To most, the Smart Fortwo is the tiny little city car that you might see parked sideways on the street two to a spot or stuck in traffic somewhere around the city, but to EcoModders the Fortwo presents entirely different possibilities in terms of gas mileage.

The small car has a tiny body, 1.0 liter, 70 hp engine, and the ability to purchase a completely stripped down version. All of those things naturally appeal to EcoModders trying to get the best gas mileage out of a new car without buying a hybrid.

In this review I will go over some of the pros and cons of the Fortwo from a buyer’s perspective, and in a later post I will address some of the ecodriving tips that can be used to get the best gas mileage with the Smart Fortwo.

Fuel Economy (Pro)

My test drive took me around low speed, town, city, and highway driving of all sorts. I made an honest effort to ecodrive the Fortwo, but at the same time did not go easy on figuring out exactly how fast the car could accelerate from a stop. Overall, I would not say I ecodrove the car seriously. In fact, I wasn’t even using real-time fuel economy instrumentation, so I know it could be better.

Nevertheless, I was happy to see the 45.9 mpg result I got from my test drive. Smart’s critics in the U.S. tend to stick on the lack of diesel and the surprisingly low fuel economy rating for the car, so I wasn’t expecting much. However, the Smart Fortwo clearly gets impressive fuel economy by most standards, and has the potential for even better mileage in the right hands.

Definitely one of the car’s biggest pros.

Safety (Pro)

Smart knew it was going to have its work cut out for itself making the public think the Fortwo was safe despite its size. To do this, they made theFortwo  not only safer, but safer than average. The Fortwo has great front and side ratings, due primarily to the car’s ability to transfer impact forces around the cabin. You can see this tech on display in every Smart showroom and read crash survivor stories from Smart drivers here.

Drives Like an SUV (Pro)

The Fortwo is designed with high seating to give the driver a commanding view of the road. When driving the Fortwo I was sitting up higher than most sedan drivers and really felt quite a different driving experience than I am used to. For many drivers, especially those who like the high driving position for visibility, will think this is a huge plus for the Smart. It definitely gives it a much more commanding feel from the inside than you would expect seeing it from the outside.

Drives Like an SUV (Con)

However, depending on who you are, you might not like sitting so high up. For certain drivers this means feeling less connected to the road and a less pleasurable driving experience. Really, this is a personal thing. While I may prefer a lower ride for myself, I think most people will consider the ride height a pro.

Rear Visibility (Con)

The seats in the Fortwo have high backs, which means that the rear view mirror has to squeeze through a small opening to provide rear visibility. However, the rear view mirror does do a good job, and I wouldn’t consider it a problem. Unfortunately, there are the usual blind spots to the rear and sides that seem particularly difficult to surmount while driving the Smart. I am used to turning and checking what I can’t see with my mirrors, but this doesn’t work in the Fortwo and is a little disconcerting.

Easy Ingress & Egress (Pro)

Though I didn’t notice until it was pointed out to me by others, the Fortwo is quite a lot easier to get in and out of than most cars. The seats are at just the right height for the average person and made it easier for my grandfather and mother to comfortably get in and out of. The Fortwo strikes a good height balance between the typical sedan and SUV.

Tight, Hypersensitive Steering (Con)

While I am not usually one to complain about tight steering, the Smart Fortwo seemed a little twitchy to me. In regular, low-speed, city driving, this wasn’t any problem. In fact, I didn’t even notice this until I got on the highway, where at 60 mph I could feel the car moving around under me. Steering is something I am very picky about, but this still isn’t a deal-breaker, as the problem is quite minor.

Price (Con)

The Smart Fortwo I test drove sold for $15,000. When compared with a good deal on a Civic or Corolla, this seems like a lot. Especially for less seats and less options. You can get the Fortwo for as low at $12,000, but very, very few people actually buy the car at this price due to lack of options. This isn’t necessarily a budget car for someone trying to save a lot of money; it is more of a second car for a family commuting to work or adding another driver to the household.

