Mike The Canadian

Ah yes you gotta love the 60 deg pushrod v6 They often return better than advertised mileage. Gotta love the low end torque for getting up to speed around town while saving gas. The 3x00 series are all pretty reliable aside from the lower intake manifold gasket leaks. The only thing you really hear much about is people spinning a bearing; usually as a result of letting a lower intake manifold gasket leak go for too long. the 3500/3900 series (VVT and the non-VVT 3500) completely eliminate these problems. the 4T40E and 4T45E have horrendously tall gears but are otherwise great. I'd love to experience these engines with a 6 speed! (Or even a 5 speed, know there are a few 5 speed grand am's floating around there). There's plenty of info about the 60V6 here, visit and enjoy http://www.60degreev6.com/

Nice and hounest review Reg. I'm glad people are actually taking the car for a drive instead of making judgments based on pictures!

Haven't driven this generation of civic. Have driven the last gen... The last thing I'd call that car is eager. Around town it's impossible to get the car motivated without having a lead foot. Not that this is a problem for just normal driving; just don't look to pass anyone at a light without revving to high heavens. It sucks to hear that the Cruze can't stack up to an old Civic in your test drives, guess GM still has work to do

Not everyone as gotten stung when owning those cars. My brothers Cavalier has probably one of the most abused cars I've seen. It just keeps going and going and has had nothing done other than a wheel bearing (Excluding oil changes, brakes, tires etc).

I can see pretty much everyone here agrees with me and is getting the same results. WhiteKnight, what engine do you have on your Aura? I was considering one in a few years when the Malibu gives out. How is it reliability wise?

It sounds like BS. To me cars aren't getting any better mileage than these old ones. Say what you want about the 3100 I am getting fantastic mileage for what it is.

Well, lately I've noticed mileage estimates for old cars have changed and reduced, dramatically in some cases. I drive a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu. It used to be rated at 20 mpg city, 29 highway. Now it's rated at 16 mpg city, 26 highway and 21 combined. Can anyone tell me how the hell this was done? Was everything re-tested or just reduced by a certain percentage? Is this accurate at all do you think? I have never seen anywhere near 16 mpg even in all city driving and with a lead foot. Maybe these are good estimates but the older GM engines don't get mileage that bad? Perhaps this is a gimmick to make new engines seem more efficient? I really don't understand. We have a 2002 Buick Century (now rated the same as the Malibu, previously rated at 20 city, 30 highway). I don't drive that daily but from road trips we've taken we've easily gotten 33 mpg on highway driving with the AC blasting. My 2001 Malibu I drive daily so I keep track of mileage. I only take combined figures as my driving contains an almost even mix of city and highway driving. My highest in the past 3 months has been 28 mpg COMBINED. My lowest has been 21 mpg combined, and that was as bad as I've ever gotten it to go. I had a problem with the car and it was literally on and not moving for about an hour and a half as the mechanic did not want to turn it off so he could diagnose it or some bull$h! like that. (Guess that's what I get for going to Canadian Tire). Over the last 3600 Km I've averaged just over 25 mpg, that's where these new estimates top out. I call BS, and don't get me wrong, I've gotten this mileage by trying to be conservative over the past few months, but I think something is WAY off that my average is close to the new "maximum" mileage of the cars. Thoughts?

Thanks for the quick and informative response! In class it was assumed to be 100% almost all of the time. I'm also curious as to why DI provides more power and better fuel economy. Just thinking about it I know the charge is normally introduced before or in the intake manifold where it mixes with the incoming air. This doesn't always work great and it's more of a prediction on how much fuel to dump correct? I can see that direct injection has the positive aspect that fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber and exact/proper amounts can always be calculated versus dumping a bunch into the incoming air stream. I can see this increasing fuel economy. However doesn't the gasoline being delivered into the oncoming intake air stream also cause cooling of the air which in turn increases your volumetric efficiency? (Cold air, density changes, you get more expansion etc..) Does DI have the same effect? I'm 90% sure there is something I'm missing here but it's always intrigued me. DI has also been used on diesel for a long time has it not? Thanks again for allowing me to pick your brain lol. Sorry if I've steered this thread off-topic, I'll keep any further off topic discussion to PM's or related threads.

