Consumers may not think they are ready but their pocketbooks are. GM is still hoping for cheaper gas so they dont have to re-tool to build smaller cars. Get a grip GM,Ford and Chrysler…cheap gas days are over and you morons knew the day would come when you had to build smaller more efficient cars, the day came and you got caught with pants around your ankles.

if they start using the 4 bangers, do you think they will lower the prices of the car? You better know they won’t. This is just another profit making cut back.

Economic conditions today are very reminiscent of early ’80s. The shock form price of gas forced car manufacturers to abandon large car segment and concentrate on small ones. There was Cadillac Cimaron based on Chevy Citation. Then consumers were not ready to pay for underpowered luxury cars, nor they probably today. At the same time Saabs were flying off the lots: they were small, fast and efficient. In short, consumers don’t give a hoot what under the hood as long as it relatively fast and efficient, when gas is expensive. How many Caddy owners know how to open their hood?

The majority of North Americans haven’t got a clue what’s under the hood of their cars. They know two things: what happens when they hit the gas and what happens when the price of gas hits their wallet. If they don’t notice any difference when it comes to the first matter but do notice the difference in the second case, they’re going to be a happy bunch.

Sometimes I think they give the consumer too much credit in this society.

This makes sense for Cadillac, but not any other GM marque. Those who shell out for a Cadillac don’t care about $4 gas.

johnnycanuck, did you read my mind?

Sorry CP, you’re singing the same old incorrect song.

EVERYONE is hoping for lower fuel prices, and they’re all probably right. Gas will probably fall to the $2.75-$3.75/gallon range and stay there for awhile. But, for the record, it isn’t the American cars that have been guilty of “size creep” lately. It’s the Japanese vehicles. GM builds the most fuel-efficient line of trucks on the market, and they build the most fuel-efficient compacts on the market. They came back to the subcompact market in 2004 when only Hyundai/Kia and Toyota were there.

Who builds a full-size V8 SUV that gets the same mileage as a 4cyl 5spd Camry? GM. Whose cars and trucks, with each successive redesign, have become less fuel efficient? Toyota.

Are you so naive to think that Toyota wants to sell few Tundras and 80 zillion Yarises instead? Cut the crap and use your brain, dude.

xyunya: I know great minds aren’t involved here, but that’s funny as hell!

Also, xyunya, the Cimarron was based on the Cavalier, not the Citation.

If BMW isn’t selling 4cyl versions of its 1-Series and 3-Series yet, Cadillac might be making a mistake by putting a four in the CTS…unless it’s the 2.0 DI Turbo.

You have been watching too many GM commercials, inline6. They are only more fuel effecient when they are comparing base model engines. And it’s not exactly comparing apples to apples either, as the base GM engines are far weaker than toyotas; so you can damn well expect their mileage to be better when you are pumping far less power.

indeed it is., johnny.

inline, prices may fall to 3.50 and they already less then 3.75 in some parts of the country. But it is temporal. Prices are fluctuating, and according to all research I’ve read they are going up before they are going down. Way up, into $5-7/gallon category. However, even now there is a shift in consumer attitude. I see very few SUV/CUV on the road during rush hour. Few short months ago I could not see cars behind SUVs.

I would consider a luxury vehicle with a powerful and more fuel efficient 4-cylinder engine. I’ve always been an inline 6 or V6 guy, but with a lot can be done today with a 4-cylinder to deliver V6 power & performance with improved MPG. I’ve driven luxury vehicles for a long time and just because I can afford the higher monthly payment (which many times isn’t that much higher in a lease) doesn’t mean I don’t care about the cost of fuel.

I do think a lot of people will have personal issues with buying a CTS with a 4-cylinder, even if it provides power and decent performance. In the US so many see the smaller engines as more of the “economical” choice for smaller entry level cars. GM will have a challenge to change this thinking, but I personally believe it can be done.

In the near-perfect world I’d love to see a vehicle like the CTS-V that can be controlled electronically to run at different levels. I’d gladly lay down the $70K if it had a method to put the car in “city” mode and get perhaps 180-hp our of the engine (and better fuel economy), then perhaps a “normal” mode that gave it around 300-hp, then the full “performance” mode that unleashed the full 556-hp. In my daily driving I’d be in “city” mode to maximize MPG from the vehicle, then use “normal” when I wanted some additional pep in the car. “Performance” would only be utilized when I’m someplace I can really have some fun. I hope the manufacturers are considering something along these lines.

James

Jonnycanuck, announce that the US won’t be building V8’s anymore and wait for the flood. People are still very hung up on how many cylinders they have. In a nation of NIMBYs, you should know a 4-cyl premium RWD American car with no available V8 is going to be a sore spot. Even if they don’t get the V8 option, they still think of that ‘V’ engine when they look at a regular CTS. How uncool was the MN-12 Thunderbird once they killed off the SuperCoupe? Punks drive Raliart Lancers like they’re Evos because of the image the Evo has made for itself. They can see that turbo in their head, whether it’s under the hood or not.

