Topic: Cobalt XFE.... best in class Highway Economy

[tpl]

^^^^Give it up already.  All MPG figures on stickers are by the EPA or Ministry.  NOT what the manufacturer says.  And not only that...according to the US EPA, the Cobalt is a SUBCOMPACT and the Corolla a COMPACT.  So Chevy is trying to put one over by comparing Subcompact mileage to some cars on that list that are Compact.

So Chevy's "Best in Class" statement is dubious at best....

This was not a PR statement - it was not released to the general public. As such, this is a classification by GM for GM and may or may not 'jive' with what you want it to. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Now as to why the mini cooper s is listed there and not the lesser mini is beyond me.... but anyways

Now lets take a look at the stats for the Cobalts competitors as listed on the manufacturer's websites:

Year    Make      Engine size   hp   torque   curb weight  transmission    city   hwy    avg combined
2008    cobalt    2.2             148   152        2681           5speed m      24     36           30

2009   corolla        1.8          132   128        2822           5speed m      27     35          31
2008    yaris          1.5          106   103       2293           5speed m      29     35           32
 
2008   civic sedan  1.8           140    128      2628            5speed m     26      34         29
2008   civic sedan  1.8           140    128      2690           5speed auto  25      36         29

2008   fit              1.5           109    105      2432           5speed m      28      34         31

2008 mini clubman   their site is crap                                                 28     37          32 <- premium gas

I would have to say that the package GM offers with this new Cobalt XFE is pretty good considering it has both the largest engine and makes the most power - both HP and Torque.

Just wait until next year when the 2.2 will get VVT and more power AND at better fuel economy.

I suppose I do see where rrocket is coming from not seeming to want to believe this news. The all new 2009 Corolla makes 16 less horsepower, 24 less pound feet of Torque, has a smaller engine by .4 litres, and yet manages to get combined 31mpg versus the Cobalts 30.

Maybe it is because it weighs 2822 pounds? LOL Regardless of what is said the weight of a vehicle has a bigtime factor is real world fuel economy, so it is more than likely easier to get the Cobalt to do the MPG listed than a Corolla.

You are getting some deeply buggered numbers from somewhere

The Fit, from www.honda.ca this minute   is   49.5 hwy and 39.7 city.in real mpg  39.6 hwy  and  31.8 city  in US mpg.  These numbers match Transport Canada.  The weight you state is correct so I guess it is the same car.

[drederick]

^^^^Give it up already.  All MPG figures on stickers are by the EPA or Ministry.  NOT what the manufacturer says.  And not only that...according to the US EPA, the Cobalt is a SUBCOMPACT and the Corolla a COMPACT.  So Chevy is trying to put one over by comparing Subcompact mileage to some cars on that list that are Compact.

So Chevy's "Best in Class" statement is dubious at best....

This was not a PR statement - it was not released to the general public. As such, this is a classification by GM for GM and may or may not 'jive' with what you want it to. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Now as to why the mini cooper s is listed there and not the lesser mini is beyond me.... but anyways

Now lets take a look at the stats for the Cobalts competitors as listed on the manufacturer's websites:

Year    Make      Engine size   hp   torque   curb weight  transmission    city   hwy    avg combined
2008    cobalt    2.2             148   152        2681           5speed m      24     36           30

2009   corolla        1.8          132   128        2822           5speed m      27     35          31
2008    yaris          1.5          106   103       2293           5speed m      29     35           32
 
2008   civic sedan  1.8           140    128      2628            5speed m     26      34         29
2008   civic sedan  1.8           140    128      2690           5speed auto  25      36         29

2008   fit              1.5           109    105      2432           5speed m      28      34         31

2008 mini clubman   their site is crap                                                 28     37          32 <- premium gas

I would have to say that the package GM offers with this new Cobalt XFE is pretty good considering it has both the largest engine and makes the most power - both HP and Torque.

Just wait until next year when the 2.2 will get VVT and more power AND at better fuel economy.

I suppose I do see where rrocket is coming from not seeming to want to believe this news. The all new 2009 Corolla makes 16 less horsepower, 24 less pound feet of Torque, has a smaller engine by .4 litres, and yet manages to get combined 31mpg versus the Cobalts 30.

Maybe it is because it weighs 2822 pounds? LOL Regardless of what is said the weight of a vehicle has a bigtime factor is real world fuel economy, so it is more than likely easier to get the Cobalt to do the MPG listed than a Corolla.

