GXT

For the record, CR got 18/43 for the non-hybrid Civic AT and 26/47 for the Civic Hybrid. The Civic hybrid did 44% better than the non-hybrid in the city. Not only that, the non-hybrid Civic AT is rated at 23 MPG, so it missed the EPA target by 28%. In case you are concerned about this being a Honda issue, consider the Aveo AT rated at 27 MPG city. CR got 19 MPG (a miss of 42%). Or the Cobalt LS AT, rated at 23 city, CR got 15 (a miss of 53%). Or the much vaunted Malibu V6, rated at 24 city CR got 15 (a miss of 60%). And finally, the amazing 3.8 V6 in the 2007 LaCrosse. Which, and you'll have to forgive me if I have the wrong engine here, is apparently the engine that has been putting all the current Japanese V6's to shame in terms of fuel economy. Rated at 20 city, CR got 12 (a miss of 67%). And I should mention that CR got 30 highway. I mention this because I am baffled by the number of people talking about the highway fuel economy exclusively and then throwing up a number such as 30 MPG highway as if it shows the engine is efficient. Relatively inefficient engines post such highway numbers frequently. If you spend most of your time driving in the city (which most people do), be sure to look at the city numbers. So yes, the Civic Hybrid missed the EPA estimates according to CR, but so do all these other non-hybrids (and quite significantly as well). But it still did 44% better than the non-hybrid Civic and 73% better than the Cobalt. It looks to me like the hybrid is providing significantly better fuel economy than the non-hybrids. Talk about a groundless lawsuit and poor reporting!

You do understand the difference between "highway" and "city", don't you? Sure you do. CR got 47 MPG highway with the Civic Hybrid (38% more than the v6 olds 88 figure that we are taking your word on), and that is the best case comparison!

I think I actually missed not having the vtec "rush". My previous car was an old V6 accord and the vtec switchover was very noticable. Just be sure you are happy with the power. If you are happy with the power then you are unlikely to find faults with anything else in the car. Good luck with your purchase!

It was released in 2003 as a 2004 model. There aren't any "lower" models. The options are a 5AT or 6MT and navi. I really don't think there are too many hard interior pieces. To which pieces are you referring?

I owned a TSX 6SPD for just over a year. The car is brilliant in every way except that it is short on power. And I should qualify that by saying that for the majority of drivers the power is much more than adequate; I just wanted more (I traded it in for a TL 6 SPD). Of course I am now paying for it at the pump. The top of the dash is a soft plastic. The controls feel great, the 6SPD shifts beautifully, and it handles very well. Very fun car to drive. The TSX interior is an excellent example of a well put together entry level luxury car. The Cobalt interior is an average example of an economy car. Besides the fit and finish issues with the Cobalt (e.g. the fabric on the door ended before it went under some of the buttons leaving a noticable gap) I test drove and the cheap materials, what jumped out at me was the horrible feel of the mechanical HVAC controls and how turning one dial obviously shifted whatever piece the other controls were mounted on. The info display, gauges, power door buttons, door handles, centre console, etc., etc., etc. are all in a completely different league in the TSX.

"Toyota charges various "hybrid premiums" depending on the model, but their strong-selling Camry Hybrid, which improves combined fuel economy over 41% relative to the conventional four cylinder (34 mpg vs. 24 mpg), yet according to truedelta.com, only costs about $1,500 more than a loaded Camry XLE four cylinder when taking equipment levels into account. If GM takes the myopic approach (which unfortunately has been pretty typical for them over the years) and attempts to recoup their investment in this system quickly by charging too much for it, they'll never get sales volume up to a level that allows for economies of scale similar to what Toyota has for its Hybrid Synergy Drive, and allows it to only charge $1,500 more for the Camry Hybrid. The only people who will buy this system at $10,000 are environmentally-conscious full-size SUV buyers (is there such a person?) or bleeding-edge early adopters who need to have the latest and greatest of everything. GM also expects to install a variant of the two-mode hybrid system into front wheel drive-based applications, such as the Saturn Vue, in coming years. It's hard enough for me to envision buyers of $50,000 SUVs anteing up an extra $10,000 (20%) for a hybrid drivetrain, but even harder for me to imagine a $25,000 Saturn Vue buyer paying an extra $10,000 for the advanced hybrid drivetrain (40% more expensive). With premiums like that, the timeframe for the upfront payment for the hybrid drivetrain paid for by gas savings alone would extend into the decades and not years." more: http://www.autosavant.net/2007/07/gm-may-e...ybrid-cost.html GM has been late to the hybrid game. Their current hybrids offer VERY small fuel efficiency gains over their competitor's regular 4 cyl models. In the past they have distracted from this worry by talking up the future two-mode hybrids. While they very well might have made GM's hybrids competitive, at $10,000 GM cannot put them into a mainstream car at a profit. I guess that was the danger in partnering up with the likes of BMW and Mercedes! Unless they can get the price way down without hurting the efficiency gains, GM has no foreseeable completive mainstream hybrid car. (Even if they do deliver the Volt at their stated price point of $30K, they still won't have a competitive mainstream hybrid car.) Perhaps another lesson to learn from this is to take GM’s promises regarding the Volt with a grain of salt. Pie-in-the-sky is great for PR but eventually you have to deal with realty. GM is potentially in a very bad situation here. Quick, someone put out a Volt press release!

