Chrysler/GM merger OT

[blueskies]

Just for comparison I looked up the non hybrid civics. They are mostly rated at 36mpg with the SI version at 29. So the honda one does have quite the jump from 36 to 45. As far as comparing the actual MPG and not the increase you'd have to compare the size of the vehicles too. If the malibu is larger you can't expect it to get the same mileage. But I agree the 1mpg increase is a joke.

Ed-

My comment wasn't to suggest that the Malibu should get the same mileage as the Civic. But I can't understand the point of making a different version of a car, charging more money for the "improved technology", and the end result is 1 mpg. Do they think that their consumers are really gullible enough to think they are making a difference by purchasing the hybrid version of the car?

Pete

[Norm's Coupe]

GM still doesn't get it, and I'm not sure they will survive long enough before they do. It seems to me that the hybrid models in their lineup are tokens made to make the company seem green, without having to actually make any difference at all in what they are really capable of.

Pete

Pete,

If you look at the Chrysler and Ford model cars, they really aren't any better when comparing apples to apples. I see Chrysler advertisements all the time for their larger cars on TV and the newspapers. They advertise fantastic MPG for their Jeep, Vans, and full sized cars. What's that mileage? Somewhere between 24 and 29 MPG, depending on the model car advertised. I don't call that any great improvement over the 27 MPG I get in my 95 Lumina APV on the highway, do you? It's not only Chrysler, but Ford has the the same types of ads. Now, if you go with the small GM, Ford or Chrysler cars, you might find them advertising between 33 and 36 MPG.

So..............If you are going to be hard on GM, you have to do it with all three of the Big Three.

That said. I like the Malibu and the Impala myself. In fact, I've been thinking about trading my van in on a new model of either one. As far as MPG's go, I could give a hoot. The way I look at it, if you're going to buy a car, you buy the one you like the best because it will make you the happiest, regardless of MPG's, or the price of the vehicle.

[blueskies]

I don't call that any great improvement over the 27 MPG I get in my 95 Lumina APV on the highway' date=' do you? [/quote']

Come to think of it, it's not any great improvement from the mileage my 1950 Plymouth gets, and it's built like a tank...

The way I look at it' date=' if you're going to buy a car, you buy the one you like the best because it will make you the happiest, regardless of MPG's, or the price of the vehicle.[/quote']

I disagree with this attitude, which IMJ is the at root of the SUV craze among other things. With all the talk of "drill baby drill", there is hardly a word about CONSERVATION. If consumers refused to buy gas hogs, they wouldn't still be dominating the road.

Pete

[Young Ed]

Ed-

My comment wasn't to suggest that the Malibu should get the same mileage as the Civic. But I can't understand the point of making a different version of a car, charging more money for the "improved technology", and the end result is 1 mpg. Do they think that their consumers are really gullible enough to think they are making a difference by purchasing the hybrid version of the car?

Pete

I didn't think so either Pete. I made my post mostly to show the much greater difference between the 2 versions of the civic to the 2 versions of the malibu. Now I am curious why the SI version only gets 29? Is that one bigger or a v6 model?

[blueskies]

Now I am curious why the SI version only gets 29? Is that one bigger or a v6 model?

Not sure, but I think the SI version is just tuned for high performance.

Pete

[Don Coatney]

My '08 Honda Civic hybrid gets 46.5 mpg/CITY and can easly achieve over 50 mpg/Highway.

Pete

So Pete;

Is the car referenced above your Boston Baked Bean?

[Norm's Coupe]

Come to think of it, it's not any great improvement from the mileage my 1950 Plymouth gets, and it's built like a tank...

I disagree with this attitude, which IMJ is the at root of the SUV craze among other things. With all the talk of "drill baby drill", there is hardly a word about CONSERVATION. If consumers refused to buy gas hogs, they wouldn't still be dominating the road.

Pete

Pete,

I'll agree on the statement about you 1950 Plymouth. All this hype about MPG's reminds me of the 70's. Back in the mid to late 70's the hype was everyone should dump their V8's and buy 4 bangers to save fuel. At the time we were driving new small V8 Ford LTD's and Thunderbirds as company cars. As a way to cut down on padding the expense reports we made each salesperson keep track of the mileage and MPG's they got each week. Now, at the time "EVERYBODY" (or almost anyway) said Ford's V8 engines got terrible MPG's. However, everyone of our company cars with the V8 got about 17 to 19 MPG in the city (depending on city) and about 23 to 24 MPG on the highway. That was just as good as any 4 banger on the road at the time and sometimes better MPG's than the 4 banger. I know this because in 1979 the company switched from the LTD's and Thunderbirds to Fairmonts with 4 bangers for the salesmen and people in my position received Olds Cutlass Supreme's with the V6 engine. The Fairmont's got worse mileage than the V8 Fords and the Olds V6 got about the same as the Ford V8's did. However, the big thing for the public was to push everyone to downsize to a 4 banger or 6 banger to save fuel, which really didn't make much since when you saw our numbers. (We had a total of about 150 salespeople on the road with those cars, plus the Supreme and larger cars for a total of about 175 cars to get those numbers from).

So........that's why I call all of this a bunch of hype now. We were also in a gas shortage back then, and bad economy. After the economy picked back up, no one gave a hoot anymore. I predict the same will happen this time around too.

As for SUV's, I've always said those were a waste for the average person. 9 out of 10 of those 4 wheel drive clunkers ever get off a paved road. We get a lot of snow here in Wisconsin and I've never seen a need for 4 wheel drive here either. In fact, last winter my neighbor got his 4 wheel drive pickup stuck in the driveway while he was trying to plow it out. Bottom line, you can't compare an SUV to an Impala or like sized car.

At any rate, I don't do that much driving to make a big difference anyway. We own two modern cars. If you add the total annual mileage we put on both cars per year it only comes to about 6,000 or 7,000 per year, and that includes vacation trips. That's why I don't give a hoot about how many MPG's we get.

[blueskies]

So Pete;

Is the car referenced above your Boston Baked Bean?

Yup. I drove the car 620 miles round trip this weekend with two big friends and four days worth of luggage to a conference in Salt Lake City, UT. I left with a full tank, and it cost me $26.38 to get back home with a little under a half tank left in the car. Gas at the station in SLC was $3.39 a gallon.

The same trip in my Chevy Tahoe would have been close to $100.

I checked the average mpg on the trip computer in the car, and we averaged 41.5 mpg for the round trip. The faster the car is driven, the worse the milage. I kept the speed at about 83-85 most of the way on the freeway. When I drive the car by myself on the highway between 55 and 65 mpg, it gets about 53 mpg. Running around town with the kids on a daily basis, it gets about 46.5 mpg.

There are certainly things I don't like about the car, but the fuel economy makes it worth it for us. It has a CVT transmission, and it's rather odd. No shifting, just rpms. It's sort of like flying a small plane, hearing the engine rev to a consant rpm while the car increases in speed... It is a bit on the small side for long road trips, and the seats aren't as comfortable as I'd like. But overall, I'm very happy with it.

And the price was right...

Pete