Storage (Con)

During my test drive I had the good fortune of needing to haul a large box of scooter parts to the UPS store for shipping. However, it was quite a pain to get into the car. Even moving the passenger seat as far forward as I could, I couldn’t get it in the back. Smart has cleverly designed fold-flat front seats, so I was able to wedge the box in with the seat down. Even so, it still blocked all vision through the rear view mirror. My other car is also a two-seater, so I know what it is like to have to cram things in, but I could fit the box in my back hatch easily without obscuring my field of vision at all.

While the smart would make a good grocery-getter, I could never take it back and forth to college or to bicycle races as it doesn’t have the interior space for one cyclist and bike, let alone two of each. This may rule out the Fortwo as an only car for many active, outdoorsy types.

Engine Position (Pro)

Unlike most cars, you’ll find the engine in the rear hatch under the spot where you would normally put your groceries. It is easy to get to and all the normal fluids and things are easily accessible, making the sorts of everyday service you would prefer to do yourself quite easy, and even clean. No more messy engine compartments.

EcoDrivability (Pro)

More to come on this in a later post on how to get the best mileage from the Smart Fortwo, but the car definitely has the possibility to surpass the EPA’s fuel economy ratings when driven by the right person.

Automated Manual Transmission (Pro)

Unlike your common slushbox, the Smart Fortwo has an automated manual transmission that can be shifted by computer or manually with the gear selector or wheel-mounted paddle shifters. The paddle shifters may get a bit confusing if you like to shift while turning, but overall they make the driving experience much better. You can shift up earlier than you would ever expect in an auto and shift down early for engine braking. The transmission even disengages its auto-creep function when you are stopped at lights.

Transmission Gearing and Shifting (Con)

To get speed out of the Fortwo’s 1.0 liter, 70hp engine, the car has quite short gearing. This means revving up quickly and shifting often if you want to drive efficiently. There is also a quite pronounced lurch as the car makes it into second gear regardless of what rpm you are shifting at. This was the first thing I noticed about the car when I drove it and one of the biggest complaints I have heard from owners and test drivers.

Cool Factor (Pro)

During my test drive I got lots of looks. I was even stopped in a parking lot and asked about the car. It’s been out on the market for a while, but to most it is still a novel car. Lots of people like the sort of attention that the car garnishes, and if you really want to be on the cutting edge of eco-cool and small footprint driving, this car will give you that feeling.

Interior (Pro)

The Smart Fortwo has very nice fit and finish. The seats feel good and everything seems to be where it should be. The interior is definitely one of the things that would set the car apart from other vehicles with lower price points.

Accessories (Con)

Even though Smart’s wide range of accessories for customizing their cars may seem impressive, you get the opinion that buyers are getting nickel and dimed when it costs $75 for a fuel cover matching the paint of the rest of the car. Even more for a matching grille trim piece.

Overall: Thumbs up

I know I may sound pretty critical of the car, but if you don’t take a critical approach to things everyone would get a good review and there would be no way to tell the difference between the good and bad products. Nevertheless, Smart has put together a good car. It may not suit everyone and every purpose, but it has carved a niche for itself and it does a very good job in that position.

For more pictures, check out our high resolution Ford Fusion Hybrid gallery at the bottom of the post. Click on the images for bigger versions.

At the New York International Auto Show I got the opportunity to test drive both the 2011 Ford Fiesta and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and check out their gas mileage. The Ford Fiesta test drive went well, and I was very impressed with the small car’s feel and performance. Next up was the Ford Fusion Hybrid, the Fiesta’s larger, more expensive sibling.

When the car was release at the LA Auto Show, I was a bit skeptical of it. How could such a large, expensive vehicle put up any kind of decent fuel economy numbers to make it worth driving? Even after the car scored a 41 mpg EPA estimate I remained skeptical. Was it really capable of that mileage, or was it optimized for the EPA testing cycle?

Ford Fusion Hybrid – Impressive Gas Mileage for a Large Car

As the Ford tech I drove with was keen to point out, this car is designed for ecodriving. It takes advantage of the two-mode hybrid system in order to exploit the most common techniques that are used to get better gas mileage. Also important are several aerodynamic tweaks on the hybrid version that allow the car to passively get better fuel economy without changing the overall look of the car.

