
Click image for a gallery of 52 photos
With cars, first impressions carry a lot of influence. Bad first impression? Then it's on to the next candidate. But when a car connects at that first meeting, you're inclined to hang around a bit to see what else it has to offer. And so goes the story of my time with the Chevy Aveo.
The Aveo arrived after we spent a week with the luxurious and capable Cadillac SRX. To say that personally-held expectations regarding the rebadged Daewoo were low would be understating the matter. The previous generation, despite being a strong seller for GM, was stylistically uninspiring, and it would not have been the least bit surprising to find more of the same in the new one. Upon taking delivery of Autoblog's shiny blue loaner, we were taken aback. The Aveo, you see, makes quite a good first impression.
Make no mistake: this is not a car that will floor you with avant-garde looks. That said, the restyling it has undergone for the 2007 model year is very effective. The bland anonymity of the 1st-gen Aveo has been replaced by a new look that clearly and effectively defines it as a Chevy. The redesigned front end is quite good-looking -- particularly when you compare it to other cars in the econobox/sedan segment. It's definitely more attractive than its hometown (remember, the Aveo's Korean) rival, the Hyundai Accent. A chrome split-bar grille wears a prominent bowtie, clearly establishing the Aveo as a Chevy. Large headlights that sport a familial shape (think Cobalt) flank it, and the rest of the fascia is an all-body-color affair that ends with three cutouts below the bumper. The two on either end house fog/driving lights, a $110 option on our Aveo LT.
Continuing the walkaround, the car's side profile is pretty generic. Bulging wheel flares and an accent line that runs along the upper part of the body from the headlights to the taillamps help keep the car from looking overly slab-sided despite its high beltline. A second line runs along the lower half of the doors. There's no rub strip, interestingly enough. Cheap-looking black plastic inserts take the place of proper glass in the after portion of the rear windows, and the car's 15-inch five-spoke alloys look tiny against the rest of the body. The car's thick C-pillar extends deep into the rear decklid, and the tail end of the Aveo is dominated by a pair of oversized, tunerrific Altezza-style clear lamps, which are connected by a chrome accent strip like the ones seen on the rumps of numerous other Chevrolets.
Opening the door to inspect the Aveo's interior is another eyebrow-raising experience. The test car was outfitted with a very pleasant-looking tan cabin. The seats, upholstered with perforated leatherette faux hides (a $250 option), included a folding armrest for the driver. The leatherette made them look more expensive than they actually were, and the neutral color is also used on the doors and lower part of the dashboard. Woodgrain inserts act as a bridge from the lighter tone to the black plastic that make up the door panel tops and most of the dashboard. The instrument cluster is easy-to read and sensible, with semicircular units for the speedometer and tachometer, and smaller round fuel and temperature gauges set above and between them. The binnacle that surrounds it (as well as the rest of the upper dash surfaces) has a puckered, golf ball-like texture.
Audio and HVAC controls are a snap to use. Thoughtful touches include a flip-down eyeglass holder above the driver's window (this was immediately put to use). It should be noted that the eyeglass holder is flimsy-feeling (a small hinge is all that connects it to the roof), causing us to wonder what its lifespan will be under the rigors of daily use. Still, the interior's significantly more pleasant than we expected to see in a $15,000 car, and it keeps the Aveo from feeling like a total penalty box while you're sitting in rush hour traffic with the rest of the commuters.
Trunk space is rated at 12.4 cubic feet, and it seemed plenty spacious for a car of this size. It's got a bare-bones non-carpeted liner, and if you need to carry larger items, the rear seatbacks fold down to expose a good-sized pass-through to the interior of the car. As for other interior storage, it's lacking. There's the glove box, of course, but outside of that, you'll be relying on your pockets. There's no center console storage bin; instead, you make do with a shallow tray. The door pockets are pretty deep, though, and that's where we kept things like CDs and an MP3 player when not in use. The cupholders that pop out of the center stack are pathetic at best. Designed to hold shorter containers such as 12 oz. cans, they were useless for carrying the preferred travel coffee mug of your humble correspondent. Taller cups or bottles either resided at a dangerous angle, ready to fall out or spill at any moment (if they even fit in the first place). The back seat passengers get kind of shafted, too, as they're given a single cupholder at the trailing edge of the center console. That said, it's the best one in the car. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a reach from up front unless your name is Reed Richards.
In terms of comfort, front seat passengers are treated to plenty of headroom, a commodity that is curiously lacking in back, despite the car's tall-roof look. Forward seating is comfortable enough, but don't expect much in the way of lateral support. Moving to row two, both my father and I, neither of whom is in danger of cracking an NBA lineup, found that if we placed ourselves flush to the rear seat's backrest, our heads brushed the downward slope of the roof. My father also commented that he felt like the back seat's angle was too upright, though I must admit I didn't have a big issue with it. There was no serious problem with legroom behind the driver's seat, which was set to accommodate my 5' 9" frame, but I could see where things might get dicey for taller passengers (or folks sitting behind a taller driver).
