I was looking at the press release for the new Malibu ('08 model) and noted the fuel economy numbers.

The 2.4L model is expected to get 31 mpg hwy (doesn't specify if that is for either tranny or just the six speed). It reads "which is projected to be as good as or better than the segment’s current sales leader." At first I thought that isn't that great for the 4 cylinder; the Camry 4cyl does better than 31 mpg. In fact, I think the Camry V6 gets 31 (4 cyl gets 33 with auto or 34 manual). But then I remembered the new ratings, to which the '08 Malibu has been subjected. The V6 is expected to get 26 mpg, which sounds like crap when thinking in terms of the current standards. For reference, the 3.6L/six speed combo in the Aura is rated at 28 mpg hwy. So it sounds like the new numbers will drop the highway ratings by 2-3 mpg.

Evidently GM is expecting the 4 cylinder automatic Camry to drop to 31 mpg or less. If the same trend holds true for the V6 Camry, it looks like its '08 rating would be 28 or 29 mpg, vs. 26 for the Malibu.

I hope the dealers are well prepared to answer questions from the customers, many of whom just won't get the fact that the exact same car will have a different rating from one year to the next. They'll think the cars have changed somehow...

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting. It will also be interesting to see how consumers react when the '08 stickers start hitting dealer lots (especially when they are sitting next to '07 models of the same vehicle...).

 

Dealers better hope gas prices stay low.

 

I wonder how consumers reacted last year when horsepower ratings were changed, and the exact same Camry V6 went from 220 to 190 (or something like that). Mind you, horsepower probably isn't as important to family sedan buyers as fuel economy, and I'm sure Toyota found a way to put a great spin on it regardless.

 

What was the thing about the new ratings anyway? Are they testing them at like 80mph or something?

 

I don't know about 80, but they're testing them much more like they're driven in the real world. Or at least closer. The old test had very little stop and go, no heavy acceleration, took place at a constant 75 degree temp (engine didn't have to warm up from cold) never had the AC on and didn't exceed 60 mph - even on the highway.

It was almost like "this is this vehicle's mileage under ideal conditions" rather than anything resembling reality.

 

There are 2 tests, one for city which is a lot of stop and go with set min/max and average speeds (if its a stick it is shifted asap w/o bogging the motor) from a cold start. Because these conditions are idealized (no traffic/stoplights/lead feet) the mpg they get is then reduced by a certain %, which I think is 10-15%.

The highway test is as described above, which is pretty good at replicating interstate cruising with the exception of the speed, which should be bumped up to 65 or 70mph.

Basically everything is as controlled as possible and recorded to be corrected to a specific standard (like having your E/T corrected for sea level or dyno corrected to SAE standards). You would not believe how **** the proceedure is for measureing the amount of fuel in in the tank/added/then drained to see what was burned.

I believe the standards were written about the same time as the national 55mph limit was brought in, which would explain the 60mph top speed of the test.

 

The standards were last rewritten in 1984, so yes they were under the old speed limits. I don't think that they're horrendously innacurate under the correct conditions (and really we all know they're for comparison) - but I do think that Air Conditioning, temperature, and higher speeds need to be factored in. Those three factors are "magic" for Hybrids - offering them even more ideal conditions than gasoline only vehicles.

I do think that just about any vehicle driven in a manner similar to the EPA conditions CAN get pretty close to the estimates. On my 2.2 Cobalt daily driver if I drive gently, don't accelerate rapidly and keep at a fairly constant speed, I can easily get 25 city. AC use will cut that down to 23 or 24. A couple of jackrabbit starts will also knock off 2 or 3 MPG quickly and I bet if I did it all the time I could get down to the high teens. I would also probably get a lot of tickets

 

I didn't have much of problem with the old standard either for non-hybrid cars. I've always got the advertised mpg for hwy @ 70mph in every GM car I owned.

 

With all the different cars I drive now, I've found that in highway driving, most SUVs seem to come near their highway ratings. Its the cars that seem to have more trouble. Our Comp G is rated 28 highway, yet at a steady-cruise 75, it gets about 23-24 in 40 degree weather...

Yet my Z28 doing 80 with the A/C cranked gets 28 against a 27 EPA

 

Interesting. My 97' GTP will get 35 mpg going 68 mph, that is the sweet spot. I couldn't believe it, but it is true and I have done it many times. I can also get about 31-32 going between 75-80. The only mod I have on that car is a K&N filter. Also, my 95 Z still gets 30 mpg @ 70. The only car that I saw that won't get the epa rating is my mother's Civic hybrid. Don't even think about going over 65 and getting good gas milage.

 

When can we see the new ratings. Especially against old ratings and maybe a list of models that changed the most, brands that changed the least ect...

Its been my personal experience first hand and observation of family and close friends that newer (~97 up) GM vehicles meet and exceed their sticker claim.

 

Well, we've only had the GTP for less than 2 weeks, so on one trip down to Cape Cod in 30 degree weather, I can't really determine the best highway MPG for the car...

I know my '01 GP GT with an N/A 3800 got a true 30 MPG at a 70 MPH cruise, against an EPA rating of 30...so maybe the GTP will get 28 at 70 in warm weather? I'd like to think so!

 

My GTP (S/C 3800) gets an actual 28 mpg at 70 mph in 30° weather and 30+ in 70+ weather, so I would imagine that you should get about the same thing depending on the amount of weight that is in the car. That and there are alot more hills aroung here than there are on 495 going out to the Cape. (I would imagine that you take the Mass Turnpike to 495 anyway.)

The 2002 GTP's are rated at 28 mpg.

 

I had a similar 1999 GP GT. My buddy was flat-towing a car home once and I was following him. We had to keep it to 60mph and under or else the tail would start wagging the dog, which was apparently not much fun in a rope-steering 1979 Bronco . It's amazing how boring and tedious 55-60mph is on the interstate (the 401, actually). Anyhow, the onboard computer said I was getting between 38-40 mpg, and I'm pretty sure that's US gallons. The 3800 may come up short in a few areas, but fuel efficiency is certainly not one of them.

 

Dang and the 401 is uber boring to begin with. At least coming from windosr to Niagra was. Still, 38-40mpg is pretty nice, were you drafting??