Yup! You seem to know your stuff man, I'm very impressed and happy that your on here. A lot of people like to talk out of their asses. I don't claim to be an expert myself, everything I know is due to driving and the Internal Combustion Engines course I took as a part of 3rd year engineering last semester. Very good course and a great eye opener! So much to think about now, and there are practically a million type of efficiencies. To be hounest any calcs we did were really no where near realistic. We did a project on looking at the compression ratio's for NA and supercharged engines along with their power and efficiency differences. Me being me, I chose the 3800 and I ended up getting that it produces 280 hp NA, however after arbitrarily selecting a mechanical efficiency (looking at other examples and what was common) I got closer to the value, but it was still quite a bit off, more specifically the torque was far off. Same went for the supercharged one, but you certainly learn a lot. I found it especially interesting to look at things such as volumetric efficiency on a chart based on rpm and how runner lengths are generally only very efficient for one rpm range. Although this is talking mostly older engines, it's very interesting stuff. I have a curious question, what is the combustion efficiency effected by mainly? Is it simply the octane of gasoline and spark plug? Do engine configurations (IBC, DOHC etc) make a difference?

I think the argument does change for a V8. DOHC engines have larger frictional losses. Another 2 cylinders adds a whole lot of parts. Heck it's another 8 valves! A lot of it is perception and pointless numbers like "hp/liter". Even the fuel efficiency ratings are bs, my "archaic" pushrod V6 has been earning me 28 mpg combined. By new government standards it's rated at 21 mpg combined. Around town accelerating 2000-2500 rpm is a breeze thanks to the availability of low end torque. Add the fact that a 115 km/h cruise is done at 2000 rpms. A lot of crap is perception man. Don't get me wrong, the pushrods of yesteryear were generally out-dated, mine included. However, by no means is it not possible to have a pushrod engine that makes good power and achieves good mileage. GM just hasn't put in the time or money to do so. To be completely honest, look at the DI 2.4, my 10+ year old V6 gets simular power, more torque and by my personal experience, better mileage. However the mileage is really subjective to driving habits, push the V6 hard and beat on it all the time it's going to waste more gas. This is just comparing an engine that was designed and barely changed from the early 90's all the way to the late 2000's to one that's revered as one of the better engines of today. This isn't a knock on the 2.4 but rather trends I've been noticing. Lets get the same power and mileage of a V6, but with an I4 and somehow it's a good thing... Either way, a lot of things are perception, but the reality is GM has to follow the herd because there will always be people who turn away over stupid crap like this. Then again, I personally wouldn't complain, and an engine (IBC or SOHC, DOHC etc) has never caused me to turn away because of it's configuration. More like things such as power curves, sound (I like my engines throaty), mileage etc.

Front end is alright....but ugh...the rear end looks all smudged... and who the hell put photon torpedo launchers on there?

I think my eyes are bleeding

They'll find a way to attribute it to user error....haha

the aura takes 11 seconds to get to a 100km/h? what the hell...

Yeah I do feel it is expensive and I dont see it selling here at all... I've seen them at the dealerships...and i've only seen one on the road...only one...the same ones have been sitting at the dealerships for ages....if you ask me it's the price...if i'm going to blow 50 grand (read canadian) it's sure as hell not going to be a vehicle...

Herer is part Two guys, enjoy!

I can recognize 3100, and 3400 engines by rev and start up... I can usually recognise the dodge 3.3 in the vans from rev I recognize civics by startup and rev.... hmm....thats pretty much it? I think?

I think it's plastic...I touched it at the show and it didnt exactly feel paint smooth....

does anybody have any idea whats going to be there and when?

wow...so without SAB's it gets a one?

ha that would definatley be awesome! I'm sure i'll let everyone know if it happens!

Dont worry man, I was the same way when the century went 3100, 31000 miles and when if it turns 310 000, i'm sure i'll get a grin out of it.

Why dont they make the base engine on the ltz the 3.5 or something and offer 3.6 on it... whether real world it's 28 or 26, not everyone wants the 3.6's power or mileage....thats just highway, I cant wait to hear the city mileage. I dont know why everyone says ohv's are rough. On the Century, as soon as the engine is warmed up (gm being cheap, stupid piston slap) you can barely tell that it's on. Sure some of it is sound deadening, but hell, thats where it maters, inside the car. I dont mind the roar's it gives out when you really get on it either, thats the awesome part!

Yeah if you've got no license or are underaged you shouldnt have been at the wheel in the first place. Sure you made the mistake, but I agree with Croc, poor judgement on his part. Hope everything works out for you though...

my eyes are melting! god that black plastic looks horiffic, hell it doesnt even look as tight fit and fininsh wise as a painted one, for the love of god...and those rims!