Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RJB

2007 Hybrid Comparison

46 posts in this topic

Lemme guess.

1. CRAPRY

2. $h!IMA

3. AURA

How much did I win? :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

Hypocritic Bitches!

I prefer not to read crapmunds. None of their editors have any sort of driving or racing experience. They are just graduates from fine arts who would have been unemployed for their lack of knowledge.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I give them credit for at least acknowedging it will take most consumers FOREVER to recoup the $7,000 price difference. Still, I would hope Toyota was way ahead of the pack, being as they've had a few year jump on the rest.

But, yikes: $30k for an American Camry. Sounds like they'll be paying $40k up here!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can this topic be moved to the Saturn section? Apparently I'm an idiot today, Monday is not going too hot for me I guess.

Edited by RJB
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embarassing. And the real price gap is $3750 with the Camry and $2920 with the Altima if you equip them similarly.

I'd rather have a $20K AURA 4-cylinder non-hybrid and save the dough. Or an $18K Fusion. Both probably get better performance and simliar economy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Altima Hybrid doesn't count because its sold in a handful of states, not nationwide.

2) Talk about embarrassing - trunkspace of 10.6 cuft for the Camry, 9.1 cuft(?!) for the Altima? Jesus. The Aura not only loses the least cargo room (12.6 vs. 16.0 for the regular Aura) but it also has a non-awkward, flat load floor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Altima Hybrid doesn't count because its sold in a handful of states, not nationwide.

2) Talk about embarrassing - trunkspace of 10.6 cuft for the Camry, 9.1 cuft(?!) for the Altima? Jesus. The Aura not only loses the least cargo room (12.6 vs. 16.0 for the regular Aura) but it also has a non-awkward, flat load floor.

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

I think its a matter of packaging intelligence, not an evenly-proportional measure. Use a car the has more trunk space to begin with (imagine a full hybrid LaCrosse - probably would have 15 cuft at least), purpose-build a hybrid from the ground up, or package the system more intelligently.

I know someone here may irrationally argue that less trunk space may be better in some Rod Serling dimension (:rolleyes:), but there is an ideal solution that no one seems to care about yet, though I will say Japanese large midsizers are poorly-packaged for cargo capacity anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but for the loss in trunk space in full-hybrids, you gain significant fuel economy increases. The AURA loses 3.4 cu ft, takes 2-3 more seconds to reach 60, and costs $3000 more than a non-hybrid 4-cylinder equivalent all for, what, 2 more MPG in the '08 EPA city and highway cycle?

Which means that if regularly I load 10 grocery bags in my trunk, with hybrids I will load 7.5. Which means I have to make four trips for every three trips I made in for the similar N/A car. Do the fuel economy numbers offset that?? I mean do these cars give 150% more fuel efficiency than the N/A? Probably not to at least match my value for the trip to the grocery stores and I am not even talking about the offset in price I have to pay to get these so called gas-sippers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one major gripe about this test is their problem with the Aura's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I thought these were Hybrids not drag cars. There are some good points to the Aura, but in the end you know who takes down the General once again.

Performance is still important, even in a hybrid, and the Aura is just downright slow.

Altima- 47mpg city, 7.6s 0-60, 15.6s 1/4

Aura- 19mpg city, 11s 0-60, 17.9s 1/4

That paints a pretty bad picture.

Why is the Altima not available in all states while the Camry is? They use the same hybrid drivetrain...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a matter of packaging intelligence, not an evenly-proportional measure. Use a car the has more trunk space to begin with (imagine a full hybrid LaCrosse - probably would have 15 cuft at least), purpose-build a hybrid from the ground up, or package the system more intelligently.

I know someone here may irrationally argue that less trunk space may be better in some Rod Serling dimension (:rolleyes:), but there is an ideal solution that no one seems to care about yet, though I will say Japanese large midsizers are poorly-packaged for cargo capacity anyway.

I guess it's a matter of priorities. The general trend in packaging seems to be a preference for passenger room over trunk space. Cars like the Impala and LaCrosse, which have huge trunks and tiny back seats, are a rare and dying breed. Crossovers, minivans, and SUVs are now the vehicles of choice for cargo hauling.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the AURA GL represents a weak engineering effort compared to its rivals, even if it does have a large-for-a-hybrid trunk. Its fuel economy improvement is minimal, it's slower than any midsizer, it has a significant price premium, and it's difficult to see it doing very well. Chevy's approach with the '08 Malibu, offering BAS as an LS powertrain option, makes more sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for capacity reasons. However, my local Nissan dealer in PA purchased a bunch of Altima hybrids from a dealer in NY in order to sell them here. So it's not like you can only get them in 8 states.

This is pretty embarassing for the Aura, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toyota proved it's got the fuel economy game wrapped up, as the Camry produced the best combined mileage of our test group with 43.2 mpg over both loops — 44.5 mpg in the city and 42.6 mpg on the highway. The Altima's fuel economy in the city actually proved marginally better than the Camry's at 47.3 mpg, but its 38.1 mpg on the highway dropped its combined rating to 40.1 mpg.

The Aura wasn't even close. Its combined fuel economy was just 26 mpg, largely as a result of its 18.9 mpg in city driving — where it doesn't benefit from true electric-only propulsion like the Camry and Altima. On the highway loop, the Aura produced 31.5 mpg.

That's kind of a sucky result for the Aura... even being 'only' a mild Hybrid, and even being significantly cheaper, it will be crossed shopped against cars like the Altima and the Camry based in fuel economy... I don't see many people doing their math to know how many miles they have to drive per year for the mileage advantage of the Camry/Altima to compensate for their higher MSRP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's sad is that the Aura is even in the comparison...