Twist the ignition key and the 1.6L Ecotec buzzes to life. Rated at 103 horsepower, it's perfectly adequate for grocery-getter duty, and as a highway commuter it does fine, just don't expect any kind of stirring performance whatsoever. Multiple publications that have done instrumented testing on the new Aveo rate its 0-60 times at 11 seconds and change, and based on Autoblog's sophisticated seat-of-the-pants test regimen, that sounds right. Long on-ramps are your friend, as the Aveo carries on with great clamor and fury as the 1.6 winds itself up to highway speeds with very little in terms of rapid forward motion to show for it. Once it hits that pace, however, it handles highway duty in a businesslike, unexciting manner. Don't expect much, and you'll have no problem.
The same goes for the car's handling characteristics. It's quite responsive in local and highway driving, and speaking honestly, it's doubtful that the Aveo buyer is going to be actively exploring the car's dynamic limits. One thing our car wasn't equipped with that we'd gladly pony up the extra $400 for is ABS. It just seems like a no-brainer, and we'd happily forego things like the foglamps and leatherette seats to defray the additional cost if that's what it boiled down to. Over the full tank we went through during its time with us, the Aveo averaged right around 25 miles per gallon. It's EPA rating is 26/34, so the 25 we observed was actually a bit disappointing. Take it with a grain of salt, of course, as it's just one tank over one week, but still: this is, above all else, an economy car, and we expected better.
So, in the end, how does the Aveo shape up? Among the crop of economy sedans, it's pretty good-looking, quite well-equipped for the money ($15,025 as shown, including destination), and has good trunkspace. It's no great performer, but it's still a capable everyday runabout. Perhaps the biggest knock against the Aveo is that it's simply not very memorable. For many people shopping for basic transportation, this is most likely irrelevant. For us, it matters, and so despite the positive first impressions it made, the Aveo left us feeling indifferent at the end of the week. We didn't dislike it, but we didn't miss it when it left us, either.




All photos Copyright ©2007 Alex Núñez / Weblogs, Inc.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Bob-omb @ Mar 15th 2007 6:17PM
This is still, without question, the worst economy car on the market. Until Dodge starts selling those rebadged Chery's.
s0crates82 @ Mar 15th 2007 6:34PM
Yeah... my 2.5l 190hp 1994 BMW 325i automatic sedan gets 25mpg around town.
Why would I ever, Ever, EVER consider getting something like this? An anemic engine that isn't a fuel sipper? Crappy interior plastics? No rear headroom in a "tall car"?
Ridiculous.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 15th 2007 6:36PM
There's no way this is the worst economy car on the market, not as long as Mitsu offers the Lancer. It's complete crap, and it's even supposed to be class up from this thing.
iibbmm @ Mar 15th 2007 6:41PM
#2 -
Because it's in a completely different class and costs much less than your bmw did new? Because it has a better warranty. Because it's cheaper to insure. Because it has a lower cost of ownership... should I go on? Your comment is pure ignorance.
Jay @ Mar 15th 2007 6:52PM
Where exactly did you see crappy interior plastics, s0crates82 in this write-up?
Jay @ Mar 15th 2007 6:54PM
Gerry, the "American Revolution" compaign ended MONTHS ago, shut up, and move on please.
TSW @ Mar 15th 2007 6:55PM
#4, iibbmm,
It is in a completely different class than my BMW, it probably weighs half as much, and yes, it costs FAR less than the BMW did when it was new. I didn't buy my car new, though. I picked it up after depreciation worked it's magic.
Better warranty? Well, in my case, sure it does. Mine has no warranty - it probably expired a decade ago.
Cheaper to insure? I doubt it. If I was driving an M3, I'd have to agree, but come on, the 325i isn't known as a barn-stormer, and being 13 years old works wonders on the insurance premiums.
Lower cost of ownership? Don't know about that. I paid less for my BMW than half of the sticker of the Aveo, I do all my own maintenance, and, apparently, get better gas mileage.
Who's post is ignorant, now?
It would appear that the solution to this problem is to buy old cars with good track records rather than waste money on new ones with garbage engines because they're inappropriately labeled "economy cars". Or, better yet, buy a Honda Fit, or a Nissan Versa... or save up for the upcoming Ford "B" class car. This Aveo looks like it's terrible value for the dollar.
TSW @ Mar 15th 2007 6:59PM
#6, Jay,
"It should be noted that the eyeglass holder is flimsy-feeling (a small hinge is all that connects it to the roof), causing us to wonder what its lifespan will be under the rigors of daily use."
