 100 lbs more than the Cobalt.

Few weeks ago, I drove my Passat 1.8T (~3500 rpm at 75 mph) from LA to SD, and the day after I did the same trip in my parents' 528i (~3000 rpm at 75 mph). On the freeway the extra torque and lower revs of the I6 made the trip so much calmer and more relaxing. It's a shame there are so few diesels that meet Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards... I'm hoping the upcoming BlueTDI Jetta is reasonably priced.

edit - With all that said, I'd still take the ASTRA over a Cobalt or Vibe. You're right about those "tangible and intangible assets"; I test drove a base XE 5-door, and even with the plastic wheel covers and plastic steering wheel, it still feels German and "premium", better than the Cobalt or Vibe. The turn signal stalks are nice and chunky, the steering feel is nicely weighted, the brake feel is excellent, and the ride felt solid and substantial. Around town it seems quieter than the Rabbit, though the Veedub still beats it in door slam "thunk" quality...

Edited May 7, 2008 by empowah

[siegen]

Good post empowah, I was going to reply but there's really no reason because all the data is right there. Those appear to be specs for the manual transmission models. Except I see at least one discrepancy: The manual-trans Corolla is rated to 26/35, and 27/35 is for the automatic model.

The Astra falls behind even further when you equip them all with automatics.

The Astra suffers from being a bit over-weight and having a 4-speed automatic.

[regfootball]

yes, like the boys above intimate, 4000 rpm at 80 mph is useless in America. Americans want more than 138hp, even in small cars.

9.3 o-60? not good enough. look at the focus......it even is over a second quicker. wow its sales are up to, way to get in sync.

[pow]

yes, like the boys above intimate, 4000 rpm at 80 mph is useless in America. Americans want more than 138hp, even in small cars.

9.3 o-60? not good enough. look at the focus......it even is over a second quicker. wow its sales are up to, way to get in sync.

Peak horsepower figures can be misleading, because very rarely do Americans rev past 6000+ rpm in everyday driving; it's almost as if its poor motoring etiquette. Doing so will attract unwanted glares, and the police will probably fine you for "display of speed" or "intention of speed contest" or some other BS. Torque is what matters... it's nice to have an engine that can pass without having to rev its brains out.

138 hp is enough, if you've got, say, 236 lb-ft at 1900 rpm.

[Guest aatbloke]

In comparing Astra stats, here's the situation in the market here with 1.6 and 1.8 litre C-segment rivals, along with a 1.5 in the Subaru Impreza since there are no other engines offered in the range here other than those that are 2.0 litres and more. The first figure is highway mpg in imperial gallons (4.4/3.78 of US gallon), then the official 0-60 time, and then its brake horse power rating. All of these cars score pretty equally and the Astra's 1.8 weighs in near the top of the bhp rankings, outflanked only by Mitsubishi's latest MIVEC, Peugeot's superb new 1.6 and VAG's excellent 1.8 TFSI unit. I have not included any 2.0 litre versions of these cars for comparison, or rivals with 2.0 litre units and larger, such as Chrysler's PT Cruiser.

Alfa Romeo 147 1.6 44.1 10.6 120

Audi A3 1.6 50.4 11.9 101

Audi A3 1.8 48.7 8.0 158

BMW 116i 1.6 58.9 10.1 122

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.6 47.8 10.7 108

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.8 no data 9.8 141

Citroen C4 1.6 49.6 10.6 110

Dodge Caliber 1.8 47.1 12.2 148

Ford Focus 1.6 51.4 11.9 98

Ford Focus 1.8 50.4 10.3 123

Honda Civic 1.8 52.3 8.6 138

Hyundai i30 1.6 54.3 11.1 120

Kia c'eed 1.6 52.3 10.9 124

Mazda 3 1.6 49.6 11.2 104

Mercedes B170 1.7 48.7 11.3 116

Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 46.3 9.8 142

Peugeot 308 1.6 47.1 9.3 140

Proton Gen-2 1.6 50.5 12.6 110

Renault Megane 1.6 50.4 10.9 108

Seat Leon 1.6 47.1 11.7 101

Skoda Octavia 1.6 52.3 11.2 115

Skoda Octavia 1.8 47.9 8.1 160

Subaru Impreza 1.5 44.8 13.7 106

Toyota Auris 1.6 47.9 10.4 122

Vauxhall Astra 1.6 54.3 11.5 105

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 48.7 9.5 138

Volkswagen Golf 1.6 51.4 10.8 113

Volvo C30 1.6 49.6 11.2 99

Volvo C30 1.8 48.7 10.2 123

All of these cars can - and do - handle motorway acceleration and cruising speeds quite adequately, and all have comparable weights given the extra weight required by safety features in modern cars. I disagree that 138bhp in cars of this size and weight isn't enough. While fuel economy in the Astra's 1.8 isn't class-leading, it has superior chassis dynamics and handling than both the Toyota Corolla/Auris and Honda Civic, and VW-like solidity compared with the Japanese rivals, too.