You are getting some deeply buggered numbers from somewhere

The Fit, from www.honda.ca this minute   is   49.5 hwy and 39.7 city.in real mpg  39.6 hwy  and  31.8 city  in US mpg.  These numbers match Transport Canada.  The weight you state is correct so I guess it is the same car.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx?group=epa

hmmm I guess Honda USA is giving out some 'deeply' buggered numbers, right?

I would tend to believe the Honda USA website over your numbers, no?

Put anotother way, on the gm canada website it shows the Cobalt as getting 48mpg..... so if it gets 10 percent better economy with these changes - you do the math and let me know.

All the while making much more hp an torque than the fit from a much larger engine.

And it will only get better next year with vvt - the auto is rumored to get 35mpg hwy.....

[johngenx]

The US numbers I find...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Have the 2008 Corolla 5MT as 28 city and 37 highway.  The 4AT numbers are 26/35.  This seems pretty thirsty to me as it is 9.2L/100km city and 6.8 L/100km highway.  We're just finishing off a tank in the 09 and we're at 550km.  The fuel light is not on (comes on at 43L consumed) so I figure we're in the 7.2-7.3 range.  9.2 seems awfully high...

(the trip computer says 7.2)

[EV Dan]

To shed some light on the topic:
(this covers all cars with MT, 2008)

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/compare/compare-results.cfm?attr=8

I dont suppose tweaking computers will really make that much a change unless of course they use low roll resistance tires and cut on important safety features. IIRC the 09 'rolla comes with 6 airbags and head restrainers. They also welded "prybars" inside the doors for side impact safety, so it is heavier.

[johngenx]

IIRC the 09 'rolla comes with 6 airbags and head restrainers. They also welded "prybars" inside the doors for side impact safety, so it is heavier.

Yeah, and our 09 is beating the 08 US estimates like crazy.  The TCanada numbers seem more accurate...

[The Mighty Duck]

OTOH, "our 09" proves nothing.  A sample size of one is meaningless...  Still, good for you, and hopefully it is a reflection of the car, and not just limited to your experience. 

I dont suppose tweaking computers will really make that much a change unless of course they use low roll resistance tires and cut on important safety features. IIRC the 09 'rolla comes with 6 airbags and head restrainers. They also welded "prybars" inside the doors for side impact safety, so it is heavier.

I'm reminded of Honda's claims that tge Fit gets worse fuel mileage than the Yaris because the Fit comes standard with six airbags and whatnot...  interesting take.  Is the Cobalt XFE a base model, or is it one people would actually buy?  IIRC aren't base models "supposed to" make up a very low percentage of actual sales...

[drederick]

To shed some light on the topic:
(this covers all cars with MT, 2008)

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/compare/compare-results.cfm?attr=8

I dont suppose tweaking computers will really make that much a change unless of course they use low roll resistance tires and cut on important safety features. IIRC the 09 'rolla comes with 6 airbags and head restrainers. They also welded "prybars" inside the doors for side impact safety, so it is heavier.

Dan, sorry but that MT pic shows what exactly?

What I posted is from the respective manufacturers own websites. Lets face it - if THEY get it wrong then what do they get right about their own vehicles? Why wouldn't Toyota Honda GM or Tata put the highest economy figures for their own vehicles on their websites? is there any reason not to? I cannot think of a single reason.

I suppose you did look to see that the 08 Cobalt in the US at least (which is where the data I posted is from) comes standard with 6 airbags as well, right? and they are optional in Canada on all Cobalt models.

PS I would prefer not to have a 'head restrainer' as standard equipment - because that just doesn't sound very comfortable!

Those 'pry bars' must be made of a material that is pretty dense for what your saying to make much sense.

I for one did not say the Corolla wasn't fuel efficient because it is.

But if that is impressive then wouldn't this be more impressive:
16 more horsepower, 24 more pound feet of Torque, .4 litres larger engine size and yet gives up only 1mpg combined in fuel economy.

