GM makes Aveo more appealing
- Thread starter Joey D
- 92 comments
- 3,022 views
- 2,767
BlazinXtreme
These were examples where GM tries to copy a successul new concept from the competition, which is harder to find than just a good design IMO. Almost everyone does it, and It's fine with me.
For every model launched, It's becoming very hard not to find any similarity with existing models. The rear of the sonata to me is an Accord with a much needed buttlift... and I don't have any issues with it, as long as it isn't as blatant as with Chinese cars:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,476
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Tiburon front end looks a lot like a Supra in my opinion. And yes if the ass end of the Sonata looked any more like an Accord I would have to replace the H logo on it with a more fitting one.
I can't argue that, so I won't. There case settled.
- 1,759
It doesn't look that bad. I like it more than it predescessor but its still just an economy car.
- 40,841
Maybe KIA raised the price on me. Whatever, let's end the Korean vs. GM quality arguement. The main question is, can GM move enough of these to save the company (as they obviously developed them to do, as GM doesn't have the Cavalier anymore to sell by the hundred thousands anymore).BlazinXtreme
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
I still dont know if I can trust a re-badged Daewoo to compete against the Yaris, Fit/Jazz, Scion xA and xB, or even the updated Rio/Accent Twins.
I have to admit that the Yaris is a pretty appealing vehicle despite my slight hatred of Toyotas, and the Fit/Jazz seems to be more of a spiritual replacement of the older Civic than the piece of junk they sell now...
I have to admit that the Yaris is a pretty appealing vehicle despite my slight hatred of Toyotas, and the Fit/Jazz seems to be more of a spiritual replacement of the older Civic than the piece of junk they sell now...
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
BlazinXtreme
Two reasons why GM won't sell Holdens here:
1) GM's US car model lineup would get creamated in sales if these Holdens were at the same price point. Holdens have so much better looking cars.
2) The cost associated with importing them and "fitting them" with American BS would put the cost over similar competitive American models--which nullifies reason #1.
I say GM scraps any US-born car and just imports better formats from it's EU/AU markets and LIMITS what they change to them...I'm sick of all this nannifying the US automakers do and this rediculous "company brand front end" STAMPED on the front of EVERY car is retarded. Dodge does it, Ford does it, and GM does it (not as bad as the other 2). In contrast so does a few Japanese automakers...*cough*Subaru*cough*.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Poverty
Can't believe no one has replied to this... I would seriously like to know where I can buy a 200 hp car that will get 35+ mpg in traffic. I'll buy it even if it looks like a turd.
BlazinXtreme
That's pretty much the same way people feel about Daewoo. And seeing their total and utter crash in the car market a few years back kind of reinforced the feeling. I personally think the first generation Aveo and Optra/Forenza were a mistake, as it transferred some of that stigma to Chevy in the overseas market.
Now this car is where they should have started from... a completely clean break from Daewoo in terms of looks. But I still think they should stick a Suzuki lump under the hood.
IMHO, GM doesn't use Suzuki enough. They have some pretty good small displacement plants between 1.3 and 2.0, that would have been swell in their "Chevy" Aveo and Optra/ Suzuki Forenza. Apparently the 1.5 and 1.8-2.0 Daewoo lumps are okay, but the 1.6 is total crap. Too bad GM was constrained in engine choice by the facilities available at the Daewoo factories... but now that they're going into full gear, there's no excuse.
I reckon this car should sell well. They just need to improve build quality and after sales support in the target markets.
- 3,603
JCE3000GT
This may be contaversial, but I think Toyota does it too, with their floaty-roundy "Bubble" styling. The epitomy of bland.
And the new Yaris - hate it! Ugly as sin, and too lazy to even rename it for North America.
About the 100hp/35MPG thing, you can't expect much more out of it. Think about it, you'd have that thing floored all the time if you are even slightly enthusiastic about driving, so how can you expect good mileage? You are on the gas much more to keep up with traffic. In a more powerful car, you are not into the gas as much and thus get better mileage, although not necessarily matching that of the smaller engine. Of course, if you drive like a senior then you will naturally get better mileage.
- 1,929
Is it any better having so many different front ends sprinkled around?
The Focus and Five Hundred have the same chopped oval thing, and the Freestyle has the last Explorer front end. There's a new 'crossover' in the works that has the Fusion's 3 bar dealie. Most of their new trucks and SUVs have that \\==// thing that they stole from Saab.