The new generation of turbocharged engines in 1.4 litre petrol cars cars are interesting too, which the next Astra will also get an equivalent of. A selection of those on the market so far in this segment are as follows:

Audi A3 1.4 53.3 9.8 123

Fiat Bravo 1.4 48.7 8.5 148

Volkswagen Golf 1.4 48.7 7.9 168 (supercharged & turbocharged)

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

9.3 o-60? not good enough. look at the focus......it even is over a second quicker. wow its sales are up to, way to get in sync.

Assuming you don't mind the 1990's chassis.

[pow]

In comparing Astra stats, here's the situation in the market here with 1.6 and 1.8 litre C-segment rivals, along with a 1.5 in the Subaru Impreza since there are no other engines offered in the range here other than those that are 2.0 litres and more. The first figure is highway mpg in imperial gallons (4.4/3.78 of US gallon), then the official 0-60 time, and then its brake horse power rating. All of these cars score pretty equally and the Astra's 1.8 weighs in near the top of the bhp rankings, outflanked only by Mitsubishi's latest MIVEC, Peugeot's superb new 1.6 and VAG's excellent 1.8 TFSI unit. I have not included any 2.0 litre versions of these cars for comparison, or rivals with 2.0 litre units and larger, such as Chrysler's PT Cruiser.

Alfa Romeo 147 1.6 44.1 10.6 120

Audi A3 1.6 50.4 11.9 101

Audi A3 1.8 48.7 8.0 158

BMW 116i 1.6 58.9 10.1 122

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.6 47.8 10.7 108

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.8 no data 9.8 141

Citroen C4 1.6 49.6 10.6 110

Dodge Caliber 1.8 47.1 12.2 148

Ford Focus 1.6 51.4 11.9 98

Ford Focus 1.8 50.4 10.3 123

Honda Civic 1.8 52.3 8.6 138

Hyundai i30 1.6 54.3 11.1 120

Kia c'eed 1.6 52.3 10.9 124

Mazda 3 1.6 49.6 11.2 104

Mercedes B170 1.7 48.7 11.3 116

Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 46.3 9.8 142

Peugeot 308 1.6 47.1 9.3 140

Proton Gen-2 1.6 50.5 12.6 110

Renault Megane 1.6 50.4 10.9 108

Seat Leon 1.6 47.1 11.7 101

Skoda Octavia 1.6 52.3 11.2 115

Skoda Octavia 1.8 47.9 8.1 160

Subaru Impreza 1.5 44.8 13.7 106

Toyota Auris 1.6 47.9 10.4 122

Vauxhall Astra 1.6 54.3 11.5 105

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 48.7 9.5 138

Volkswagen Golf 1.6 51.4 10.8 113

Volvo C30 1.6 49.6 11.2 99

Volvo C30 1.8 48.7 10.2 123

All of these cars can handle motorway acceleration and cruising speeds quite adequately, and all have comparable weights given the extra weight required by safety features in modern cars. I disagree that 138bhp in cars of this size and weight isn't enough.

The new generation of turbocharged engines in 1.4 litre petrol cars cars are interesting too, which the next Astra will also get an equivalent of. A selection of those on the market so far in this segment are as follows:

Audi A3 1.4 53.3 9.8 123

Fiat Bravo 1.4 48.7 8.5 148

Volkswagen Golf 1.4 48.7 7.9 168 (supercharged & turbocharged)

Hm, it seems the only same-engined US vehicle we have to compare is the Civic 1.8, and even those figures are not perfect, since the European Civic hatch weighs more than the global Civic sedan, despite not having independent rear suspension.

But it is consistent with the data we have, in that the 1.8 Civic is quicker and more fuel efficient using both the US C&D comparison specs and the manufacturer specs.

Honda Civic 1.8 52.3 8.6 138

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 48.7 9.5 138

Honda Civic US 26/34 7.7 140

Saturn ASTRA 24/32 9.3 138

In the US, the Civic (1.8l), Corolla (1.8l), and Focus (2.0) are the three best-selling small cars, and all beat the ASTRA in fuel economy, engine noise, and 0-60.

