http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=23173

23/31 for an automatic. I wonder how this will impact sales. I don't think people are willing to sacrifice size for a small gain compared to a 4cyl. Malibu which is rated at 21/31. Two extra MPG city isn't enough to make me drive an Aveo over a much more comfortable and spacious mid-size car.


also here is the 2008 ratings for the Prius, they dropped a lot, yet seem very realistic based on the Prius I had for a rental http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...ta&model=Prius

 

The old ratings were NOT impressive either... it really didn't change much...

 

The new ratings don't do anybody any favors. Interesting to look back to rate my '98 Z, I've documented better gas milage than the new system rates that car.

The new systems says 16/25 (compared to 18/28), but I recorded 27.5+ once on a trip between Chicago and Clevelend, and that was doing 80 mph in Indiana and 68 or so in Western Ohio. I'd buy the 16 city rating more than the 18 tho.

 

I never understood how they could release an econo-box that under performs like the Aveo. Especially in comparison to the rest of their lineup.

 

We all knew there were far better alternatives for fuel-sipping economy cars than Aveo. The new ratings just further prove that. I'm not sure how many times I've asked why GM can't build a 4-cylinder that gets an honest 40+ mpg highway but I'll ask one more time. I know they have the engineering to do it. Look at what the small block is capable of, fuel-wise.

The new ratings do seem a bit harsh on the LS1. Shoot, I got 29 MPG on a trip from STL to Detroit at 80 mph this spring, with the A/C on for part of the trip.

 

You can take those fuel mileage ratings and use them as cat-box liner.

I have heard of many people getting 40+ MPG from their Aveo 5-speeds.

My Cobalt SS S/C was rated at 29 MPG on the sticker. Know what I have got in the past on more than a couple occations? 42 MPG. No B.S. Granted, most of the time I'm at 34-36 MPG with my higher speeds and "spirited" driving, but when I wanted it, I can.

My '02 WS6, took it on a road trip when I first got it in the summer of 2002. Not even 1000 miles on it, nowhere near broken in. 27 MPG going 70-80 MPH on the highways.

Buick LeSabres & Park Aves. Rated at 28-29 MPG. Routine to get 30+, many times in the 35 MPG range. I'm not alone.

Full size Silverados and Sierras. Extended cab 4x4's with 5.3's, many people have got 20+ on the 2003-2007 classic style. And this is without AFM.

Rule of thumb, if you want mileage, you can get it if you want it, you just have to drive like you want it.

 

Just looked up the GTO. The city rating is seems to be correct if you are literally stuck in traffic for a while. The highway mileage is way off though. 23mpg for a 6-speed? No way. On my trip to NY cruising at ~80 mph I was getting a hair over 26 mpg.

 

Yeah I don’t know if I buy these new rating after looking up my 2000 GTP.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=15950

I get consistently 17 mpg city (with my sometimes heavy foot) and always 28 mpg (sometimes 29 mpg) on strictly hwy trips.

It’s not even me crunching the numbers; my onboard computer info screen tells me this on a constantly updated basis.

 

The new city ratings are probably more accurate but the highway were more accurate with the old system. Every GM car I've owned I've been able to get the old EPA #'s at 74mph with the cruise set.

Of course that is also driving by myself. Driving with 4 people in the Camaro took a big hit on hwy mileage. The new testing also seems to fix the hybrid numbers. They are correct now.

Lets not forget these new #'s are avg. mileage under various conditions. They are not peak #'s

 

I'd disagree with the 4x4's, but the 2wd people seem to get that often. Best I've ever gotten with mine (60mph for an entire tank going through PA) was 19.2. Most of the time I get around 18 highway going 70-75

There's A LOT of responses on here to get a good average. This is *average* mpg, not hwy

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/inde...howtopic=51222

 

ding ding


ding ding


ding ding

I have little doubt that the new ratings are much more in line with what is actually seen in the 'real world'.

Now....when the new CAFE standards go into effect.......oh boy (no, not passed yet, but it is inevitable....only a matter of when, not if).

 

I consistently get the OLD numbers in my '06 Cobalt daily driver. I could NEVER get the old numbers in my wife's 05 Vibe automatic. The NEW numbers are much closer to what that car did for us in the real world.

I wonder how the 2008 Malibu with 4 cylinder and 6 speed auto will do? More displacement but more gears. Has that been listed anywhere yet?

Man, I really want a turbo diesel Astra. Please, GM?

 

I average better in my Cobalt SS too ....than the new ratings . They say 20/27 now , I average 27-28 with a good mix of city and highway driving . Last trip I made , I documented 33 mpg of all highway cruise at 70/80mph .

 

Yeah, my average is 27.8 mixed driving. I once got 37 on really flat grond crusing at 60 mph.

 

Lets also not forget that this still doesn't change what the cars got to begin with. Just like the new SAE HP numbers, just because it made more power under the new system didn't mean that power magically appeared. The cars will still get the same numbers under the new system as they did on the old ones. Just because the sticker on the door changed does not mean that the real life numbers changed.