[EV Dan]

I,m pleased with my current 2.3 16valve gm engine. I like the power and torque numbers on the new 2.2 very much as well.
The reason I linked to the chart is that private corporate websites and their data is often biased. They are somewhat  afraid to overestimate things because of possible class action suits. Last example I remember Hyundai overstated their 2.7 v6 output and decided to compensate the buyers instead of getting sued.
Govt's data IMHO opinion is more trustworthy and in many cases reflects the actual cars capabilities applied to real world driving. We are yet to see the 09 data but I;m suspicious that with dual VVTs the japanese will take the lead again. 

there are few vids here: http://www.toyota.ca/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WWW.woa/wa/vp?vp=Home.Vehicles.Interactive.Video&language=english
they explain the "restrainers" and how they work in an accident.

[tpl]

[


2008   fit              1.5           109    105      2432           5speed m      28      34         31

2

I would have to say that the package GM offers with this new Cobalt XFE is pretty good considering it has both the largest engine and makes the most power - both HP and Torque.

Just wait until next year when the 2.2 will get VVT and more power AND at better fuel economy.

I suppose I do see where rrocket is coming from not seeming to want to believe this news. The all new 2009 Corolla makes 16 less horsepower, 24 less pound feet of Torque, has a smaller engine by .4 litres, and yet manages to get combined 31mpg versus the Cobalts 30.

Maybe it is because it weighs 2822 pounds? LOL Regardless of what is said the weight of a vehicle has a bigtime factor is real world fuel economy, so it is more than likely easier to get the Cobalt to do the MPG listed than a Corolla.

You are getting some deeply buggered numbers from somewhere

The Fit, from www.honda.ca this minute   is   49.5 hwy and 39.7 city.in real mpg  39.6 hwy  and  31.8 city  in US mpg.  These numbers match Transport Canada.  The weight you state is correct so I guess it is the same car.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx?group=epa

hmmm I guess Honda USA is giving out some 'deeply' buggered numbers, right?

I would tend to believe the Honda USA website over your numbers, no?

Put anotother way, on the gm canada website it shows the Cobalt as getting 48mpg..... so if it gets 10 percent better economy with these changes - you do the math and let me know.

All the while making much more hp an torque than the fit from a much larger engine.

And it will only get better next year with vvt - the auto is rumored to get 35mpg hwy.....

Interesting ( I just checked your link).  My numbers for the Fit came from Honda Canada for a 2008 fit 5mt and they matched the TC 2007 book.  Now I was under the impression that TC had adjusted its numbers for the new EPA method of testing but maybe it has not which would explain all.

Note that I have no argument about the Cobalt's figures.  maybe they are optimistic maybe not I don't know and  I have never driven one of any year or engine size and unless I get a rental, probably never will.   It is a GOOD THING IMHO if GM can make some really good small economical cars.

[Seafoam]

The weight of 2681 lbs is  for the cobalt coupe not the sedan. The sedan weighs 2747 so this brings it a little closer to the corolla's "porky" 2822. The weight for
the 5 speed 09 corolla  ce on Toyota Canada's  website is 2722 .7 not 2822. the corolla le weighs 2810 as it is an automatic. All these numbers are meaningless
when statistics are taken from different areas. Numbers can be manipulated for his or her side and until this car is  actually sold  in Canada and people have had experience with the "actual " fuel mileage will i believe them.I think it's the way the original poster comes across in his posts that he provokes arguments and it has come to this.

[drederick]

The weight of 2681 lbs is  for the cobalt coupe not the sedan. The sedan weighs 2747 so this brings it a little closer to the corolla's "porky" 2822. The weight for
the 5 speed 09 corolla  ce on Toyota Canada's  website is 2722 .7 not 2822. the corolla le weighs 2810 as it is an automatic. All these numbers are meaningless
when statistics are taken from different areas. Numbers can be manipulated for his or her side and until this car is  actually sold  in Canada and people have had experience with the "actual " fuel mileage will i believe them.I think it's the way the original poster comes across in his posts that he provokes arguments and it has come to this.

You are correct about the weight of the Sedan versus the weight of the Cobalt coupe. Regardless, both the coupe and the sedan 5mt get the same fuel economy increase and have the same fuel economy. And both still weigh less than the Corolla.

All of these statistics are right off of the manufacturers websites in the US, so why is that not an apples to apples comparison?

Unless these manufacturers are not telling the consumer the right figures they all should be accurate. Far more accurate than what MT or R&T or even Canadiandriver would write on their sites.

Look at what happened to Ford when it overstated the power of its Mustang? The US consumer does not appreciate any misleading information, nor should they.

So, again, if you cannot compare the numbers off of a manufacturer website, in the same country, where can you get the actual factual numbers for comparison from then?