Edited May 8, 2008 by empowah

[Guest aatbloke]

Hm, it seems the only same-engined US vehicle we have to compare is the Civic 1.8, and even those figures are not perfect, since the European Civic hatch weighs more than the global Civic sedan, despite not having independent rear suspension.

But it is consistent with the data we have, in that the 1.8 Civic is quicker and more fuel efficient using both the US C&D comparison specs and the manufacturer specs.

Honda Civic 1.8 52.3 8.6 138

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 48.7 9.5 138

Honda Civic US 26/34 7.7 140

Saturn ASTRA 24/32 9.3 138

In the US, the Civic (1.8l), Corolla (1.8l), and Focus (2.0) are the three best-selling small cars, and all beat the ASTRA in fuel economy, engine noise, and 0-60.

The Civic is indeed quicker to 0-60 and slightly more economical, but neither the torsion beam hatch, or independent rear saloon (which we in the UK only get in hybrid and Type-R forms; other European countries get a larger range) handles as well as the Astra. I'd rather lose the couple of mpgs - which don't break the bank even at $8/gallon - to the way in which you can throw it around windy country roads with much greater poise and enjoyment. The Astra's handling abilities are widely acknowledged as some of the best in class. But that's ancillary to my original point - 138bhp is quite ample for cars of this ilk.

In Europe, the Golf, Focus and Astra were the top three selling C-segment cars in 2007.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[pow]

The Civic is indeed quicker to 0-60 and slightly more economical, but neither the torsion beam hatch, or independent rear saloon (which we in the UK only get in hybrid and Type-R forms; other European countries get a larger range) handles as well as the Astra. I'd rather lose the couple of mpgs - which don't break the bank even at $8/gallon - to the way in which you can throw it around windy country roads with much greater poise and enjoyment. The Astra's handling abilities are widely acknowledged as some of the best in class. But that's ancillary to my original point - 138bhp is quite ample for cars of this ilk.

In Europe, the Golf, Focus and Astra were the top three selling C-segment cars in 2007.

Unfortunately here in the US, there are few windy country lanes, and most of our twisty bends are far away in the mountains, where few Americans actually live. Just as the Freelander diesel is more competitive across the pond than the LR2 inline-six is in the US, as you have mentioned, the ASTRA isn't as effective in the US environment because much of American driving is done on straight, wide, boring roads at highway speeds. My point is that relative to its local competition, the ASTRA is deficient in performance and ill-suited for American roads, as evidenced by being slowest to accelerate from 0-60 and having the highest engine revs at highway speeds, all while offering no fuel economy advantage.

It would be perfect if we could have the Astra's driving dynamics and style, and the fuel economy and power of, say, a 2.2 liter Cobalt.

[daves87rs]

The Astra has always been a fine car. The police here love 'em ... but then again, so do criminals.

I'll take one of those...

[daves87rs]

Unfortunately here in the US, there are few windy country lanes, and most of our twisty bends are far away in the mountains, where few Americans actually live. Just as the Freelander diesel is more competitive across the pond than the LR2 inline-six is in the US, as you have mentioned, the ASTRA isn't as effective in the US environment because much of American driving is done on straight, wide, boring roads at highway speeds. My point is that relative to its local competition, the ASTRA is deficient in performance and ill-suited for American roads, as evidenced by being slowest to accelerate from 0-60 and having the highest engine revs at highway speeds, all while offering no fuel economy advantage.

It would be perfect if we could have the Astra's driving dynamics and style, and the fuel economy and power of, say, a 2.2 liter Cobalt.

Ah..the Astra works well in my state..I mean, have you seen our roads?

[pow]

Ah..the Astra works well in my state..I mean, have you seen our roads?

Pothole avoidance?

Roads here in LA aren't bad, if you know where to go...

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2339/img1776nr5.jpg

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2018/img1443hr2.jpg

[Guest aatbloke]

Unfortunately here in the US, there are few windy country lanes, and most of our twisty bends are far away in the mountains, where few Americans actually live. Just as the Freelander diesel is more competitive across the pond than the LR2 inline-six is in the US, as you have mentioned, the ASTRA isn't as effective in the US environment because much of American driving is done on straight, wide, boring roads at highway speeds. My point is that relative to its local competition, the ASTRA is deficient in performance and ill-suited for American roads, as evidenced by being slowest to accelerate from 0-60 and having the highest engine revs at highway speeds, all while offering no fuel economy advantage.