Apparently the f*cking idiots in the media can't get it through their heads that GM's less sophisticated hybrid system is NOT supposed to compete with the Camry and Altima hybrids. It's supposed to appeal to people with less $$$ that want a few more miles.

This was just another opportunity to make GM look bad and as usual, edmunds seized the day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aura is last I am sure. Haven't even read the thing nor do I need too. I can pretty much guessed what they bitched about. The thing is the Greenline adds lots of nice features that the base cars don't come with standard and for not alot of extra dough. Plus great fuel economy! From a price point 7K buys alot of gas... I would go with the Saturn. And uhh do hybrids ever get the fuel economy the sticker says? Suckers go ahead by the Camry.

Edited by gm4life
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of priorities. The general trend in packaging seems to be a preference for passenger room over trunk space. Cars like the Impala and LaCrosse, which have huge trunks and tiny back seats, are a rare and dying breed. Crossovers, minivans, and SUVs are now the vehicles of choice for cargo hauling.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the AURA GL represents a weak engineering effort compared to its rivals, even if it does have a large-for-a-hybrid trunk. Its fuel economy improvement is minimal, it's slower than any midsizer, it has a significant price premium, and it's difficult to see it doing very well. Chevy's approach with the '08 Malibu, offering BAS as an LS powertrain option, makes more sense.

The LaX has a small back seat no lie. But my Impala and even the current generation one have a rather roomy back-seat. Far roomy than my large EPA rated Bonneville SLE. (Still love the sporty side of the car and the motor!)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compared the vehicles all at the same price point right?

I mean, you wouldn't want the comparison to be unfair by one of the vehicles being 7k cheaper than the others.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compared the vehicles all at the same price point right?

I mean, you wouldn't want the comparison to be unfair by one of the vehicles being 7k cheaper than the others.

It's a hybrid. And even though it's cheaper it's going to get compared to other hybrids and look bad. What's the point of the Aura hybrid if 4cyl non-hybrid competition get the same real-world mileage and are faster to boot? I'm surprised no mags have done a comparison of the Aura greenline and the Accord/Camry 4cyl models.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a marketing problem.

Soon, GM will have three different types of hybrid vehicles in their product portfolio:

Mild Hybrids

Two-Mode Hybrids

Plug-In Hybrids

Of those, the Two-Mode hybrid is the only one that's comparable with the hybrids offered by Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. That's great, actually - more choice is a good thing.

However, the Mild Hybrid is all that's available right now, and it's not called a mild hybrid - it's called 'hybrid'. Since the Camry, Altima, and Accord Two-Mode hybrids are also just called 'hybrid' these non-analogous comparisons arise. And of course the cheaper mild hybrid will look bad when compared to a full hybrid.

That's GM's fault. As far as I'm aware, even when the two-mode hybrids become available, there won't be any visual differentiation at all between the mild and two-mode versions. That's a recipe for confusion and more faulty comparisons. Were it me, I'd break them in into separate mini-brands:

Mild-Hybrid: Don't call it a hybrid at all - name it something like "Power Assist", and say that it uses hybrid technology to inexpensively give a mild boost to both MPG and power when accelerating. Market this as the economical choice.

Two-Mode Hybrid: Call this one simply "Hybrid", just like other manufacturers to. Market *these* against the competition's comparable models - Aura/Malibu against Camry/Altima, Vue against Escape, etc.

Plug-In Hybrids: Were it me, I'd market these as electric vehicles that have a combustion-engine backup, since for most shorter commutes, you may not need a gas engine at all. Call them "EV Hybrids".

Give each hybrid "brand" its own unique logo and slap them on the respective vehicles. Then, market the hell out of the fact that, with the FlexFuel engines, GM gives you more options than anyone to decrease our depenency on foreign oil and save the environment.

Just MHO,

-RBB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the Mild Hybrid is all that's available right now, and it's not called a mild hybrid - it's called 'hybrid'. Since the Camry, Altima, and Accord Two-Mode hybrids are also just called 'hybrid' these non-analogous comparisons arise. And of course the cheaper mild hybrid will look bad when compared to a full hybrid.

The Accord is not a two-mode hybrid, but a mild hybrid as well. All Honda hybrids, including the 60mpg+ Insight, are mild hybrids.

The performance-oriented Accord V6 hybrid gets the same mileage as the Aura hybrid, yet is much faster and heavier. Of course it's a whole lot more expensive..... If Honda made a 2.4L hybrid IMA Accord, it would probably be priced under the Camry/Altima by a hair, and get the same or better highway mileage with less city mileage. But then Honda will be giving us a 2.2L or 2.4L 50mpg+ diesel Accord, which will just make hybrids look dumb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Siegen - I'd forgotten the IMA isn't a two-mode system. It's certainly a lot less "mild" than the GM system, though. And agreed re: the Accord diesel.

-RBB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew the results before I clicked on it before hand. Not because of it being on Edmunds, which I visit every day for industry news, but because when you put HYBRID on a car it better damn well get good gas mileage. GM can't just say theirs is merely a mild hybrid and shrug their shoulders when someone puts the Aura's numbers up next to the Camry's. Customers won't care if it's a mild hybrid, they just know that the Toyota hybrid gets better MPG than the Saturn hybrid. Most people who want a hybrid are already shopping Toyota as their first stop anyways and if Saturn can't impress customers right off the bat, then the customers won't bat an eyelash towards their dealership. I hope the next gen Aura is up to par with the next gen offerings of competitors, including their hybrids/diesels or whatever comes along.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0