As for Canadian sales - who knows, maybe its already here?

[drederick]

I,m pleased with my current 2.3 16valve gm engine. I like the power and torque numbers on the new 2.2 very much as well.
The reason I linked to the chart is that private corporate websites and their data is often biased. They are somewhat  afraid to overestimate things because of possible class action suits. Last example I remember Hyundai overstated their 2.7 v6 output and decided to compensate the buyers instead of getting sued.
Govt's data IMHO opinion is more trustworthy and in many cases reflects the actual cars capabilities applied to real world driving. We are yet to see the 09 data but I;m suspicious that with dual VVTs the japanese will take the lead again. 

there are few vids here: http://www.toyota.ca/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WWW.woa/wa/vp?vp=Home.Vehicles.Interactive.Video&language=english
they explain the "restrainers" and how they work in an accident.

The 09 data, in the case of the Corolla, is on their website and it has been posted previously in this thread with a link.

Just remember this is the 08 Cobalt. The 09s aren't out yet...... just wait and see.

[EV Dan]

One thing that bothers me GM doesn't tell where their numbers come from. They call it "estimated" without actually stating the source. Rolla refers to EnerGuide:

[drederick]

One thing that bothers me GM doesn't tell where their numbers come from. They call it "estimated" without actually stating the source. Rolla refers to EnerGuide:

If you download the brochure for the Cobalt it says right there that the fuel economy is based on Natural Resource Canada Fuel Consumption Guide ratings.

I am sure if you look at GM Canada's web site somewhere it will also say this.

To be completely fair, doesn't Toyota state pretty clearly that their fuel economy listed for the Corolla is also just an 'estimate' based on the Government of Canada's approved criteria and testing methods?

Sure they state the source plainly and you have to look a bit harder on at GM, but it is still an estimate no less. So isn't that a wash?

No offence, but you didn't even know that there were different sizes of gallons earlier in this thread between the US and Canada. All you need to do is look a little harder for the information. That is the great thing about the internet - its all there for you to look at and figure things out.

[EV Dan]

  None taken. I've been born in metric land, but in Canada I noticed ppl like their [cough] things bigger 

[johngenx]

OTOH, "our 09" proves nothing.  A sample size of one is meaningless...  Still, good for you, and hopefully it is a reflection of the car, and not just limited to your experience. 

Oh, I'm well awre of that.  It just seems to me that our ancedotal evidence concurs with the Transport Canada info much more closely than the US info.  From a percentage standpoint, the numbers for Canada and the US are quite far apart.

For some time with all our cars, we seem to be very close to the Canadian figures, so I tend to think of them as being accurate for the dirving conditions that we have.

YMMV...

(punny!)

[The Mighty Duck]

Didn't the US just revamp its mileage estimate system, too?  I wonder if they're test condition is at an average temperature higher than what most of Canada sees, or something...  no reason the numbers shouldn't be very close.

[Ex-airbalancer]

here is a link to epa site  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/ratings2008.shtml
on how they have changed their ratings

[barrie1]

If we are the ones wearing the Hat it must mean we have the head with the brain part under the Hat as well. Makes sence to me for sure, always has and always will as well. 

[Seafoam]

The weight of 2681 lbs is  for the cobalt coupe not the sedan. The sedan weighs 2747 so this brings it a little closer to the corolla's "porky" 2822. The weight for
the 5 speed 09 corolla  ce on Toyota Canada's  website is 2722 .7 not 2822. the corolla le weighs 2810 as it is an automatic. All these numbers are meaningless
when statistics are taken from different areas. Numbers can be manipulated for his or her side and until this car is  actually sold  in Canada and people have had experience with the "actual " fuel mileage will i believe them.I think it's the way the original poster comes across in his posts that he provokes arguments and it has come to this.

"You are correct about the weight of the Sedan versus the weight of the Cobalt coupe. Regardless, both the coupe and the sedan 5mt get the same fuel economy increase and have the same fuel economy. And both still weigh less than the Corolla."

 Actually according to the the stats on these vehicles the  base cobalt sedan is heavier than the base [CE]  corolla. 2747 lbs compared to the 2722.7 lbs  if we must split hairs. I am not a fan of the corollas extra weight from the previous model.The 2003 -2008 were lightweight with great economy but were criticized for not having all the safety features.