"The cupholders that pop out of the center stack are pathetic at best. Designed to hold shorter containers such as 12 oz. cans, they were useless for carrying the preferred travel coffee mug of your humble correspondent. Taller cups or bottles either resided at a dangerous angle, ready to fall out or spill at any moment (if they even fit in the first place). The back seat passengers get kind of shafted, too, as they're given a single cupholder at the trailing edge of the center console. That said, it's the best one in the car. "
... those crappy plastics. The dimpled texture on the dash sounds nice, but it seems like the parts of the car that you're actually going to be touching on a daily basis don't have a quality feel to them.
TSW @ Mar 15th 2007 7:02PM
Hmph. TSW = s0crates82. Please forgive the confusion: it's something to do with using password rather than email confirmation.
Spule 4 @ Mar 15th 2007 7:06PM
#5, GM is a majority shareholder in Daewoo and the company is named GM Daewoo Auto and Technology. So technically it is a GM built car.
Our last three GM cars (two Pontiacs and one Chevrolet) were all built in Canada BTW. (And the Toyota and Subaru were built in the USA.)
Max @ Mar 15th 2007 7:07PM
With the incentives Chevy has on the HHR or Cobalt ($2k and $1500 respectively,) you could get a larger, more practical vehicle for about $1,000 more than this crummy car.
mjd4277 @ Mar 15th 2007 7:39PM
It certainly looks better than previously. Plus it gives the Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio a run for their money. In a day and age where gas prices are rapidly approaching $3.00 dollars a gallon,cars like this one are certainly appreciated. Not bad for basic transportation needs.Definately a worthy replacement for the Chevy/Geo Metro.
iibbmm @ Mar 15th 2007 8:38PM
TSW -
Most people DON'T work on their own cars, and would rather have a warranty. Cars in this class are intended for people who don't want to spend a lot on a car, but want a warranty and decent economy. I don't see any real negatives to the aveo and I still think comparing it to a 13 year old used bmw is pure idiocy.
geo.stewart @ Mar 15th 2007 9:13PM
just saw these at the Atl Auto Show. All comments were that this was a far better buy than the Accent, Rio, Suzuki ?Reno?. Better presentation,much cleaner interior. Better than Fit, Yaris, or Versa. probably not, but you can probably get into one for a bit less and at this price point, a $1500 is $25-30/month or 10% of price. not necessarily inconsiderable amount in this range.
Brian @ Mar 15th 2007 9:14PM
I replaced a 2004 Chevy Aveo ($8,500 new) with a 2006 Honda Civic LX ($16,000 new). Both averaged 25mpg around town, both averaged about 38mpg on long trips.
The Aveo was actually the most reliable (ZERO problems) car I ever owned, if it hadn't been totalled, I'd still have it.
And one was a MUCH better deal up front...
Thomas Perry @ Mar 15th 2007 9:19PM
Really you have to look at build cost vs. gas prices. To put a more economic engine into the car designed for better gas mph may have cost 1-2 million extra to tool up a plant to increase production. Using a different transmission may have required retooling a line. Those are the types of costs that we aren't able to compare. It may have added several thousand dollars to the car to retool and create a better mpg car.
We arn't able to understand why, but instead just have a final products and must evaluate it on the merits. You never know, going from a one star crash test to a three star may have cost 400 pounds in weight.
geo.stewart @ Mar 15th 2007 9:39PM
the 25mpg will probably get better as the engine breaks in. Every car I have had, except my VW, has gotten better gas mileage by 3-4mpg after the first 1000 miles or so.
Stoneman @ Mar 15th 2007 10:26PM
I was going to not comment on this article, but I thought I would because I drove the 2006 Aveo last year. How do I put it? For a cheap car, it does what it does. And what did it do to me? Torture me to death. There was no right-arm rest in the car, and it looks like Chevy got it right this time. However, the cheap looking wood tone has got to go.
Note to general motors: WHY do you insist on making ABS an OPTION when the majority of your competitors include it as a STANDARD item, and, dare I say it, even include electronic brake force distribution?
Pathetic.
I picked up my new 2007 Impreza Sedan today, and yes, it gets 23 mpg but it kicks ass. (I also drove a WRX Sti today too, but that's another story !!!!)
Stoneman
http://www.stonemanautoreview.com
MrMorix @ Mar 15th 2007 11:07PM
Spule 4
Those Toyota's and Subarus may have been built here in the US but that doesn't mean the money spent to purchase them is being recycled into our economy. That money is going back to their country to pump up Japan's economy.
If I were born in Canada and my parents are Americans and I decide I want to live in the US does that make me Canadian?
Tom Castle @ Mar 16th 2007 12:25AM
Mr Morix -
You are flat wrong. The ONLY thing Japanese manufacturers can do with US dollars is buy US goods or sell them to somebody else for yen, who will buy US goods. By definition US dollars are part of the US economy no matter where they reside. When I pay Subaru $28k for a Forester XT, what do you think they do with those US dollars? Burn them?