GM's TV ads go on about 6.1L/100km. Sure. In their dreams.
My Subaru gets in the 9's in all-city heavy commuter traffic, and it's 10 years old and has none of the wonder-GM technology like DI. Old fashioned 2.5L boxer with ancient four speed AT. High 8's in combined driving is not wondrous, though I suppose it is given the portly gut this thing has.
GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them. Stupid, fat, ugly people.
GM TV ads go on about 6.1l/100kms........... because that is what it did during the FE testing, unless of course you know otherwise? if this is a lie contact the GOV agency responsible for this testing and share this knowledge - I for one would love to see their response to you LOL probably something like:
Thanks for coming out, please don't send us this crap again, thanks.
Is 8.5 really 'high 8's'? not in my universe LOL
Even if it were to be the 'highest 8' say 8.9 it would still best the 2010 Matrix XR AWD(yes it is awd but it is a Toyota and so it could have 16 wheel drive AND get better FE than a car with 2 wheel drive, right?) tested on this site at 10.6 l/100kms (and that included a lot of highway driving at around 90km/h)
So what is to be said about the lighter, less powerful matrix? it is the best of course! In artic math lighter, less powerful and worse FE is BETTER than heavier, more powerful and better FE... so long as it is a GM of course!
I for one am not the least surprised you wrote this because you are an artic, sad as it may be:
"GM's appeal to fat people cause their products are oversized and overweight, just like them. Stupid, fat, ugly people."
What I am surprised is that you found the time to write so much nonsense given the steering, braking, stalling, gas pedal sticking issues associated with 'rollas... unless you got one of the 'special' ones