Soaring gas prices and tightening credit are currently pushing consumers into smaller, cheaper, more fuel efficient vehicles. However, due to past demand for high-powered, high capacity people haulers, the current economy car market consists of fairly slim pickings. Many great developments are on the horizon, but the high cost of new technologies and the lengthy wait time do not do much to help buyers today. That is why, in order to snag a larger market share of drivers trading in their big toys for small appliances, Chevrolet has reprogrammed the Cobalt to offer the best fuel economy in its class. The new 36 mpg number (up from 31) is the result of a few tweaks in engine mapping, lower roller resistance tires and perhaps some gearing adjustments. All LS and 1LT five speed manual transmission models ordered on or before March 17th will receive the fuel sipping changes. The vehicles will also be equipped with a distinguishing XFE badge, standing for Xtra Fuel Economy (although it would be more edgy if the X stood for Xtreme).
[Source: Autosavant]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
In the Autoblog Garage: Aprilia RSV 1000 R
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
speedball3 @ Apr 24th 2008 11:35AM
Odd.... kind of makes you wonder why they didn't do that in the first place.
Allan @ Apr 24th 2008 11:39AM
Because they didn't have to.
Not that they "have" to now, I'm sure. But with the recently announced CAFE goals, it's an even hotter topic than it already was. So what better time to announce the same car with a few "tweaks" that gets significantly better mileage and sell a few more units?
Dan @ Apr 24th 2008 11:44AM
Everything is a compromise.
Lower rolling resistance tires are a synonym for lower grip tires.
Engine mapping and gearing tweaks for mileage come at the expense of quick throttle response.
It also seems plausible that the electronic shift mapping and engine timing parameters were optimized to game the pre 2008 treadmill test, these changes are set up to game the 2008+ treadmill test instead, and the real world difference will be negligible.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 24th 2008 11:49AM
Because the lower gearing and lower resistance tires will mean lower skidpad numbers and worse 0-60 times.
A huge reason that vehicles get worse mpg than what they did in the 80s is because tires increased in width a lot and decreased tire pressures. It's not just more powerful motors that caused the problem, but the changes to increase performance in other ways.
Tool @ Apr 24th 2008 1:26PM
Does anyone remember that Bob Lutz said it would cost $5,000 per vehicle to make them more fuel efficient and less polluting? Hmmm.
I guess some good old-fashion American ingenuity could give you a 20% improvement.
Just imagine if the Detroit 3 could quit their bitching and just do it, they could probably find 15-25% improvements pretty easily.
Guenther @ Apr 24th 2008 2:44PM
Higher fuel consumption vs the 80's couldn't have anything to do with the disgusting weight gain most cars have suffered.
StickShift @ Apr 24th 2008 3:45PM
...most of which goes to reinforcing the structure and providing safety equipment so you don't die in a crash. What would you prefer--safety or light weight?
naggs @ Apr 24th 2008 3:49PM
...lightweight
gt2378b @ Apr 24th 2008 5:16PM
Yes, light weight.
StickShift @ Apr 24th 2008 5:24PM
I'm with you guys--I drive a Miata after all. But apparently, the market disagrees.
BigRedSpecial @ Apr 24th 2008 5:58PM
Lightweight, without question.
Remember, light weight improves handling, and the safest accident is the one you didn't get in.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 24th 2008 8:58PM
lightweight.
I've been driving and riding in cars for 35 years now and never been in an accident where all that extra bulk comes into play anyway. Whereas the lightweight would have been in play every day.
Derek @ Apr 24th 2008 11:02PM
another vote for lightweight. I'd rather have a nimble car that can avoid the accident in the first place!
Besides, if cars keep getting grossly fat like this, I'd probably just switch to two wheels, and I'm pretty sure that almost any car has better crash test results than a motorcycle.
Dave @ Apr 25th 2008 9:11AM
I like the idea as an option. The base model doesn't have to be the fastest compact car so why not an XFE for mileage. Though a bland car like the Corolla, the Cobalt is a pretty nice drive as is.
Most of us know that mpg can be increased by modifying the fuel injection for economy instead of the current trend for performance. No one wants to be left behind its competitor so that is why everyone wants to be at the top in the hp war.
Torrent @ Apr 27th 2008 6:04PM
The aveo should have an engine like this. The aveo's engine lacks power AND fuel efficency. That's one sucky engine, so if an engine like this was put in the aveo, sales would go up, and it wouldn't be on so many worst cars lists. Just my 2 cents.
CarbonBlack @ Apr 29th 2008 2:05AM
lightweight
I ride a motorcycle, ZERO safety.
ANY CAR is safer than a bike
tankd0g @ Apr 24th 2008 11:36AM
Electronic equivelant of a block of wood under the gas pedal?
remy @ Apr 24th 2008 11:37AM
good fuel mileage doesn't always mean nerfing the peak HP.
GOOD MOVE.
psarhjinian @ Apr 27th 2008 9:18PM
No, but it does usually mean dampening throttle response. If you've ever been in a sub-100hp European diesel, you'll note the 0-60 time of "eventually" that comes into play.
I drove a 1.0L Daihatsu through Germany recently (fifty eight horses, baby!). It was fine--slow, but totally adequate--and the mileage was surreal-good, but in this era of six-second Toyota Camrys, I think North Americans will have trouble with going back to 1980s performance levels.
chivyas @ Apr 24th 2008 11:38AM
Wonder what this will do to horsepower and torque ratings and 0-60. I would think it be ok as long as it was still within an acceptable range.