JT64

2008 curb weights and mpg for most fuel efficient engine (usually smallest), automatic:

Compass ...................3071 lb, 23/27/24 mpg

Patriot .......................3108 lb, 23/27/24 mpg

Rav4 .........................3300 lb, 21/27/23 mpg

CR-V .........................3389 lb, 20/27/23 mpg

Forester .....................3140 lb, 20/26/22 mpg

Tucson .......................3240 lb, 19/25/22 mpg

Escape/Mariner/Tribute 3272 lb, 20/26/22 mpg

Vue 2.4 L ..................3825 lb, 19/26/22 mpg

Sportage ....................3230 lb, 19/25/21 mpg

Outlander ...................3427 lb, 17/25/20 mpg

Grand Vitara ...............3452 lb, 17/22/19 mpg

Vue 3.5 L .......................? lb, 16/24/19 mpg

Vue 3.6 L ..................4076 lb, 16/23/19 mpg

Vue 3.6 L, AWD ...........4325 lb, ? mpg

Torrent/Equinox ..........3660 lb, 16/24/19 mpg

XL7 ............................4094 lb, 16/22/18 mpg

Highlander ..................3516 lb, 19/25/22 mpg

Santa Fe 2.7L ..............3549 lb, 18/24/21 mpg

Murano .......................3851 lb, 18/23/20 mpg Premium optional

CX-7 ..........................3670 lb, 17/22/19 mpg Premium only

Edge ...........................4086 lb, 16/23/19 mpg

Pacifica .......................4337 lb, 16/23/18 mpg

Nitro ...........................3871 lb, 16/22/18 mpg

Tribeca ........................4139 lb, 16/21/18 mpg

Acadia .........................4720 lb, 16/24/19 mpg

Outlook .......................4722 lb, 16/24/19 mpg

Enclave .......................4780 lb, 16/24/19 mpg

Veracruz ......................4266 lb, 16/23/18 mpg

Pilot ............................4264 lb, 16/22/18 mpg

CX-9 ...........................4316 lb, 16/22/18 mpg

4Runner ......................4045 lb, 16/21/18 mpg

Pathfinder ...................4427 lb, 15/22/17 mpg

Trailblazer 5.3 L ...........4356 lb, 14/20/17 mpg

Explorer ......................4460 lb, 14/20/16 mpg

Suburban .....................5607 lb, 14/20/16 mpg

Aspen 5.7 L ..................4866 lb, 13/19/15 mpg

Sequoia .......................5100 lb, 14/17/15 mpg

Expedition ................... 5578 lb, 12/18/15 mpg

Armada ........................5302 lb, 12/18/14 mpg

Excursion (2005) ...........6650 lb, ?

The Vue's styling inside and out is #1 in the small crossover category.

The Vue is available with a 2.4L, 164 hp I4.

But how fast can 164 hp pull 3,825 lb?

Is saving 5 mpg between a Rav4 and a CX-9 worth buying a smaller vehicle?

At $3.00 / gallon, 15,000 miles, you will save 181 gallons (833 gal - 652 gal), or $543.48 each year in gas.

As a compassionate environmentalist, you save the environment by 21.7% (181 gal / 833 gal).

Yes I looked up the data just for the hell of it. Curiousity will kill me...

www.autochannel.com

and

www.fueleconomy.gov

I hope the government doesn't kill me for promoting larger vehicles.

Just for kicks:

Highlander Hybrid ..........4015 lb, 28/25/26 mpg

Escape Hybrid ...............3638 lb, 34/30/32 mpg

Vue Hybrid ...................3207 lb, 23/29/26 mpg

Camry Hybrid ...............3680 lb, 33/34/34 mpg

Aura Green Line ............3528 lb, 24/32/27 mpg

Accord Hybrid ...............3605 lb, 24/32/27 mpg

Prius ............................2932 lb, 48/45/46 mpg

Civic Hybrid ..................2875 lb, 40/45/42 mpg

Yaris .............................2290 lb, 29/35/31 mpg

Fit .................................2432 lb, 27/35/30 mpg

Between the CX-9 and Prius, you save 507 gallons (833 gal - 326 gal), or $1,521.74!

If you're not gonna have crazy monkey sex on the dash and judge the car on its merits besides the interior materials, you'll find that it is a good car.

I thought that's what a Dodge guy would want to do.

You mean I have to go with an Altima to get that?

no $h! you have poor crash performance in a roofless car. geez.

Where did this come from? This report says convertibles have GOOD crash performance.

As good as roofed sedans.

The G6 has problems unrelated to being a convertible.