Wrong again, crackerhemi.

The base 2009 Chevy Cobalt engine yields it 25/37mpg and 148bhp/152lb-ft.

The base 2009 Toyota Corolla engine yields it 27/35mpg and 126bhp/122lb-ft.

The base Honda Civic engine yields it 26/34mpg and 140bhp/128lb-ft.

The base Nissan Sentra engine yields it 25/33mpg and 140bhp and 147lb-ft.

So the base Cobalt has better highway economy the three base Japanese cars, 8-22 more horsepower, and 5-30 more lb-ft of torque.

—Xyunya
How are you drawing your conclusion of gas prices.
Factors for increase in price
1.possible war with Iran
2.Increased demand in China/India
3.SLOWLY decreasing oil supply. We’ve got plenty for the next couple hundred years

Were you thinking of any others? I personally believe that oil will go down again. Hopefully we will boost American production while at the same time continuing to develop alternatives to oil. America is huge market and eventually people who sell oil either American/Arab will have to relize that oil is on the way out. They have to start lowering prices to lul everyone back into the mindset that we don’t need alternatives. Otherwise whats going to happen on the day We create a legit alternative and the whole world begins to adopt it. What’s Saudi Arabi going to sell, camels?

Regarding BWM, they have a history (which they’ve moved away from) of powerful 4 cylinder engines. The 2002tii and the original M3 come to mind. They could take their 300+ HP inline-6 DI turbo, take off two cylinders, and have a turbo-4 that could outperform a lot of larger engines out there.

Regarding GM, they have a beautiful engine in the LNF Ecotec which they should put into EVERYTHING (Aveo? Yes!). In the end, all that matters is HP, torque, and the powerband. It doesn’t matter if it’s a turbo-4, a small block V8, or a Flux Capacitor hooked up to a Mr. Fusion.

Amazing… Acura was getting hounded for using a 4 cylinder in the TSX again. Honda wins again.

Good point crackerhemi, GM is fighting this way harder than Ford in response to high gas prices, even Ford has seen Jesus so to speak, they are at least giving the US market some of the smaller offerings thay have in Europe while the general whines and moans. They want the US government to help and I say give em all the help they need…right out of business! If the governemnt wants to help a car company why not the ones out there developing real alterative technology like Tesla? The American three had no problem making cars and SUV’s that use lots of fuel so why should they have a problem making cars that conserve fuel?The cars that they build in Europe do. Before some GM nut cries about Volt…40 mile range on a recharge is NOT enough, look at what Tesla has in mind.

There have to be some business minds over there that understand this. They can kill most if not all of the alternative energy campaign if they lower the price again.
It may not happen this year but soon…

Yes indeed is the LNF a very good engine, It’s got the HP (for a turbo-4), torque, and gets great mileage (in small cars) The problem is, unless you want a HHR SS, Cobalt SS, Solstice GXP or Sky RL you are limited to 4 choices… And seeing that these cars aren’t your standard people movers… Unless GM gets a crackin at dumping these engines in every car it’s going to take a while.

The 3.6L DI V6 that’s currently in the CTS, and soon to be out Camaro V6, is also a decent engine and delivers decent mileage for what it has…

What GM needs to do is offer that same technology of DI, VVT, and a T/C and put that in their smaller engines like their range of ECOTECS and 3.5L and 3.6L V6’s.

Can’t believe I’m saying this but they need to see what ford is doing with their twin turbo V6 and maybe follow that…

Oldraven: Chrysler sold plenty of 4 cylinder turbos in the 80’s and early 90’s because they had a great salesman at the helm of their ship. If they had today’s turbo technology and had stayed the course Chrysler would likely be in the best shape of the big three.

The Supercoupe was another story. To this day I don’t understand why they went with a supercharged 6 instead of refining the turbo 4 from the previous generation T-Bird. Actually, I do know why, the Supercoupe generation ‘Bird was a heavy pig compared to the one before it.

Mazda 3: 24/32 mpg in their base model and 148bhp/135lb-ft. Cobalt wins in city, highway, and torque and ties on horsepower.

Hyundai Elantra: 25/33, 138bhp/136lb-ft. Cobalt wins on all but city economy, where it ties.

Kia Spectra: 24/32, 138bhp/136lb-ft. Cobalt wins on all fronts.

Mitsubishi Lancer: 22/30, 152bhp/146lb-ft. Cobalt wins on all but horsepower, where it trails by 4.

Ford Focus: 24/35, 140bhp/136lbt-ft. Cobalt wins on all fronts.

