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?

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

Higher fuel consumption vs the 80's couldn't have anything to do with the disgusting weight gain most cars have suffered.

↓↑report

...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?

↓↑report

...lightweight

↓↑report

Yes, light weight.

↓↑report

I'm with you guys--I drive a Miata after all. But apparently, the market disagrees.

↓↑report

Lightweight, without question.

Remember, light weight improves handling, and the safest accident is the one you didn't get in.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report

lightweight

I ride a motorcycle, ZERO safety.
ANY CAR is safer than a bike

↓↑report

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.

↓↑report