I think this article is too long for many of us to read at the end of the day... nobody actually read it.

Looks pretty nice on the road.

I've seen maybe 5 or 6 already.

I prefer the Sebring though.

In summary the 2008 G6 should get Good/Good/Marginal.

Easy fixes, if GM fixes them. The seat definitely. The airbag maybe.

You would think the G6 would be just as safe being on the safe platform, but perhaps the longer wheelbase is worse for side-impact crashes.

You could read the article.

Or wait for some fool like me to come extract the information for you.

"The G6 is equipped with optional side airbags designed to protect the torsos but not the heads of front-seat occupants. In the side test, the driver dummy's head struck the windowsill. This caused a high head acceleration. In a real-world crash of similar severity, a serious skull fracture and brain injuries would be possible. A taller person's head also might be struck by the hood of an oncoming SUV or pickup."

No side head airbag. The G6 driver will die.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=772

Yes side head airbag. The 9-3 driver wishes the G6 driver had more money so he could have bought a 9-3.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=771

What I don't get is that the G6 gets a worse frontal impact rating than the Saab.

You could read the article.

Or wait for some fool like me to come extract the information for you.

"The structure of the Pontiac G6's occupant compartment held up well during the frontal test, but there was a problem with the driver seat. It came loose on one of its tracks and moved forward 4 inches on the left side. The dummy's head slid around the left side of the airbag and hit the instrument panel."

The seat mount is bad. The chassis is fine.

the seat twisted and threw the dummy into the center console. Fix the seat and the G6 gets a "Good".

What an engine with auto-shutoff for accessory drive would be good for are:

1. taxi drivers with extensive idling.

2. university students who sleep and study in their car, because they don't live on campus.

It's actually a nice little feature, if it didn't cost as much extra as the this car.

Better yet, read the comments in their own forum to get an accurate glimpse of this car...

Clicky

An actual owner in the forum said he got 24 mpg, and he suggests GM bring over diesels.

Which makes the Car and Driver review pretty accurate, if not a little harsh in their choice of words.

But hey, they had to make their article entertaining.

Just admit this half "hybrid" is nonsense.

The upcoming GM/Chrysler/BMW Two-mode hybrid will be what hybrids are suppose to be.

GM should have marketed this "hybrid" as "2.4L ecotec, with auto-shutoff". Not call it a "hybrid".

like I said, it's not as detailed as the big companies.

The other vehicles' sales are probably 3 or 2 digits.

There's not much spin doctoring, it's obvious what the other units' sales are.

This is the way Mercedes, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Porsche post their sales. Highlights only.

Mercedes would be the most questionable, since they're the highest volume.

When the Mercedes CL posts 3 digits, they proclaim it a runaway sucess. but it does cost $100,000+.

As if it's important. Mitsubishi sells 1/55th as many cars as GM, employes 1/8th the number of people as GM, and makes more money than GM.

The Lancer GTS has made it onto my test drive list for when I eventually get around to getting a new car. The only thing that would push me to a Cobalt Sport is if the Lancer's 152hp mated with a 5-spd just can't cut it performance-wise. The Lancer GTS is already a better looking car with a nicer interior and better standard features than a Cobalt Sport (current SS).

The only thing the Cobalt has over it is the 170hp 2.4L engine. At least for $18k, which is how much the GTS trim costs.

It's pretty clear Mitsubishi is going to drop a higher horsepower engine into the Lancer... so you should probably wait, plus avoid the early production squeak and rattles.

Motorweek did 25 mpg in the 2008 Lancer, so it's a compact guzzler like the Mazda3, with its ~150 hp engine.

Motorweek did 7.7 sec 0-60 in both the Mazda3 s and the Lancer GTS.

Car and Driver did

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12843...than-20000.html

Lancer ....152 hp 7.8 sec

Civic .......140 hp 7.7 sec

Mazda3 s 156 hp 7.3 sec

Cobalt ....173 hp 7.1 sec

But Mitsubishi MSRPs do look unreasonably expensive to me. If Mitsubishi wants to charge more for a larger engine, it's time to move on to a different brand.

At these ridiculous prices and poor mpg (excluding the Civic), I'd get a $18k base model Altima that has 175 hp and 0-60 in 7.2 seconds.

Let me sum it up this way - I'll give Mitsubishi credit when their monthly sales figure press releases show actual figures, not specious percentages. ECLIPSE SPYDER SALES UP 147%! OUTLANDER RECORDS BEST MAY EVER! Meaningless without real figures, which are obviously too embarassing to publish.

Flybrian what the crap are you talking about.

The press release at the top of the page does use actual sales numbers.