It would be perfect if we could have the Astra's driving dynamics and style, and the fuel economy and power of, say, a 2.2 liter Cobalt.

In relation to its handling capabilities, definitely - but as I said earlier, you'll see plenty of Astras plying the M6 at 90mph, too. From personal experience of driving extensively on motorways in western Europe and in the States, a 138bhp 1.8 Astra will do the job adequately just about anywhere. Most Americans drive a good deal more sedately on American roads than Europeans do here, which is one reason I enjoy driving over there so much!

Indeed, I recall while living there driving from Cleveland to South Carolina in a 130bhp 2.0 litre Focus ZX3. It made the journey with ease, and I was actually pulled over twice on that run. Twenty years ago I completed a 1,500 mile trek around Normandy and Brittany in a 80bhp Ford Escort 1.4, again mainly on motorways and it cruised comfortably at 85-90mph.

Sure, 200bhp and 0-60 in 7 seconds make all the difference on a track, but in real-world driving conditions, the difference from that Astra's 1.8 is barely worth mentioning. The topic's a damp squib.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[The O.C.]

In comparing Astra stats, here's the situation in the market here with 1.6 and 1.8 litre C-segment rivals, along with a 1.5 in the Subaru Impreza since there are no other engines offered in the range here other than those that are 2.0 litres and more. The first figure is highway mpg in imperial gallons (4.4/3.78 of US gallon), then the official 0-60 time, and then its brake horse power rating. All of these cars score pretty equally and the Astra's 1.8 weighs in near the top of the bhp rankings, outflanked only by Mitsubishi's latest MIVEC, Peugeot's superb new 1.6 and VAG's excellent 1.8 TFSI unit. I have not included any 2.0 litre versions of these cars for comparison, or rivals with 2.0 litre units and larger, such as Chrysler's PT Cruiser.

Alfa Romeo 147 1.6 44.1 10.6 120

Audi A3 1.6 50.4 11.9 101

Audi A3 1.8 48.7 8.0 158

BMW 116i 1.6 58.9 10.1 122

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.6 47.8 10.7 108

Chevrolet Lacetti 1.8 no data 9.8 141

Citroen C4 1.6 49.6 10.6 110

Dodge Caliber 1.8 47.1 12.2 148

Ford Focus 1.6 51.4 11.9 98

Ford Focus 1.8 50.4 10.3 123

Honda Civic 1.8 52.3 8.6 138

Hyundai i30 1.6 54.3 11.1 120

Kia c'eed 1.6 52.3 10.9 124

Mazda 3 1.6 49.6 11.2 104

Mercedes B170 1.7 48.7 11.3 116

Mitsubishi Lancer 1.8 46.3 9.8 142

Peugeot 308 1.6 47.1 9.3 140

Proton Gen-2 1.6 50.5 12.6 110

Renault Megane 1.6 50.4 10.9 108

Seat Leon 1.6 47.1 11.7 101

Skoda Octavia 1.6 52.3 11.2 115

Skoda Octavia 1.8 47.9 8.1 160

Subaru Impreza 1.5 44.8 13.7 106

Toyota Auris 1.6 47.9 10.4 122

Vauxhall Astra 1.6 54.3 11.5 105

Vauxhall Astra 1.8 48.7 9.5 138

Volkswagen Golf 1.6 51.4 10.8 113

Volvo C30 1.6 49.6 11.2 99

Volvo C30 1.8 48.7 10.2 123

All of these cars can - and do - handle motorway acceleration and cruising speeds quite adequately, and all have comparable weights given the extra weight required by safety features in modern cars. I disagree that 138bhp in cars of this size and weight isn't enough. While fuel economy in the Astra's 1.8 isn't class-leading, it has superior chassis dynamics and handling than both the Toyota Corolla/Auris and Honda Civic, and VW-like solidity compared with the Japanese rivals, too.

The new generation of turbocharged engines in 1.4 litre petrol cars cars are interesting too, which the next Astra will also get an equivalent of. A selection of those on the market so far in this segment are as follows:

Audi A3 1.4 53.3 9.8 123

Fiat Bravo 1.4 48.7 8.5 148

Volkswagen Golf 1.4 48.7 7.9 168 (supercharged & turbocharged)

You're missing the point 'Bloke.......

Astra is underpowered for a car of it's class in this market. Granted it's more than acceptable in Europe, but here, we are used to cars with much better acceleration and performance than typically what is found in Europe.....for a given vehicle. (Thanks to our typically lower cost of fuel and previous addiction to powerful V6- and V8 sedans.)