The GT, Mustang, and Thunderbird should be excused, because they were designed ~40 years ago, before such things were a concern
(same with the Crown Vic, though it hasn't quite been 4 decades since it was restyled yet 
)
The Focus and Five Hundred have the same chopped oval thing, and the Freestyle has the last Explorer front end. There's a new 'crossover' in the works that has the Fusion's 3 bar dealie. Most of their new trucks and SUVs have that \\==// thing that they stole from Saab.
The GT, Mustang, and Thunderbird should be excused, because they were designed ~40 years ago, before such things were a concern
(same with the Crown Vic, though it hasn't quite been 4 decades since it was restyled yet )
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
I don't know if it's any better, but I'm not a fan of the trend either. You are probably right about the trucks/suvs. Regarding Ford cars, all I was saying was I don't see any extra uniformed look from their cars. Basically, Focus and 500 look similar, but I think that's about it.
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Quite alot of cars get over or around 35mpg with around 200hp.
First up are the Audi's with their 2.0T FSI engines which gets up to 46mpg in the A3 at 197hp.
The Volvo 2.4T unit gets up to 44.1 mpg at 220hp.
BMW 325i at 215hp gets up to 45.6 mpg.
And these are all petroel. Some diesel examples are:
Audi A6 2.7TDI gets 180hp at 51.4 mpg.
BMW 330D gets 231hp and 370lbft of torque at 54.5 mpg
Mercedes c320cdi has 224 hp and 306lbft of torque whilst still getting 47.9mpg.
Instead of getting the aveo id get a renault clio 1.4 with 99hp yet it returning 54.3mpg.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Where the heck do you get your figures from?!?!?
Audi A3 TFSi - 24/31 - city/highway
Volvo S40 2.5 T5 - 22/31 - And that's manufacturer's figures. Volvos are notoriously thirsty when you stick your foot to the floor. Oh, the 2.4 doesn't get a turbo, and maxes out at 29 mpg highway.
BMW 325i - 21/30 - at lowest trim level
As for the diesels:
A6 2.7 TDi - 39.8 *
BMW 330d (2005) - 42.2 *
Mercedes C320 CDi (2005) - 27/37 - city/highway
Note that these are EPA figures, except for the Audi and BMW, which aren't sold in those trims stateside... yet. In general use, all of these cars will drink a lot more gas... EPA figures tend to be optimistic.
Granted, some of those figures are attainable with economy-style driving, but then, I know a guy who got 100 mpg out of a 1.7 Civic... automatic in an economy challenge (heck, I've done 60 mpg in a 1.3). But for daily commuting, I seriously doubt any of these luxury cars will get better than 25 mpg in city traffic.
While the diesels may get higher figures, take note that diesels in general get better mileage than gas-powered cars.
And the extra cost-of-purchase for any of the cars you mentioned would pay for a nice turbo kit, suspension upgrade and about, oh, five to ten years worth of gas for a subcompact.
Granted, the Aveo is nowhere near as good as the Honda Jazz/Fit or the Toyota Echo/Yaris in terms of fuel economy, but please, don't be ridiculous.
Audi A3 TFSi - 24/31 - city/highway
Volvo S40 2.5 T5 - 22/31 - And that's manufacturer's figures. Volvos are notoriously thirsty when you stick your foot to the floor. Oh, the 2.4 doesn't get a turbo, and maxes out at 29 mpg highway.
BMW 325i - 21/30 - at lowest trim level
As for the diesels:
A6 2.7 TDi - 39.8 *
BMW 330d (2005) - 42.2 *
Mercedes C320 CDi (2005) - 27/37 - city/highway
Note that these are EPA figures, except for the Audi and BMW, which aren't sold in those trims stateside... yet. In general use, all of these cars will drink a lot more gas... EPA figures tend to be optimistic.
Granted, some of those figures are attainable with economy-style driving, but then, I know a guy who got 100 mpg out of a 1.7 Civic... automatic in an economy challenge (heck, I've done 60 mpg in a 1.3). But for daily commuting, I seriously doubt any of these luxury cars will get better than 25 mpg in city traffic.
While the diesels may get higher figures, take note that diesels in general get better mileage than gas-powered cars.
And the extra cost-of-purchase for any of the cars you mentioned would pay for a nice turbo kit, suspension upgrade and about, oh, five to ten years worth of gas for a subcompact.
Granted, the Aveo is nowhere near as good as the Honda Jazz/Fit or the Toyota Echo/Yaris in terms of fuel economy, but please, don't be ridiculous.