Mitsubishi posts their numbers, as all car companies do.

It's not the most detailed, but it's more detailed than Mercedes-Benz.

http://media.mitsubishicars.com/Releases

April 2007

Mitsubishi total 12,047

Lancer ............. 3,860

Outlander ........ 2,047

Endeavor ..........1,375

In March,

Eclipse ...............2,613

Eclipse Spyder ....1,302

For comparison of the bottom feeders,

Hyundai .....39,137

Pontiac ......26,346

Kia ............26,007

Mazda .......21,060

Saturn .......19,977

VW ............19,086

Mercury.. ...17,481

Subaru .....13,786

Buick .........13,234

Mitsubishi .12,047

Suzuki .........9,179

Isuzu ..........1,059

Surprisingly, Mitsubishi did make 8.7 billion yen, or $71.4 million USD for fiscal year 2006.

... same language people are using to describe toyota.

toyota will only work with others, if it benefits them the most.

The USA will only work with others, if USA comes out #1.

Yes we want the world to be capitalist, but as long as we're better than you, and you serve us.

The USA helps other countries, but keeps them down at the same time. .. reason for hate?

In the first pages of the magazine, Consumer Reports describes their methodology.

The population sampled is "Consumer Reports subscribers".

So the reports are skewed with some sampling bias.

You pay for a subscription to have your opinion counted.

In which way that affects the results, I am not too sure.

Presumably the sampling population would be upper middle class and up, leaving out the lower class and lower middle class, who would probably not subscribe to Consumer Reports.

But that probably wouldn't give Mercedes-Benz results any bias, since few poor families would own MB's.

At most there would be a smaller sample for Ford, Chevy, and Dodge.

Super rich people would probably also be absent, as they may not care about getting the most for their money.

Since MB is the most expensive brand of full line mass produced vehicles, the MB owners in the sample may be pickier than the whole population of MB owners.

This bias would lower the MB scores somewhat, as other brands may have more "non-picky owners" that automatically give good marks.

And the good thing is SRX still finished second compared to the Germans and others. Not bad for an aging platform and design.

If only the SRX didn't get straight black marks (worst reliability) in all areas from Consume Reports, for 2004-2005 model years.

I want to know what exactly about the SRX caused it to get straight black marks in all categories of reliability.

The MDX is the king of midsized SUV/Crossovers, according to Car and Driver.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12...uxury-suvs.html

Whereas the RDX didn't achieve any special recognition, gets compared to the CX-7, and costs only $7,000 less than the MDX.

IIRC it's a robotized 5-speed manual with paddle shifter and an automatic mode, not a CVT.

So is it a DSG?

I can't find a single article on it, including even from any Toyota press releases.

The Japanese models are listed as using "Super CVT-i". Are they different from the Made in UK transmissions?

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environmen...ne/engine3.html

The Super CVT-i shows a torque converter, and belt driven.

Nice!

Cheap good looking cars!

Consumer wins!

General MOtors designs and ENGINEERS some of the models here (Equinox/Impala.)

The Equinox was engineered by you Canadians?

Candians have tarnished the image of the great General Motors for the last time!

Shut down that incompetent design studio!

well why don't you enroll me in remedial geography.

so yes Honda land is actually south of Jeep land.

Ohioans must be killing each other arguing over brand loyalty.

Think about the Ohioan children!

But only the Liberty/Nitro come out of Ohio.

GM gets cozy with Honda country.

Kind of surprising Toyota didn't take the title with the Rav4. Probably because Toyota has so many models in the same price range; FJ, 4Runner, and Highlander.

The CR-V is a bit ugly, and it doesn't have the most functional folding rear seats either. I thought its rear seats functionality sucked. It doesn't even fold flat.

Weird.

If the CR-V is flying, the Vue and Rogue should do well.

The Escape has no styling, and the Compass is unanimously bashed.

Equinox is too low budget to even compare. Badly designed storage pockets, cup holders that drip condensation to the storage bins below, featureless flat bench rear seats that were designed without a center arm rest, excessively narrow cargo area, giant turning circle, steering of a 1990's truck, and tipping on 2 wheels in NHTSA testing.

Only for the most price conscious shoppers. Hopefully the last of GM's pre-turnaround madness.

oops software bug?

Unless the same light bulb is used for turning and for daytime.

dull, but inoffensive and should continue to guarantee huge sales for toyota

Unlike the US, the Corolla is not a staple in Japan. So I don't know if it will have "huge sales" of any sort.

Toyota has a lineup of a bazillion models in Japan.

super old news from October, 2006.

See here for the international version.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...16617&st=20