Yes....the car drives fantastically (apparently) but handling and braking aside, the powertrain is under-nourished compared to what people in this market are used to.

Did you look at the above post showing performance figures for 0-60 for many "small" cars tested in a recent Car and Driver comparison? Our BASIC VW Rabbit (your Golf) goes 0-60 in the low 7-sec time (close to your GTI) thanks to a large 2.5L 5-cylinder. There's nothing smaller or less powerful in VW's U.S. lineup! Our "old" Focus, almost cracks the 8.0 sec barrier to 60mph....from it's base powertrain.

The vast majority of the cars you list above in your post are slower than just about ANY car sold here in America. It's just the nature of the market, that's all.

[The O.C.]

It would be perfect if we could have the Astra's driving dynamics and style, and the fuel economy and power of, say, a 2.2 liter Cobalt.

AGREED.

No one argues that the Astra's level of ride-and-handling composure is EXACTLY what this car needs over here (where so many consumers are gravitating towards import-feeling chassis and suspension setups).........

In fact, I'd think the Astra's germanic ride-and-handling setup will give it a leg-up on the competition.

But it IS underpowered for our market.

A Cobalt equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder and a 5-speed manual transmission ran from 0-60 in 7.1secs in a C&D test......and only 7.5secs with an automatic (in a Pontiac G5).....that's European hot-hatch territory, 'Bloke.

However, the 2.4L Cobalt gets the SAME EPA mileage numbers as the less-powerful 2.2L version!

[The O.C.]

Sure, 200bhp and 0-60 in 7 seconds make all the difference on a track, but in real-world driving conditions, the difference from that Astra's 1.8 is barely worth mentioning. The topic's a damp squib.

Not really a damp squib.

There's a significant difference in powertrain performance in our driving conditions between something like an Astra, and say something like our Rabbit. It DOES make a difference.

I'm not arguing with you that cars such as you mention are more than adequate......but that's you....and me....and doesn't neccesarily refect the realities of our market.

[SuperSport623]

in theory a car with 60 hp can push a car around, even at highway speeds, somewhat efficiently... but when your totally underpowered against your competition and your own sister car, ya might need an upgrade...

[Guest aatbloke]

You're missing the point 'Bloke.......

Astra is underpowered for a car of it's class in this market. Granted it's more than acceptable in Europe, but here, we are used to cars with much better acceleration and performance than typically what is found in Europe.....for a given vehicle. (Thanks to our typically lower cost of fuel and previous addiction to powerful V6- and V8 sedans.)

Yes....the car drives fantastically (apparently) but handling and braking aside, the powertrain is under-nourished compared to what people in this market are used to.

Did you look at the above post showing performance figures for 0-60 for many "small" cars tested in a recent Car and Driver comparison? Our BASIC VW Rabbit (your Golf) goes 0-60 in the low 7-sec time (close to your GTI) thanks to a large 2.5L 5-cylinder. There's nothing smaller or less powerful in VW's U.S. lineup! Our "old" Focus, almost cracks the 8.0 sec barrier to 60mph....from it's base powertrain.

The vast majority of the cars you list above in your post are slower than just about ANY car sold here in America. It's just the nature of the market, that's all.

Do you guys get 230bhp in the Golf GTi yet? There have long been plenty of very rapid accelerating cars sold in Europe - we're not a continent comprised solely of econoboxes. But even those had powerful versions if you wanted one - but a 1987 Fiat Uno 1.4 turbo, capable of 130mph and 0-60 in less than 8 seconds - didn't get the job done any more reliably in the real world than my old Uno 1.1.

I understand perfectly what you're saying, but a number of posters were saying that 138bhp doesn't cut the mustard in a car of this size - and that's the point I'm arguing. So there are some rivals that reach 60mph a second sooner - this wouldn't even register with most people in real-world driving conditions. Because the fact is that it does cut the mustard, and easily. Ultimately it's all perception in the minds of American drivers that you need 200bhp just to get by - in similar fashion to their perception that Japanese cars are more reliable than American cars. It's all bollocks! Fuel prices here have escalated from $4/gall to $9/gall in the past decade, and in that time we've been able to get the job done in a small petrol engine or a small diesel engine and still have a vehicle capable of 50mpg. If a 5-cylinder 2.5 litre slug capable of only 34mpg (imperial) is all you have, then in a few short years you're going to be left up the creek without a paddle - or a boat.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[SuperSport623]

Do you guys get 230bhp in the Golf GTi yet?

