Mosin

Now ford has a competitor : Fiesta 1.6 Ltr 40 mpg
We are yet to hear from Honda and Toyota

Again was reading on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Precept

80 mpg car from GM and GM quit project saying “Nobody will buy it”. Now really if GM need to be a winner they have to make it. Min of 52+ mpg is needed to be a winner cruze

Noel Park: #73I dunno, I could see 40 mpg highway. I mean, they get 37 out of the Cobalt xfe, right? And this has to be a more efficient package than any Cobalt. My problem is the city and the combined. That’s where they fall down historically, so of course they never advertise it. Sorry to keep belaboring this, but it’s a real pet peeve with me.Yeah, it’s gonna be tough. Plus, Honda could probably spring a new Civic at just the wrong time. Still, it’s a big step forward from the Cobalt, so I am hoping for the best.  (Quote)

Lyle’s post today sheds some light on the curb weight:

“The car felt very solid and well balanced. The uniquely low center of gravity due to the four hundred pound battery in the center gave a notably beneficial hugging of the ground. Yet the car felt light and spry, the power steering was perfectly tuned and the car handled wonderfully. Farah all but admitted the car weighed 400 pounds more than a Cruze, or about 3500 pounds. He wants it to be lighter and there are plans to make it so for the next generation.”

That puts the Cruze at about 3100 lbs. The Corolla has a 10% edge and the Civic is even lighter. 40 MPG seems awfully optimistic. City mileage is not likely to impress.

And Edmunds says there’s a new Civic on the way for Fall, 2010.

—

dwwbkw,

My mechanic says that turbos haven’t been noticeably more troublesome than regular engines since the early ones, especially the Saabs of the ’80′s.

I spoke with a GM engineer familiar with the program sometime last year and asked if the 1.4L would be direct injection. He said no. I assume that has not changed. I’m sure that is due to cost as well…and hopefully once they get the cost down, they will upgrade the 1.4L version to direct injection which will provide improved gas mileage and better power/performance. The only downside is cost with direct injection.

Now, if they’d just offer an AWD version that got 35+ mpg I’d be a happy camper.

dwwbkw: I wonder about the reliability of the 1.4 liter turbo vs. that of the normally aspirated 1.8 liter engine. I’ve heard that turbo engines require more service because of the wear on the turbo parts and higher pressures used in the engines. Is that true? Are turbos getting more reliable? Although my current car has a turbo engine, and it gives good hghway mileage, I also have a 50,000 mile, 4 year warranty that covers the cost of maintenance. So I tend to baby the car, which is really a . I’d rather have a volt because it should provide a better balance between reliability and performance. And I don’t have to buy gas if I don’t need to!