Suzuki SX4 sedan: 23/31, 143bhp/136lb-ft. Cobalt wins on all fronts.

VW Rabbit: 21/29, 170bhp/177lb-ft. Cobalt wins by far on fuel economy. And the Cobalt’s power/torque is closer to the Rabbit’s than it is the Civic’s, even though the Rabbit uses an Inline-5 with 500ccs more displacement.

CP and crackerhemi, you’re both full of it.

GM has the most fuel efficient line of trucks, and more fuel efficient smaller cars than everyone else. GM isn’t fighting it at all.

GM is also giving us the Volt. You fault GM, saying “why doesn’t GM do what Tesla is doing?”. Because 1) Tesla is building roadsters, which don’t get used like passenger cars, don’t carry more than 2 people and no lugguage, and is selling them for $150k on the lightest platform in the industry (Lotus Elise).

NO ONE else is providing us technology like the Volt in the near-term. So why not complain about Toyota only coming halfway with the next Prius? How far will that go on electric range only?

Cobalt still has worse resale value, reliability than Civic, Corolla, Mazda 3

If the cars weren’t so godawful huge and heavy they wouldn’t need 300hp to set some decent performance marks. GM could do a lot with a turbo-four if the vehicles were light enough. But no… we get sherman tank sized behemoths like the 3700lb Camaro.

Nightblack_97, I actually don’t have my own conclusion on gas prices: I am not qualified. I got information from my child who is intern this summer at FTC. Basically, all research pointed at rise of crude to 225 barrel in a year or two and drop to 80-120 after 5 years dues to conservation and advances in alternative sources. Again, this is government compilation based on input from Wall street institutions. Unfortunately for me, I am not smart enough to profit from this knowledge: you know 400 lbs, sister, mom, unemployment and gay boyfriends get in the way

global_lightning, BMW sell over 70% of its cars in Europe with diesels. Out of those, I venture to say 60% are 4 cylinder diesels. What you said about diesel I6 actually worked other way around: at first it was 4 cylinder diesel. I recall BMW 240D in US in ’80s, but then cost of gas went down (or actually inflation made it much lower relatively to everything else). I also recall Volvo and Nissan Maxima diesels sold in US. Volvo diesel was a darling with cabbies.

And inline-6… those aren’t even real world numbers. My Cobalt SS gets 25/35 and is putting 240hp to the wheels. Cobalt is a very fuel efficient car… no matter which way you spin it.

4 cylinders and small engines are fine. Just not in premium automobiles. They belong in economy cars and base model family sedans. Putting a 4 cylinder or small engine in a Cadillac or a Corvette is dumb. Buyers of these cars want the premium experience and a premium engine – fuel economy is near the bottom of their wish list.

A V-6 diesel CTS would make sense though if they really want to offer a fuel efficient premium sedan. Europe gets one, so why not the U.S.? BMW is doing it in the U.S. with the 3-series diesel, and Mercedes too with the BlueTec C-class.

Just buy Honda / Acuras. Problem solved.

What Honda 4-banger is good? The 2.2L in the S2000 is the only one I can think of. Honda engines are only nice if you like to stay in the pedal and rev the $hit out of them… there is no low-end torque to get you moving in heavy traffic.

You can move in heavy traffic. Heavy traffic means backed up, bumper to bumper…. where are you going to go???? No where!

Honda engines made to be efficent… the story is about getting more mileage out of using a 4 cylinder instead of a v6…. Get the connection? probably not. This isn’t about low end torque.

Correction: You can’t move in heavy traffic.

Xyunya, I pray your kid is wrong. I’m dating a girl that’s going to be 140 miles away this coming year. $225, that would really hurt. Hey what ever happened to that guy that got 100+ mpg out of his mustang. Did big oil kidnap him yet? cause he’s sure be nice to have around… even if he was a fat and lived with his mom

apologies on that last one. We need spellcheck added to this thing.

Does the Cobalt have worse reliability than Civic, Corolla, and 3? Well, JD Power’s stats aren’t out for the current Civic, Corolla, and Cobalt generations. And it costs me money to get that info from CR.org. But the Mazda 3 averages less than 2.5 stars/5 in JD Power’s survey of ‘04 models.

Resale value I’ll give you, because the Cobalt is still being sold to fleets at a higher rate than the other three. However, reliability remains to be seen unless you can give me numbers showing the Cobalt’s less reliable than the 3, Civic, and Cobalt.

Also, resale and reliability weren’t my point. My point was, obviously, to prove that CP and crackerhemi have their heads up their asses regarding GM and fuel economy.

The mileage difference doesn’t make up enough for value

anti-believer, that’s not the issue. The issue is who offers a car with better fuel economy AND more power. The answer is: GM. Not to mention the fact that GM’s cars are improving drastically across the board in value retention.