GM has stated that they are considering subsidizing some of the ~$10,000 premium for the two-mode hybrid, so perhaps they will do the same for diesel.

I think the problem is that the potential buyers went to see the Aura and ended up with a Camry/Accord. Seriously, what the heck happened? G6 is down 38.6%! What causes that?

I don't think he does either. I think he is basing his comments on another thread about how vehicles with worse fuel economy yield greater fuel savings from smaller gains in efficiency. That is true enough. But it is being extrapolated to support things that simply aren't correct. i.e. "A Tahoe hybrid saves more fuel over it's life compaired to a non-hybrid Tahoe than a Prius saves compared to a Corolla." 1) How much more efficient is a hybrid Tahoe over a non-hybrid Tahoe? It this public information? 2) A Prius and a Corolla aren't in the same class. The comparison would be like me saying e.g. "A Camry hybrid saves more fuel over it's life compared to a non-hybrid Camry that a Tahoe saves over a Trailblazer." It might be correct, but it isn't a fair comparison and I don't think we really know yet.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know why Saturn made the comparison that they did. Just curious as to what GM's Toughest Critics have to say. Someone should probably mention to Saturn that out of the two dozen or so facts they had to check on their pocket sheet they got at least one wrong. I'm not sure what kind of legal liability could result from that.

So, given that, would you say that if the Accord and Camry being compared both had a moonroof standard, and that was available as an option on the Aura, then should it have been included in the Aura's price?

Totally agree. But in the Aura comparison GM choose to show HP and wheel size instead of HP and MPG. How does a consumer come up with an accurate sum of all numbers from that? It seems to me GM is banking on NOT having "discerning" consumers in this comparison. I don't think MPG is the meaningless number that you are implying. Really? Because the lease on my wife's Accord as compared to the Malibu that we looked at certainly seemed to be affected by something. I thought for sure the car's value at the end of the lease had some effect on it.

I know you don't actually read my posts, but you should try it sometime. Or, if you don't like reading my posts, try reading some GM literature: “Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.” I'd love to know what it actually means.

Yes, it is in the link that compares different cars than what is implied on the main page (with no indication that it is switching models on you... or even any indication of what model is being shown)... the page that doesn't work right with the current version of IE. But it isn't in the main comparison or the pocket sheet. Perhaps it is me, but if you are really trying to show that your car really is better, then you show the important categories, not just the ones that you are best at. As I said, I don't blame them. In the end it is marketing (not product).

Yes, generally it was a waste of time. It certainly didn't help that I posted it here to be viewed by GM's Biggest Fans. I don't think I did what Saturn wanted... I'm certainly not going to by an Aura, and I confirmed that their claim of superiority is so weak that it requires games and half-truths to even attempt to substantiate. As for the lies/inaccuracies on the pocket sheet and the AIC comp that shows the wrong cars and plays games. Sure GM can pretend that they are showing you something, and if you are smart enough to think for yourself they can point to the disclaimer. But it sure shows the Aura's true competitiveness and GM's confidence in it, as well as what they think of their consumers. I'm not here to defend Toyota. I could care less about them. If you want to defend GM's purposely misleading campaign to show the benefits of the Aura by saying that Toyota has played games in the past, that is fine. Just realize that what is being conceded is that the Aura isn't actually better. I don't know, I've never tried to buy or find one. I'm glad to see that you are actively scouring the lots for them and checking the sales sheets to know the relative percentage going out the door. BTW, the LX is 1,500 more, not $3,000. I can see why you were confused about that. $3,000 is about the amount that you would have to add to the Aura in GM's pocket comparison to make it comparably equipped to the Accord (as they imply).

