iirc my 1992 saturn SL1 makes 28/38

 

fueleconomy.gov

1991 Saturn SL = 26/35 with the 1.9L a 4 speed auto

1997 Saturn SL = 27/37 with the 1.9L SOHC and A4

manual saturns got 2-3mpg better than autos

 

didnt GM have a saturn that went 70MPG or something???

 

well if you are going to compare apples to oranges... why dont you throw in the geo metro... lets show how much fuel ecconomy has not gone up...

okay... lets think about this...

the 1990 Cav... was a stripped down... light ecconomy car...

since 1990... the car has gained weight... gained power, gained equipment... finer quality seating and dash and fit and finish...

the cobalt is much sportier, more competative, and more fuel efficent then the 90 cavalier... i can average 40 mpg on a cobalt... in real world... and i can do that because of its information center helps me to indicate what speed will maximize my fuel ecconomy...

the aveo... really has no barrings being in this comparason...

the aveo is a smaller less efficent engine designed by GM daewoo the car is less areodynamic then the 90 cavalier... areodynamics is a problem for all subcompacts which the cav was not...

but... really i'm suprised the cobalt auto gets better ratings then the manual... by 1 mpg on hwy... should be in the other favor

 

2.2L DOHC ECOTEC
5-speed manual transmission 25/34
4-speed automatic transmission 24/32
2.4L High-Output DOHC ECOTEC
5-speed manual transmission 25/34
4-speed automatic transmission 24/32


have emissions changed at all that would effect the cobalts mpg?