Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu MPG-Real World Numbers
282 messages, Last post on Oct 24, 2009 at 3:58 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: frankcd (Jul 20, 2008 8:06 am) |
|
|
Replying to: frankcd (Jul 20, 2008 8:06 am) If you have the 4 cylinder, it should shine on the freeway. Take it on a long freeway drive at reasonable (65-70mph) speeds. Reset your miles per gallon readout in your DIC (digital information center) and read the mpg during your trip. If you reset it while you are driving level, constant speed, you should see about 34 mpg. After you drive for a while it should settle down to 28 mpg for the overall trip. If you have a light and steady foot, you might hit 30 mpg or 32 mpg. You can confirm the numbers by looking online at the Consumer Reports website (subscription required). They do straight city driving and straight highway driving using a metering device they attach to the fuel line. They drive softly. Their numbers don't lie. Your car is fine. Your expectations don't match your driving conditions and driving style. You may not be logging your fillups and miles per tank. This is typical in America where we often jump from one experience to another without investigating very deeply. If you want to really test your driving conditions and style, you need to rent a similar car and see what your mileage looks like on the competition, before you take a loss on a trade in. Also, fwiw, we got the same mileage, in the city, on an Impala with a 6 cylinder as with a PT Cruiser (normal, non turbo 4). It's the driving conditions and driving style, vehicle weight second, and size of engine third. That's when I laugh when I hear people begging for a 1.0 liter Fit over here (that's the small car from Honda). By the time people "work" the 1.0 for acceleration it will have the same, if not worse, mileage than our 1.5 "export only" version. It's all about vehicle weight and that old "lead" foot. I drive my Fit softly and get 38-40 mpg on my freeway commute. The only time vehicle displacement comes into play is (1) gas consumption with a lot of idling and (2) taxes you pay in certain other countries, that tax on the basis of engine displacement instead of vehicle weight. My 1.5 liter Fit is "pumping" almost as much air through the engine at the 4,000 rpm required to hit 80 on the freeway as the 3.5 in our minivan, which only turns over at 2,000 rpm at the same speed. Of course the 3.5 requires a richer mixture to push the larger minivan through the air, and more gas to accelerate it, but within certain limits (cars the same weight) the gas mileage on a larger engine with lower rpm often match the gas mileage of a smaller engine with higher rpm. That's why Consumer reports indicated only a 1 mpg advantage to the 4 over the 6 in the last generation of the Malibu in combined driving (but if you cruise long freeway distances at a steady speed, the 4 is more frugal). Once again, in your situation blame your gas mileage on the timing of traffic lights and the devolution of our auto culture into a "stop light drag race" mentality. The potential mpg you can get from your Malibu is very fine. |
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Jul 21, 2008 4:00 pm) I've said it a few times on the blog, when I leased my 05 Malibu V6 200 hp straight city driving was 15/16 mpg, straight highway run at 65 mph 37 mpg. mixed 28/30. It still amazes me, thats better than any 4cyl. on the market, even GM's own, they have magic in the bottle and don't evevn know it. |
|
|
Replying to: packer3 (Jul 21, 2008 6:55 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Jul 21, 2008 4:00 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: mazda6dude (Jul 22, 2008 6:19 am) I'm interested in the answer too. Automatics often get the same freeway mileage as manual transmissions because the manufacturer can gear them lower, confident that the automatic will unlock (first) then downshift as necessary for pickup. Manufacturers seem reluctant to gear their manual transmissions for optimal freeway mileage since it would then require a manual downshift to 4th for good pickup on the freeway, and then (apparently) consumers would complain that the vehicle is "gutless." (There seems to be an aversion in some drivers to downshifting when already on the freeway - I don't share that aversion.)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Jul 22, 2008 10:32 am) |
|
|
Replying to: packer3 (Jul 21, 2008 6:55 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: malmouza (Jul 29, 2008 5:10 am) |
|
|
Replying to: malmouza (Jul 29, 2008 5:10 am) And last of all engine displacement, it is important other wise you wouldn't see the V6 getting as good if not better highway gas mileage than any four. The Fit's 109 hp engine is rated at 34 mpg highway and thats suppose to be the best in it's class, a little smaller than the Accord that is rated at 31mpg and has a 177hp engine, I dont think the aerodynamics have to much to say in this matter. And by far you are not getting 42 mpg with the Accord your lucky if your breaking 35 mpg, I also have an 08 Accord LX-P, that I got when my lease ran out on the Malibu a few months back, I know the mpg difference by my experience with both cars not some numbers from a car magazine. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu MPG-Real World Numbers
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2007 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
