Gm would probably make more money using advertisements that help their image, rather than advertising particular cars.

For example they could advertise the fact that the 427 v8 Z06 gets milieage that rivals some imports.
Or the fact that their V8 cars are on the same mileage as some japanese cars.
They also need to show people that they have caught up in interior quality.
Damnit I could list alot more.

 

I saw an article tonight that we have lost 2 mpg on average since 1987.

 

Yup. Already been pricing TDI Jettas. If GM made a turbo diesel Cobalt at 40 miles per gallon I think I'd be right there in line for one. Beat on that thing for a few years.

 

I wouldn't as I work out of home and have a company vehicle for travel... BUT

My dad would definitely - He parked his fullsize for a S10 for the savings in Gas Mileage and I know he would buy a Diesel even if gas prices drop as it would still save money.

I don't understand why we can have 400hp Trailblazers, 230hp Cobalts (Cavs), 500hp Corvettes, 400hp GTO's and still our "Fuel Effecient Cars" are no better then they were 10 years ago... ??? Oh well... I've said all along prices will jump up and the domestic manufacturers will be caught with their pants down... again!

 

Not true, go to www.fueleconomy.gov and compare a LS1 Camaro to a V8 5.7L 1987. In fact compare just about any car to it's 1987 counter part and you will see MPG is up (as is HP)

 

Just did the math when I filled up my vette this morning... 27 MPG! Trip computer says 27.2. About a 60/40 mix of highway to city driving. Try getting that in a V8 powered car with more than 350 HP back in 1987 .

 

Do you have a crystal ball? I am not saying they won't, but I am not saying they will either, because I simply dont know. It is really naive of some people just to make assumptions.

 

What kills me is that GM could have options where the cars COULD get better mileage, but they don't let us have them.

Picture a nice Cobalt coupe with not the 25/33 2.2 Ecotec, but the 1.8 Ecotec that is offered in Europe that makes 20hp less, but would probably be rated somewhere around 28/36, maybe better!!! I don't need a diesel, but better MPG would be great. I would love a high MPG Cobalt...

I drove a 130hp 5 speed Vibe on Saturday...it was plenty peppy, with a 0-60 around 9 flat. As a driver, it would be great, and is EPA Rated 30/36!! Imagine a Cobalt with a little less power that weighed less and got nearly the same mileage? I'd love it...

 

The new 1.8L Ecotec puts out 140HP, that should be in the base Cobalt. Honda has Civics that get 37-40mph hwy (not hybrid) but the Cobalt is only 32mpg.

 

Thats because we Americans drive more trucks and SUVs then we did in 1987 and that messes up the averages. Todays trucks and cars are more fuel efficient then trucks and cars made in 1987 but trucks are still worse then cars.

 

Both Road & Track and Motor Trend stated the Z06's mileage at 28mpg highway!

505hp and 28mpg, now that's amazing engineering at work.

 

True that.

The only thing that could make the Z06 any better is if it could knock down ~20 MPG in stop/start driving. DoD would make that possible or very close to reality I think. Certainly it's dooable, though some people would be unahppy ... don't get me wrong I'm not all for computers deciding when to step on the loud pedal but since DoD is supposed to be seamless and turns off when you step on it, I don't have a problem with it. Certainly would make the Z06 a true urban commuter supercar!

 

That's b/c people's mentality is that they still need steep gears in trucks and SUV's. I run 3.42's in both axles of my 5600+lb Suburban, and get better milage than a New Expedition...
With a low 1st gear trans like the 700r4/L460E, and O.D. chossing med gearing will get the best of both worlds. (I have gotten as high as 21mpg highway, now average 14-16 all around with 170K miles on the clock.

 

Absolutely. And no matter how good of mileage your Expedition, Ram, Suburban, or whatever gets, it won't be anywhere near as good as your typical car. Heck, my 550 RWHP Cobra gets way better mileage than my 4.6L Expedition (17/25 observed versus 13/17 observed). Even my 4 cyl/5 speed Ranger gets the same highway and only a bit better city mileage.

 

A late-80s GM truck or van with a TBI motor and a 4-speed auto was pretty good on gas. The problem was that they didn't make a whole lot of horsepower, since of course it wasn't expected back then that a truck should run 16s in the quarter-mile. Light-truck economy really hasn't improved since then - any gains have been offset by the consumer's desire for more power and shorter gearing.

My friend's '94 Caprice wagon pulls down about 22 MPG in mixed driving with an LT1. That's a lot of cargo volume per MPG, it can seat up to 8 people (wagons have had third-row seating decades before it became a catch phrase) and it's quick enough for just about any real-world driving situation. It's also pretty good for something that has over a quarter million miles on the original engine. Such a vehicle would be fine for the vast majority of SUV drivers.