It takes what, 10 years, for the Toyota Prius’s fuel savings to come good against the purchase price of a comparably-equipped Corolla? People are still buying as many of them as Toyota can make.

Jonnycannuck, you’re preachin’ to the choir. I own an ‘87 5-spd TurboCoupe and used to own one of those two tonne MN-12’s.

Good point with the 2.2 turbo’s. Still, people are hung up on the range topper. Driving a Dodge brings a lot less prestige than driving a Cadillac. When people talk about the LS3, they say it’s ‘from the Corvette’. Or the DI 3.6L is a ‘Cadillac sourced V6′. When they look at a car they associate it with it’s highest bred variant. Would people accept a Cadillac with an engine ‘from the Cobalt’?

Nightblack_97, love concurs all including 225/barrel oil. It is not the question if my kid is right or wrong, kid just passed information along. Wall Street and US government coming to the same conclusion (albeit via research form Wall Street) and it is what it is. 140 mi. is not a big deal: you are not about to run over for dinner or night cup that distance regardless of the gas prices. On the weekend it will translate into additional 20-30 bucks, something you can afford (or get a girlfriend(s) near by )

inline6, I tried Cobalt’s sister (G5) and I wasn’t impresses compare to Civic. RaineMan races his and he obviously loves it, but I preferred seating position, ergonomics and ride of Civic (minus that bloody dual cluster, but most of the people do love it). Your facts are correct that Cobalt is more powerful and more fuel efficient, but somehow sum of all parts wins in Honda. I hope I am not hypnotized, ’cause 330K consumers concluded the same and almost as much for Corolla, although it does not handle as sharp as Civic (OK sharp is a strong word – we are talking econoboxes here).

I want a CTS Coupe with a 1.2 liter Opel Corsa motor, dammit!

And more than 200,000 customers choose the Cobalt every year. Then again, 500,000 people chose Pintos in 1974 vs. less than 50,000 that chose Civics then.

Personal preference is one thing, and is subjective by definition. It’s fine you liked the Civic more. Hell, I like the Civic more than the Cobalt. You’ll get no argument from me that the Civic is, on almost all fronts, the better car in the comparison. The point of my tirades on this thread were the ridiculous assertions that 1) GM builds only dinosaur gas-guzzlers and prays for lower fuel prices when everyone else makes their cars run on fairy dust and wants it to go to $11/gallon, and 2) that GM sacrifices power for fuel economy to do so, and to a notable degree. Neither assertion (made by CP and crackerhemi, respectively) is correct. Both are ridiculous, in fact, as I showed.

I was talking about their trucks, inline6.

Also, nice try with your faulty numbers. If you actually use the the revised EPA standards:

colbat gets 21-22 in city and 21-33 highway.
civic gets 26 city and 34 highway.

Please do your research before you post.

inline6, maybe I am guilty for stating that GM builds a lot of trucks/SUV/CUV. But I got those ideas from corporate P&L statements, well mostly “&L” lately. Those vehicles are the reason GM bleeds. And decision to build a number of those came form the headquarters, not from rank and file (I know I am twisting threads here). If GM would be selling very expensive (build in Belgium) Opels and Cobalts in larger quantities (I don’t care under which moniker) the losses would not be so severe.

oldraven, there was a Caddy derived from Chevy’s rib. Remember Cadillac Cimaron? Guys anyone else remember this one or I am showing my age (22 y.o. 400 lbs unemployed gay living off my mom and sister)? I think Cimaron flew like a lead balloon.

Crackerhemi, I don’t know where you got your numbers, but I got them from the 2008/2009 figures off of http://www.fueleconomy.gov

See for yourself.

Crackerhemi, I clicked the “Cobalt XFE” option on the site. That shows that the Cobalt XFE (2.2 5-spd) gets 25/37 with TODAY’S standards. The Cobalt 2.2 auto gets 24/33 and the 2.0 Turbo 5-speed gets 22/30.

However, I was comparing apples to apples. The base Cobalt engine with the manual trans figures compared to the base engines with the manual trans figures on all its competitors. Cobalt wins. You lose.

You make a valid point Xyunya. If you are looking at the whole car Civic vs Cobalt then the Civic is the obvious winner. Better fit and finish… better drivability… better resale value.
When I bought my SS I was looking for something with excellent handling and some get-up-and-go. The newest Civic Si wasn’t available yet… the SRT-4s were all gone… and the WRX was a few grand too expensive for my tastes. Plus GM sweetened the deal with 0% financing… and that makes a big difference.

AHAHAH the XFE (available in very limited quanities), which means no one has it.