Do you have a link? It isn't on the main page or the pocket sheet. The only place I could find it was on the third party comparison which doesn't really work well and shows the wrong cars.

I thought I'd take a look at the Aura web page and see how GM is selling this comparison with the Accord and Camry. http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/index.jsp The first tactic is to compare the V6 Aura to the 4Cyl Camry and Accord. Of course they never mention fuel economy. Generally they omit all the categories where the aura is not competitive (e.g. Residual value, interior dimensions (accord has more front and back headroom/shoulder room/hip room, and front legroom (not back)), residual value, suspension, fuel economy, etc.). That is smart, and I understand to sell you want to focus on your strengths, but an item such as fuel economy is too important to omit. This is especially true when you are claiming that your product is so much better. The second tactic is more misleading. If you click on the link that says "Take a Closer Look: Click for complete specs comparison, including interior, exterior and safety features" at the bottom of the page you see a comparison with what I believe is the Accord LX, and not the SE that was implied on the first page. At least, by the price I assume it is the LE... it is never actually stated anywhere that I can see. This page generally doesn't work very well, but it does do some humorous things like listing the sunroof that wasn’t include on the Aura in the front page as a “Saturn Advantage” as it is optional, while showing the sunroof that was included in the price of the Accord SE on the front page as “Not Available”. In general this is all very misleading. Perhaps GM is just incompetent, but one might assume they were being complacent. The third and most misleading tactic is how they pretend to be comparing equivalently configured models for a given price. For example, in the "Aura Pocket Guide" at http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/pd...PocketGuide.pdf they list pricing under the heading “Starting MSRP” with a footnote that says, “Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.”!! Can anyone explain that to me? Are they trying to imply that the vehicles are comparably equipped? To get the Aura XR from the shown base price of 24,995 to match the level of the Accord EX-L, they would have to add: - A moonroof for $800 , the “Enhanced Convenience Package” for the power passenger seat for $425, the “Premium Trim Package” for the leather seats, steering wheel and heated seats for $800, and $200 for XM radio. That eliminates the supposed $2,000 price advantage of the Aura. If they were trying to match price and not features, they could have included the Accord SE V6 for $24K instead of the $28K EX-L. The only thing that would have changed in their comparison is that the Accord wheels would be 16" instead of 17". But then the Accord would have been less expensive than the Aura. Much of the same tacticts are used on the Aura XE comparison. While we are on this page, it is incorrect that the Camry XLE V6 comes with 16" Steel wheels. It comes with Alloy wheels. I'm not sure why GM would lie about this one... the Aura still has it beat. Perhaps it was just a mistake. However when you are being dishonest in multiple places and linking to incorrect 3rd party data you have to be careful about when you are blatantly wrong. Back to the main comparison page, http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/index.jsp, note that the footnote by MSRP has changed. The, "Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.” Wording is gone. I guess this gave them the freedom to add a couple of packages to the Aura to improve some of the listed specs (e.g. Alloy wheels instead of steel) while at the same time omitting ones that they should have added… like the $800 sunroof or the advanced audio package for $725 to get the 6 disc changer to make the Aura as well equipped as the Accord. However if they had done that then they could have included the Accord V6 SE in their comparison as it would have been almost the exact same price. But then the Accord would have had more HP, traction control, etc. and the Aura wouldn't have looked so good. I’m sorry I can’t comment more on the Camry comparison as I don’t know much about the Camry. But I am assuming that GM is being just as dishonest with Toyota. Anyways, I think the moral here is clear. When you really have a product that is superior you don't need to play games. I almost feel sorry for the hardcore GMers who are about to be rooked again. But I guess if you don’t do your research then you get what you deserve.