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Well we obviously have a conflict of sources here. What I stated was the extra urban mpg straight off the whatcar.com website which is a highly decorated publication. What you posted where the urban mpg. As for the stated mpg of the aveo Id take a guess that the figures that GM released where combined mpg. Each of the cars I posted where just above the 35mpg or just below the 35mpg combined mpg mark. Effectively both of us sneakily tried to manipulate our data for our own benefit.
Yes that all very nice but they are different cars made for different agendas. The subcompact is meant to have cheap running costs which includes high mileage per gallon. All I did was show you that these luxury executives manage the same or if not better mpg at double the horsepower whilst weighing alot more than the sub compact proving the inadequency of its engine. Hence I also posted a better alternative to the aveo in the form of the clio. For its segment the average subcompact should get around 45mpg and class leaders get up to 60 mpg extra urban.
As for turbocharging the aveos engine you would spend atleast $10,000 to just get it up to 250hp reliably and it would still be small and cramped and not a very good handler. For $400 you could chip some of those executives to boost the power up to 250hp and still have a smooth ride and good fuel economy which a tuned up aveo wouldnt have.
Yes that all very nice but they are different cars made for different agendas. The subcompact is meant to have cheap running costs which includes high mileage per gallon. All I did was show you that these luxury executives manage the same or if not better mpg at double the horsepower whilst weighing alot more than the sub compact proving the inadequency of its engine. Hence I also posted a better alternative to the aveo in the form of the clio. For its segment the average subcompact should get around 45mpg and class leaders get up to 60 mpg extra urban.
As for turbocharging the aveos engine you would spend atleast $10,000 to just get it up to 250hp reliably and it would still be small and cramped and not a very good handler. For $400 you could chip some of those executives to boost the power up to 250hp and still have a smooth ride and good fuel economy which a tuned up aveo wouldnt have.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,476
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
GM didn't lie about the mpg and they weren't combined, it was 35 mpg highway, which is typically the figure that is released when they are marketing a new car.
Also 35 mpg out of a 250hp car is damn near impossible, more power = more fuel.
What the hell kind of sub compacts are you looking at? Most get around 35-40 mpg.
- 23,800
- Philippines
I do not manipulate figures. I merely report them.
I'm beginning to see the problem here. Chevy's numbers are per EPA testing using US Gallons, whilst EC testing uses the UK Gallon, which is 1.2 times the size of the US Gallon.
36 mpg US is 14 km/l. 36 mpg UK is 12.7 km/l. Plus the US EPA and UK EC testing are non-equal, with different testing regimens. In US EPA, testing, for example, the A3 Sportback does get 24/30. In the same regimen, the Chevy Aveo gets 36 (14 km/l). As I check this, I see that the Jazz 1.4 (which is officially rated at 14 km/l extra-urban) gets an EC score of 39/55. (14/19.5)
Sorry for arguing, but I just had to clear that misconception up. Until I looked this up, I didn't know there was an EC testing regimen. Strange how everyone harps that the EPA figures are way too high... the EC figures are just astoundingly... optimistic.
Most everyone here uses the EPA figures. EPA urban numbers are generally considered to be representative of real-world mixed driving mileage.
I'm beginning to see the problem here. Chevy's numbers are per EPA testing using US Gallons, whilst EC testing uses the UK Gallon, which is 1.2 times the size of the US Gallon.
36 mpg US is 14 km/l. 36 mpg UK is 12.7 km/l. Plus the US EPA and UK EC testing are non-equal, with different testing regimens. In US EPA, testing, for example, the A3 Sportback does get 24/30. In the same regimen, the Chevy Aveo gets 36 (14 km/l). As I check this, I see that the Jazz 1.4 (which is officially rated at 14 km/l extra-urban) gets an EC score of 39/55. (14/19.5)
Sorry for arguing, but I just had to clear that misconception up. Until I looked this up, I didn't know there was an EC testing regimen. Strange how everyone harps that the EPA figures are way too high... the EC figures are just astoundingly... optimistic.
Most everyone here uses the EPA figures. EPA urban numbers are generally considered to be representative of real-world mixed driving mileage.
- 1,929
Just a matter of opiniona6m5
.I like their rendition of the Saab front end, and I really hate the chopped oval on the Five Hundred and 1st-and-a-half generation Focus.
As for Dodge, I like the front end on the Magnum and Charger, the Neon and Durango are alright, and I liked the last revision of the Ram better, but the Caliber looks hidious. So, I think they'd do well to stop emphasizing the + thing so much, but for the most part it looks alright. Better then Chevy's 'bar with the bowtie in it', anyway.
(Almost on topic there
)Similar threads