All they did was add low resistance tires. Please, stop being retarded

And crackerhemi, you’re wrong about the trucks, too. I’ve compared the most efficient models to one another:

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD 5.3 4AT: 14/20mpg, 315bhp/338lb-ft. And Chevy does it all with pushrods and 8 cylinders.

Dodge Ram 1500 2WD 3.7/6MT: 16/19mpg, 215bhp/235lb-ft.
Chevy wins on highway economy (despite 2.6liters more displacement and 2 more cylinders), and by 100hp and 103lb-ft of torque, with an auto that has 2 fewer gears.

Ford F-150 2WD 4.2/5MT: 14/20mpg. 202bhp/260lb-ft.
The Ford and Chevy tie in economy, but Ford gets there with a V6 and a 5-speed MT vs. Chevy’s V8 and 4spd AT, and the Chevy wins by 113bhp and 78 more lb-ft.

Nissan Titan 2WD 5.6/5AT: 13/17mpg. 317bhp/385lb-ft. Chevy wins on fuel economy despite the 1 less gear. The Titan wins by only 2hp and 47lb-ft of torque with its 300cc’s extra displacement and ohc engine.

Toyota Tundra 2WD 4.0/5AT: 15/19mpg. 236bhp/266lb-ft. Chevy wins in highway mpg, and has 79 more horsepower and 72 more lb-ft despite offering 1 less transmission gear, and 2 more cylinders with 1.3L more displacement.

And by base model, I don’t mean the more expensive variant of the base model. The base model is the regular colbalt LS.

Also, try picking a car that is available in all states when you do your “research.”

XFE isn’t available in very limited quantities. ALL 5-Speed 2.2L 4cylinder Cobalts built after March ‘08 are XFEs. That’s a SIGNIFICANT portion of Cobalt sales. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

The XFE IS THE BASE MODEL. IT IS NO MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COBALT LS BECAUSE IT IS THE COBALT LS. The XFE is STANDARD on 5-speed 2.2L Cobalt LS models. That means ALL of them. Which means it IS the base model because the only Cobalt LS models that aren’t XFEs are the automatics, which cost MORE. So sit down and shut up, crackerhemi. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

You do realize when you replace your cobalt XFE low resistance tires, you will go back to 33hwy, right? I guess people really do fall for stupid marketing gimmicks. Slap on this XFE badge and it gets 3 more MPG!!

I’m tired of this fight. The real numbers are out there for those who want to know. http://www.fueleconomy.org For those that don’t, no amount of evidence will change their minds. It doesn’t matter what the truth is, they still spout that anti-domestic garbage. I just don’t get it…

You do realize when you sit your fat ass in the seat of a Civic, strap a mattress to the roof of it, and fill it with half-crushed Bud Lite cans, it’ll get less mpg, too, right?

GM is late 2 a party honda has been at 4 years

a four-cylinder Cadillac CTS would suck, just like the TSX CSX or RSX

ceed? Not yet, GM contends.

Thir article is poorly wruitten.

The Cadillac Cimaron was a horrible idea.

“city,” “normal” and “performance” modes R a good idea.

Thunderbird SuperCoupe was gr8./
Lancers R gay

Acura sucks

I’d like 2 C

I dod not no the coba;lt was so much better on fuel ecomomy thatn those others. It’s not very good, but still better than civic or corolla. maxcda3 and focus are the best of all.

SX4 is good

Cobalt has better reliability than Civic, Corolla

Volvo diesels R gr8
xyunya should not B abused. I like 2 stay out o’ the name calling, but xyunya wuz done wrong

Putting a 4 cylinder in a Corvette wood B very dumb.

A V-6 diesel CTS would make ¢

buy Honda / Acuras & U have a hone nu Problem

no Honda 4-banger is good
The 2.2L in the S2000 is the closest. I like that jhi redline

the Prius is bigger and nicer than the Corolla

Wall Street and US government coming 2 the same conclusion mite just meb they R both wrong.

G5 is more impressive tham Civic.

I do not like the Civic or the Cobalt.

Low rolling resistance tires, spoilers, VVT, whatever it takes to get there, GM gets it done and has the compact with the highest fuel economy, and you don’t have to pay extra for it, unless you want to upgrade to the LT, which will still give you 37mpg if you keep the stickshift. How do we know that Honda doesn’t use the same tricks on the Civic Hybrid, or Toyota with the Prius. Oh wait. They DO.

I love Ktulu’s posts. For some reason, they just make me laugh, and yet he makes good points every time.

But if you think the G5 is more impressive than the Civic or the Cobalt, the MacPro is much better!

I had to.

Hey, billy bob! I just figured out how to get 3 more MPGs. I can put this XFE badge on my car!

In addition to the torandoair, I am going to get an extra 6MPG!