I understand that, but a number of posters were saying that 138bhp doesn't cut the mustard in a car of this size - and that's the point I'm arguing. Because it does cut the mustand, and easily. Ultimately it's all perception in the minds of American drivers that you need 200bhp just to get by - in similar fashion to their perception that Japanese cars are more reliable than American cars. It's all bollocks! Fuel prices here have escalated from $4/gall to $9/gall in the past decade, and in that time we've been able to get the job done in a small petrol engine or a small diesel engine and still have a vehicle capable of 50mpg. If a 5-cylinder 2.5 litre slug capable of only 34mpg (imperial) is all you have, then in a few short years you're going to be left up the creek without a paddle - or a boat.

get the job done doesn't mean enjoyable.. yes i understand handling is fantastic, but straight line quarter mile acceleration is also a very important aspect of a "fun" car

[Guest aatbloke]

Not really a damp squib.

There's a significant difference in powertrain performance in our driving conditions between something like an Astra, and say something like our Rabbit. It DOES make a difference.

I'm not arguing with you that cars such as you mention are more than adequate......but that's you....and me....and doesn't neccesarily refect the realities of our market.

I understand it's your market, but of the tens of thousands of miles I've spent plying Americas freeways over the years, I found them no faster accelerating than European ones, and more often than not, more sedate, too.

[Guest aatbloke]

get the job done doesn't mean enjoyable.. yes i understand handling is fantastic, but straight line quarter mile acceleration is also a very important aspect of a "fun" car

So tell me, what cars did you drive in Europe if you don't mind me asking?

[The O.C.]

Do you guys get 230bhp in the Golf GTi yet?

I understand that, but a number of posters were saying that 138bhp doesn't cut the mustard in a car of this size - and that's the point I'm arguing. Because it does cut the mustand, and easily. Ultimately it's all perception in the minds of American drivers that you need 200bhp just to get by - in similar fashion to their perception that Japanese cars are more reliable than American cars. It's all bollocks! Fuel prices here have escalated from $4/gall to $9/gall in the past decade, and in that time we've been able to get the job done in a small petrol engine or a small diesel engine and still have a vehicle capable of 50mpg. If a 5-cylinder 2.5 litre slug capable of only 34mpg (imperial) is all you have, then in a few short years you're going to be left up the creek without a paddle - or a boat.

But you DON'T understand that....!

You always seem to have a totally rational view of the worldwide automotive market......and I can appreciate that. But you seemingly simply don't understand or relate to the U.S. market in this situation. What you and I, as enthusiasts, would find as "acceptable" isn't neccesarily a reality in this market.

Perception is reality my friend. Consumers in this market are simply used to more powerful vehicles....no matter the class. The automatic Astra over here is even worse, dragging close to 11secs 0-60. That's slower than any vehicle in this market (even an automatic Aveo....timed at 10-4sec in a recent C&D test.)

The problem is.....the Astra offers up the worst powertrain performance in it's segment over here.....combined with fuel economy that is midpack....at best.....(referring to the aforementioned C&D comparo.) For example....our "old" Focus goes 0-60 over a second faster (that's not insignificant) yet achieved better mileage overall in C&D's test....and even has much better highway EPA fuel economy figures.

(I still think Astra's a great little car......)

[pow]

You're missing the point 'Bloke.......

Astra is underpowered for a car of it's class in this market. Granted it's more than acceptable in Europe, but here, we are used to cars with much better acceleration and performance than typically what is found in Europe.....for a given vehicle. (Thanks to our typically lower cost of fuel and previous addiction to powerful V6- and V8 sedans.)

Yes....the car drives fantastically (apparently) but handling and braking aside, the powertrain is under-nourished compared to what people in this market are used to.

Did you look at the above post showing performance figures for 0-60 for many "small" cars tested in a recent Car and Driver comparison? Our BASIC VW Rabbit (your Golf) goes 0-60 in the low 7-sec time (close to your GTI) thanks to a large 2.5L 5-cylinder. There's nothing smaller or less powerful in VW's U.S. lineup! Our "old" Focus, almost cracks the 8.0 sec barrier to 60mph....from it's base powertrain.

The vast majority of the cars you list above in your post are slower than just about ANY car sold here in America. It's just the nature of the market, that's all.