Looks like that is pretty much what they are doing. Their comparison sheet compares the Aura with the low end V6 to the 4 cyl accord and camry. It compares HP and torque. For some reason they forgot to include fuel economy! :AH-HA_wink: (Or anything else that the competitors really beat the aura at)

Sure, this could happen at several hundred times the scale running the length of the centre of your car: But it would only be because the controls were not designed properly, or manufactured properly, or installed properly, or the battery wasn't built properly, etc. Other than that, no problem. The batteries themselves are perfectly safe. This in a world were Ford, Mercedes, etc. can't even get their simple electrical systems to function properly. Forgive me for finding your post more than a little disingenuous.

Wow. Just... wow.

I think that would have to be part of the requirements. Also they would have to run cooler to avoid fire risk. That is why every press release regarding GM's plug-in hybrid is quite clear in stating that a major battery breakthrough is required to make the vehicle possible.

You might want to re-read that article. It will be the VUE that will be catching on fire as it requires the unreliable and dangerous LI-ion batteries to make GM's claims at all possible. And it will need many times more of them than a Toyota hybrid. That is, it will be when the battery becomes feasible. Whenever that is. In other news, I will be flying to mars next year. I understand that the US is unable to do this. If I keep my schedule, I will be the first person to mars. Finally, the GXT space program will leap past the hapless NASA. And people said that my complete lack of experience running a space program would be a detriment! All I need now is a space program that will get me to mars. I will give it to GM. This PR seems to be working not only on this boad, but also with the WSJ. This whole thing is getting ridiculous.

So does Saturn have to buy a 2007 Accord now and then a 2008 in the fall for each dealership? I've already posted before that I think this is an incredibly bad idea. GM is just going to expose more people to the Camry and Accord. If the shopper is a GM die-hard then they would likely never have considered going to see or drive either the Camry or Accord. If the shopper isn't a GM die-hard, then this accomplishes nothing as the shopper has already driven (or will soon drive) the Camry and Accord. I'm not sure if this is happening in Canada. If it is, I'm going to drive to the Saturn dealership, ask to drive only the Accord, and then ask them how much they want for it.

The point is that hybrids aren't inherently better for vehicles with worse fuel economy. Adding mild/full/2-mode/etc. to the mix further proves this point. But if you want we can compare to the mild-hybrid civic. With CR's real-world numbers, the civic non-hybrid gets 28 MPG and the hybrid 37 MPG. A net savings of 130 Gallons over 15,000 miles. Again, the civic saves more fuel than the VUE even though the non-hybrid civic is much more efficient than a non-hybrid Vue. On the topic, Mortorweek reviewed 8 CUVs this week. In their real-world tests the Honda CR-V came within 1 MPG (27 vs 28 as I recall) of the Hybrid Vue. Motorweek tends to get high MPG (the CR-V is rated 22 city and 28 highway). Driving Television also reviewed a hybrid VUE this past week and got only 21 MPG in mixed city and highway driving.

Well they might have sold better if they had actually delivered. I get the impression that some competing hybrid buses do offer some decent gains so pehaps hybird buses will become widespread. I'm not arguing with the basic math. But just because vehicles with poor fuel economy require a smaller percentage gain in fuel economy to deliver a greater net fuel savings than a more efficient vehicle does not mean that vehicles with poor fuel economy are the right application for a hybrid. It seems that with the state of batteries today, the opposite is true. Take the VUE. The Greenline is rated 27 MPG city, whereas the non-hybrid is rated 22. Assuming it actually hits the rated fuel economy, that's a savings of 126 Gallons over 15,000 miles. For the Camry Hybrid I was able to find real-world numbers. CR got 24MPG for the non-hybrid and 34 MGP for the hybrid. That's a savings of 183 Gallons over 15,000 miles. So the Camry Hybrid is the more beneficial application of a hybrid, even though it is smaller than the VUE and the non-hybrid Camry gets better fuel economy than the non-hybrid VUE. I just realized that perhaps it isn't fair to use a GM hybrid instead of a Toyota hybrid for the comparison. On the other hand, maybe it just proves the point further. As a matter of interest, CR got 28MPG City for the Hybrid Camry, 16MPG City for the non-Hybrid Camry, and 17 City for the Hybrid Vue. Edit: I believe one of the articles I read stated that GM's hybrid bus costs 200,000 more than their conventional bus. I believe there is a 5K premium for a hybrid Camry. That means there could be 40 more Camry hybrids on the road for the each hybrid bus. But a GM hybrid bus only saves as much fuel as ~6 small hybrids. So even in terms of cost, the small cars could be the more appropriate application for hybrids.