Hey, CrackerHemi, keep in mind Obama’s priceless gas saving advice: Keep your tires properly inflated and get regular tune ups.

As a previous chevy dude and fuel efficiency afficianado, i wholly disagree with you about the cobalt, inline6.

There is a difference between ‘estimated mileage’ and true mileage and the cobalt XFE, in real world tests, is fairly gutless compared to the regular cobalt and has a hard time reaching it’s ‘estimated mileage’ in the first place.

whereas the honda civic is actually rated for 36mpg highway but gets more along the lines of 38-40mpg in real world tests.

I don’t know how chevrolet gets away with posting higher mpg numbers but if you read numerous reviews, GM cars repeatedly get less than what they’re rated at and hondas and toyotas typically exceed what they’re rated at. Other brands of econobox usually get around what they’re rated at.

I am not bashing on GM in any way, the cobalt XFE is a sign that someone at GM is actually thinking straight, but those are not realistic numbers, and the XFE has longer gears, a shorter redline, and all sorts of tunings that decrease it’s performance over the regular cobalt ( which is quite a quick car for an econobox ). To say that it is a superior car to all other econoboxes is to not take account into performance, reliability, etc. And that’s a shame.

Neptronix. Link the reviews. I haven’t seen ONE on the Cobalt XFE, and I haven’t seen one where the Civic or Corolla exceeds the mileage standards. Prove it.

The XFE has the EXACT same 2.2L 148bhp engine with the same redline. I don’t know where you’re getting your info, pal.

And crackerhemi, slap that badge on your car. As soon as I see the EPA certification, I’ll believe it.

Folks, these cars are all subjected to the same standards in the same tests.

LOL @ ktulu: “Thir article is poorly wruitten.”

oldraven: the ‘87 and ‘88 ‘Birds still look good today and I would not be surprised to see them on someone’s future collectable list. I came oh so close to buying a 302 ‘88 that was actually an ex RCMP ghost car. It didn’t show up on the aution date I expected and I couldn’t make the next one. I’m still pissed off that someone else got my car.

‘auction’ date…

You all also forget GM owns Saab, who has extensive experience is small displacement turbo 4-cylinders and has also recently won a few awards for their upcoming biohybrid engine lineup. 200-hp 1.4L turbo 4, and a 2.0L 300-hp version.
Even their older 4 bangers get very good gas mileage: Not 36, but not far from it (my 9-3 Viggen gets 32mpg actual) pushing more weight and 100hp than those ecoboxes listed above.

So they have the engines and drivetrains in their parts bins already, but will consumers buy them?

I personally think customers will buy them.

Most if not all of you obviously were crapping yellow of not crapping at all during the fuel crisis in the 1970’s. There will be a day when the FINITE amount of fossil fuels is expended. So if you look at the big picture when the Chinese and Indians get to point of having at least one car per family and they end up sucking up all of the oil we used to use you will beg for a four cylinder car.

68 comments in one day? Wow, I didn’t think anyone gave this much of a **** about 4-bangers in Caddies

“68 comments in one day? Wow, I didn’t think anyone gave this much of a **** about 4-bangers in Caddies”

Case in point.

going along with neptronix….tis very true The real world numbers as opposed to the estimated numbers are VERY different, and not that the cobalt isn’t a great car in the real world those numbers arent even close. I remember when my car was in the shop and i had to go get a rental they had a corolla and a cobalt and, i have long legs so my first thought was the cobalt but i kid you not EVERYONE at that office told me go with the corolla becuase everyone that had rented the cobalt complained of how fast the tank went by even then it claimed to have such amazing mileage.

krautninja, neptronix- Show where the f.uck their different! Just like Inline 6, I have not read ONE review. I’ve spent the past 15 minutes looking them up on google and automotive magazine websites, and I have found no, NO reviews.

And DID you rent the Cobalt, Krautninja? Or are you just going with something some salesman said to you? If it’s a second source, I don’t care to even listen to that crap, all you’ll end up doing is beating around the bush.

And while we’re on the subject, how about you all f.ucking back off from someones choice and purchase of a large vehicle. Who gives a shizit, I want something I can haul my family in, something I can bring camping, something satisfying to own. Actually, never mind that, it’s none of your business in the first place! I don’t see the satisfaction of owning a little tiny vehicle, it’s economics and purchasing power that sees the satisfaction in that. In 20 or 30 years there will be NO satisfaction in owning a vehicle, we WON’T be driving them. I would rather have cheap displacement, power from a large than trying to d.ick around with some little, super high revving piece of table machinery. These four cylinders we’re talking about will NEVER replace the eight cylinders most of us remember well. And don’t even think about starting some argument that “bigger isn’t better”, in this case many times it is. I don’t care too much if it’s a gas guzzler; I see the current shi.t situation we’re in as a hoax anyways. RIGHT when President Bush MENTIONS lifting the band on drilling, prices drop 20, 30 cents across the country. We just had one of the COLDEST years for quite a while where I currently am, and much of the West Shelf in the Arctic has gotten larger, let alone the mass of it has increased.