Exactly. The ASTRA is deficient in acceleration *relative* to other cars in its class. Yes, 0-60 in 9.3 seconds and 4000 rpm at 80 mph in fifth gear is tolerable, in the same way a four-speaker stereo is tolerable for listening to the news. But why would Suzy McMansion from the Inland Empire, who can no longer afford gas for her Expedition, choose the slowest and noisiest compact for her 40 mile commute to work when a much calmer, quieter, more fuel efficient Corolla, Civic, or Focus would do?

[The O.C.]

I understand it's your market, but of the tens of thousands of miles I've spent plying Americas freeways over the years, I found them no faster accelerating than European ones, and more often than not, more sedate, too.

Well, I've spent 38 years living here (my life).....LOL....and I can tell you, you don't have to drive foot-to-the-floor to appreciate a responsive powertrain. Our (relatively-speaking) powerful compacts here align MUCH better with automatic transmissions.....which, that C&D comparo with manual trannys aside, are MUCH more popular....even in compact B- and C-segment cars.

The more powerful engines in our B- and C-segment cars allow more responsive part-throttle acceleration.....I think that's a tangible benefit that American drivers appreciate.

[The O.C.]

So tell me, what cars did you drive in Europe if you don't mind me asking?

I know your post wasn't directed at me......

.....but I recently drove an Alfa Romeo GT Coupe with a 1.9L TDI in Frankfurt.....and THAT powertrain would be perfect for North America....! Torquey, responsive, and quick.....perfect for driving in L.A rush-hour traffic.....OR on an interstate out in the country.....and the mileage is fantastic!

[Guest aatbloke]

But you DON'T understand that....!

You always seem to have a totally rational view of the worldwide automotive market......and I can appreciate that. But you seemingly simply don't understand or relate to the U.S. market in this situation. What you and I, as enthusiasts, would find as "acceptable" isn't neccesarily a reality in this market.

Perception is reality my friend. Consumers in this market are simply used to more powerful vehicles....no matter the class. The automatic Astra over here is even worse, dragging close to 11secs 0-60. That's slower than any vehicle in this market (even an automatic Aveo....timed at 10-4sec in a recent C&D test.)

The problem is.....the Astra offers up the worst powertrain performance in it's segment over here.....combined with fuel economy that is midpack....at best.....(referring to the aforementioned C&D comparo.) For example....our "old" Focus goes 0-60 over a second faster (that's not insignificant) yet achieved better mileage overall in C&D's test....and even has much better highway EPA fuel economy figures.

(I still think Astra's a great little car......)

All of which is fair enough - but with soaring fuel prices, I think US acceptabilities are going to change rapidly in the next few years, and indeed that's already happening. During our last Stateside trip a few weeks ago, my wife commented how many more cars such as the Yaris were on the roads of Ohio compared to just last year.

The Astra's 1.8 VVT is not the best engine in the line up - that accolade goes to both the 1.3CTDi and 1.9CTDi jointly - and this isn't the first time that's happened when an Opel jumps to the US. The Omega's 3 litre V6 was the worst in the line up and not a patch on the former straight six in the Senator, yet it was the engine chosen to be federalised for Catera purposes. However, the Astra, along with the Alfa 147 and VW Golf, are the dom perignon of C-segment hatches purely for their drivability, which is unfortunately something the Japanese (notably) have yet to match in a non-turbod small car - although the latest Lancer is superb effort. And, as I've said from the beginning, 138bhp from a 1.8 really is ample for any C-segment car, regardless of that offered by rivals.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[SuperSport623]

So tell me, what cars did you drive in Europe if you don't mind me asking?

ill tell you the answer your looking for.... none... ive never left the states yet... im not claiming to have driven euro cars.. what im saying is, while handling makes a car fun (i LOVE wringing a car out in the twisties) horsepower (or better yet, torque) make a car fun as well

[Guest aatbloke]

ill tell you the answer your looking for.... none... ive never left the states yet... im not claiming to have driven euro cars.. what im saying is, while handling makes a car fun (i LOVE wringing a car out in the twisties) horsepower (or better yet, torque) make a car fun as well

Then all I'm going to say to you is experience as many in Europe as you can. That's all. Our small cars are far from the whizzy hairdryers many on here seem to suggest!

[Guest aatbloke]

I know your post wasn't directed at me......

.....but I recently drove an Alfa Romeo GT Coupe with a 1.9L TDI in Frankfurt.....and THAT powertrain would be perfect for North America....! Torquey, responsive, and quick.....perfect for driving in L.A rush-hour traffic.....OR on an interstate out in the country.....and the mileage is fantastic!

I agree with you, that JTD unit is wonderful.