But you know, maybe it’s about time we stop driving vehicles. Maybe we’re too irresponsible in the first place, as Americans. I mean, you guys sure do treat us as ****. “In a nation of NIMBYs”, “The American three had no problem making cars and SUV’s that use lots of fuel”, “The majority of North Americans haven’t got a clue what’s under the hood of their cars”. And you know, I’m so dam.n disgusted about it. Then why does America have the largest automotive after market in the WORLD? We’re going to end up traveling two or three times more than our European cousins, and maybe because of that our vehicles are going to be a bit larger, and a lot more comfortable.

I’m so disgusted and tired of it. Day in and day out all I hear is how Americans can’t get their heads around anything, how we’re all inbreeding rednecks who drive a jacked up Chevy, and our ideal lifestyle is modeled after the Beverly Hillbillies. And then all the f.uck you guys complain about is how the Big Three are ****, put out horrible products and should suffer. Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough? Chrysler’s almost totally depleted their cash backing, their reputation AND their vehicles. Ford and GM’s lost billions in revenue. Their vehicles have improved DRAMATICALLY. HUNDREDS of people are being unemployed daily because of the fore mentioned. Many of those people are probably relatives or friends. Hey, one in six COULD BE. So, keep it up, keep talking sh.it, just let foreign industries cash in on the “sheep” that supposedly live in America, and just let a nations workforce and economy tumble to it’s knees.

*power from a large engine*

you might not be using google correctly then. I found at least 3 reviews last time. I’d be helpful and throw down some links but it sounds like your intention is to bash me and rant on about how people hate american cars for no good reason.

FYI i bought a 2000 chevrolet cavalier with 74k miles 2 years ago, because i really loved it’s specs – good sized engine, lots of power, comfortable, and i was told it got 30-32mpg on the highway, and that sounded pretty good. Frankly, the thing was so unreliable i was nervous about driving it, and i was getting 28-29mpg on the highway driving at around 70mph. I sold it after a year, losing $3500 on the car. Meanwhile i still liked the cavalier and felt that maybe i got a lemon.. i had been watching reviews of the 2003+ cavalier and the cobalt and haven’t heard anything good. A friend of mine bought a 2001 camaro and they claimed it would get 28mpg on the highway when he bought it but he was getting more like 20-22mpg.

Hyundai does the same stuff. They say the accent gets 38, 37, 36, 35, however many mpg they feel like claiming their cars get, yet we have a few manual trans. accents with 1.6l engines and they realistically get in the low 30’s. It’s not just american car companies that are fudging their numbers. I can name a few other companies, but i won’t go into it.

And having an engine that’s far bigger than the standard economy car engine definetely increases the size of grain of salt you need to take when chevrolet tells you the car gets 37mpg. Honestly, do you really believe that a sort of low-tech DOHC 2.2L engine gets better mileage than a space age 1.5L or 1.8L SOHC manufactured by companies that are hell bent on efficiency? I don’t.

I don’t know about you guys but i am rooting for america’s car companies ( except chrysler ) to come out of their funk and come ahead of their competitors, but to claim they are already there is ludicrous. GM for one has historically been way behind on engineering but they are doing a damn good job of catch up these days, and that’s good to hear.

neptronix- Please, just post the links if you have them. Even if you feel I’m just posting to “bash” someone, which I’m trying my best not to, that’s not all too great of an excuse.

And aside from that, NO car manufacturers are “fudging” their numbers. Go talk to the one source that evaluates them if you feel that way. Sometimes I feel like their testing is incorrect though, some vehicles do better and some do worse (Prius, for example).

It all depends how you drive them. I usually get 24 MPH in my car which is rated at 18-26 MPH. My dad drove it and got 30 MPH. I obviously run it harder, but who cares, it’s more fun that way. So saying people rate the numbers wrong is dumb. All vehicles are put through the same standardized tests. I also agree with almost everything in post 73. My sister bought a new audi and was trying to tell me GM doesn’t make anything with good fuel economy. Which I totally called her out on. She had never even looked at a window sticker but fell into that tree hugging liberial BS that domestics are fuel gulping junk, because it’s the cool thing to say these days. She was so up her own ass that she tried to tell me the oil in her car was superior to mine, but when I ask what kind it is shes clueless. This mentallity has a snowball effect, and I think it hurts sales more than anything.