[The O.C.]

I agree with you, that JTD unit is wonderful.

IF GM had seen far enough ahead, they would have somehow engineered our 2.4L 4-cylinder Ecotec for installation in the Astra.

THAT car, would have provided ~ 170hp, and mileage figures comparable to the 1.8L engine's.....providing great acceleration and powertrain performance AND fuel economy in a European-inspired hatch......something much better for our market.

BUT....as I stated eariler.....it's not easy to just "ship" some 2.4L engines over to Europe for "assembly" in an Astra......

But it would have been a great solution to the Astra's powertrain issue.

[pow]

All of which is fair enough - but with soaring fuel prices, I think US acceptabilities are going to change rapidly in the next few years, and indeed that's already happening. During our last Stateside trip a few weeks ago, my wife commented how many more cars such as the Yaris were on the roads of Ohio compared to just last year.

That I agree with. I drove a 1.3 Civic Hybrid a few weeks ago, and at a constant speed on the highway, power was perfectly fine and the RPMs were kept nice and low by the CVT. My beef with the ASTRA in particular is that while it's "slow" (but adequate, yes, I know...), it doesn't offer any fuel economy advantage over quicker competitors, and that the gearing is too aggressive for relaxing long distance drives. A sixth gear, or VW's seven-speed dry DSG, would make things better.

Edited May 8, 2008 by empowah

[pow]

IF GM had seen far enough ahead, they would have somehow engineered our 2.4L 4-cylinder Ecotec for installation in the Astra.

THAT car, would have provided ~ 170hp, and mileage figures comparable to the 1.8L engine's.....providing great acceleration and powertrain performance AND fuel economy in a European-inspired hatch......something much better for our market.

BUT....as I stated eariler.....it's not easy to just "ship" some 2.4L engines over to Europe for "assembly" in an Astra......

But it would have been a great solution to the Astra's powertrain issue.

The 2.2 now gets VVT, btw, so its fuel economy is no longer identical to the 2.4's. It's actually quite a bit better now.

edit - The 150 hp 1.6 turbo in the Corsa would have done the job, too, provided the final drive is low enough.

Edited May 8, 2008 by empowah

[Guest aatbloke]

The 2.2 now gets VVT, btw, so its fuel economy is no longer identical to the 2.4's. It's actually quite a bit better now.

edit - The 150 hp 1.6 turbo in the Corsa would have done the job, too, provided the final drive is low enough.

That 150bhp Corsa/Astra unit is probably as far as you want to go with either car. The trouble with the higher-powered VXR models - which I believe is a 192bhp unit in the Corsa, for example - is the horrific torque steer. The Astra VXR and Vectra VXR both suffer the same problem. Both the Mini Cooper S and Renault Clio are more likely to get you where you need to be instead of ending up the middle of a field.

Here's an interesting video comparing it with the Clio:

[Guest aatbloke]

That I agree with. I drove a 1.3 Civic Hybrid a few weeks ago, and at a constant speed on the highway, power was perfectly fine and the RPMs were kept nice and low by the CVT. My beef with the ASTRA in particular is that while it's "slow" (but adequate, yes, I know...), it doesn't offer any fuel economy advantage over quicker competitors, and that the gearing is too aggressive for relaxing long distance drives. A sixth gear, or VW's seven-speed dry DSG, would make things better.

I'm concerned at how drastic the change is likely to be. Even when we were at $3-$4/gallon, engine capacities in cars driven by the average Joe Bloggs in the high street were little different to those which exist today - although advanced in engine technology have made them more economical and powerful. But converting a culture - indeed any culture - which has long considered a 2 litre engine as small is going to be extraordinarily difficult. It's going to be a trying time for consumers and manufacturers operating in that market alike.

Back to the Astra. I understand where you're coming from and I'm not saying it's best in class in every area; it isn't the most economical car in its class but the difference isn't that material even at $8/gallon. Where it shines over the likes of the Corolla and Civic are in its solid build and its chassis dynamics. It's horses for courses at the end of the day.

Edited May 8, 2008 by aatbloke

[Robert Hall]

in theory a car with 60 hp can push a car around, even at highway speeds, somewhat efficiently... but when your totally underpowered against your competition and your own sister car, ya might need an upgrade...

My 52hp diesel Escort got around quite efficiently (over 50 highway) and would cruise at highway speeds (55-65) quite well, but that was 20+ years ago... it was pretty slow to accelerate, even w/ a 5 speed manual. Wouldn't really want to drive it today.