^^^ MPG, not MPH hopefully.

inline6, while your numbers are correct, keep in mind that the final drive ratio in a cobalt is 3.74, while on the base mazda3 is 4.11. Guess who will have more fun driving their car on the highway? Toyota lowered the final drive for more efficiency, but added over a second more time to 60mph from the previous generation.

While your Cobalt SS RaineMan has 240 to the wheels from 260hp, and actually give GM credit for actually building such a car since the supercharged one had to be discontinued, you forgot vs. the Mazdaspeed3 the Cobalt has no:

HID Xenon Headlamps
LED tailamps
Auto A/C
Leather Interior
No limited slip differential (at least no mention of that feature anywhere, including GM’s own page on it)

You know, those features that make your car look like it is a luxury car instead of a entry level subcompact.

But, the Cobalt ss has

No torque steer and
A variable scroll turbo
Shift Launch Control

Then again, Mazda’s engine meets ULEV II and the Chevy only LEV II.

Your call. Keep in mind after 3 years a Cobalt keeps 38% of its value, while a Mazda3 keeps 50%.

At least GM is trying this time instead of just offering old crap.

@neptronix
I’ve rented a 08 manual Cobalt and driving @60mph on the highway in 5th I was averaging 39mpg. Cobalt is perfectly capable of meeting its EPA rating, though its more sporting nature versus a Corolla or Civic may encourage more aggressive, less efficient driving.

Also Chevy doesn’t post the numbers, the EPA does. Its a third party test ALL vehicles are subjected too.

@jayjc08,
Excellent post!

I work in IT and as such there are a disproportionate number of “greenies”. I just LOVE the look on their faces when they find out I commute to and from work in an 8-passenger SUV with only me in it. They tell me “you don’t need that, its dumb” as they pull out their iPhones to check myspace or whatever. Ironic though, when it comes time to go to lunch, what vehicle does everyone want to take? Not the econoboxes, not the CR-V…. nope everyone wants to ride in the Suburban.

@sprockkets,
Its all about performance with “pocket rockets”. The Cobalt SS mauls the MS3 on a road track. The Cobalt SS turned in better ring times than a 335i. Better enough that it’s not a contest. If luxury is your think a pocket rocket really isn’t the car for you anyways.

@monte,
My Suburban came from the factory with Mobile One synthetic 5W30, oil doesn’t get much better than that.

your right stig, MPG, can’t believe i missed that

Are they going to make a smooth-running small engine or yet another one that vibrates all of the fasteners loose after 10K miles?

I always thought there was something funny about the Cobalt. If it had such great gas mileage, why I don’t see enough of them on the road instead of more and more corollas and civics. I guess smart people do their research and can tell the phonys from the real mccoys. Oh well, nice try GM. The fleet sales, incentives, and 0% financing will help push the turd along.

neptronix, in case you didn’t notice, the 2000 Cavalier and the 2005-09 Cobalt are different vehciles on different platforms with different engines.

Chevrolet, Honda, et al don’t post these numbers, the EPA does, and they test all their cars the same. You may have read reviews for the Cobalt, but not the one with the XFE treatment, I’m certain of that. And I don’t remember reading anything about the standard Cobalt saying that it had drivability issues. The car was midpack when it came out, and it’s still midpack today. It’s no Cavalier.

I think americanidiot is a phony

AmericanIdiot,
1) The Cobalt isn’t a turd. It’s not at the top of its class, but it’s not at the bottom, either.
2) Your logic is the same as my saying “I must be tiger repellent, because I don’t see any tigers around”. GM sells 200,000+ Cobalts a year. You see more Civics and Accords. But Ford sold 500,000 Pintos in ‘74, and Honda sold only 25,000 or so Civics that year. Which was the better car? The Civic. Which did people see more of? The Pinto.
3) There’s $1500 on the hood of the ‘08 Cobalts right now, and nothing on the hood of the ’09s. That’s not exactly incentivized to death, since we’re a month from the end of the model year. Fleet sales on the Cobalt are way down, too. And GM’s only offering 0% on its trucks. Stop living in the past and look at what’s going on today. Your argument will be a lot more relevant that way.

At least GM is thinking outside the box! But if they were to do a 4 in the CTS they would have to do it right, no skinny tires with 16″ wheels, no “you can’t have premium options because you didn’t buy the premium motor” BS that they are famous for. No, they need to do it in such a way that the look, the feel, the quality, the experience is true Cadillac. so it wouldn’t be fast or powerful, but it would be quiet, it would be smooth, it would be refined, it would have awesome handling, and be ‘light and tossable”, it would be solid and well built. It would look good sitting on a handsome set of 18 or 19″ wheels. it would have a modern 6 speed automatic transmission, it would be available with ALL of the comforts and amenities that Cadillac offers on any other CTS. It would be a car that an owner would be proud to own. If they can do that, then a 4 in the CTS makes sense.