[singlepic id=41 w=540 float=none]

However, the most striking feature of the Ford Fusion Hybrid is Ford’s new Smartgauge, an all-digital dash display that almost gives you too much information. Besides the expected standard gauges (including fuel economy), you get an ecodriving skill rating and a very helpful EV mode gauge. The EV mode gauge, which is perhaps my favorite thing about the entire car, tells you how much work the electric engine is doing. Most importantly, it indicates the small window in which the car will run completely on the electric motor, allowing precise control of the vehicles two-mode hybrid system.

The Smartgauge is what made this car such a pleasure to drive. Even though I didn’t pay attention to the ecodriving rating, trying to keep the car in EV mode while monitoring the battery charge became quite a fun game. During the test drive, I wasn’t paying attention to my fuel economy but rather testing out the many functions of the car. Even so, it was hard to ignore the temptation to ecodrive, especially considering how easy the car makes it.

Not only is the car roomy and comfortable, but it offers as good of a drive as you can expect from such a large sedan. Not considering fuel economy at all, this impressed me as a quality car from Ford. When you toss in the Smartgauge and two-mode hybrid system, the Ford Fusion Hybrid is an absolute pleasure for any ecodriver looking for something larger that can still throw down some good fuel economy. On my full-throttle test drive around midtown I still managed 40.4 mpg, better than I would’ve expected with any car.

Perhaps this car will be a real winner for Ford.

[imagebrowser=3]

For more photos, navigate our gallery at the bottom of the post. Click on the image for an even larger version.

Last week at the 2009 New York International Auto Show, I got the chance to drive the all new 2011 Ford Fiesta. The folks over at Ford have been able to generate a lot of buzz around the car with their innovative marketing campaign, so I was excited to get a chance to drive one at the show.

The Ford Fiesta, which is now on sale in Europe in a variety of packages, is based on the Mazda2, which should be coming to Canada fairly soon. No one knows what engine/trim packages will be available in the United States yet, but I was grateful to be able to take my test drive on the 1.6 liter, 5-speed manual Titanium edition.

My first impression of the Fiesta was that it had a very high level of fit and finish. Playing with it on the showroom floor I was surprised that I could fit in the back seat easily and that the rear hatch had lots of cargo room (for a car that size). None of the knobs or buttons felt cheap and nothing fell off in my hands while I was yanking at it. My only complaint is that the gauge cluster seemed a bit cramped. Unfortunately, this seems to be the style of the times, and I felt a bit better about the cluster after playing with the built-in fuel economy gauge.

Driving the car felt almost as good as playing with it on the showroom floor. Having driven a lot of different cars in the time that I have been working on EcoModder, I’ve developed a sort of sixth sense about what is and is not a good car. I’m sure many of you have experienced: sometimes you get behind the wheel of a car and think “wow, something’s missing.”

I’ve experienced this with many cars in the past, including many Fords, but when driving the new Ford Fiesta I felt very confident. The engine feels strong and smooth, and the manual transmission shifts precisely. Driving the car is comfortable but not so comfortable that you don’t feel connected to the road.

Steering is tight and responsive, and the vehicle handles turns well, even in midtown Manhattan traffic. To be honest, I didn’t get the longest test drive, but I didn’t feel any major flaws with the car. Even though we sat parked in traffic for half an hour and I made no effort to ecodrive the car, we still managed a bit under 30 mpg, which is a great number for the kind of driving I did. Though there are no official numbers, I’m told we can expect high 30s for the EPA rating on the 2011 model.

So, what are the flaws? Well, it’s a small, efficient car. While that might mean a lot of good things to most ecomodders, it also means that you won’t be able to haul much cargo and you will have a tough time cramming many people into the back seats. Also, it doesn’t have the power you are used to in most new cars. The Fiesta can get you up to speed, but you shouldn’t expect any self-induced whiplash.

In any case, I wish I could give a more thorough review, but I haven’t had as much time with the car as I would’ve liked. Nevertheless, the Ford Fiesta is now up there with the Scion iQ and Smart fortwo in terms of eco-friendly personal transportation.

[imagebrowser=2]

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sswhzuNgXFQ&feature=channel_page

The other day when I first saw the P.U.M.A., a combination of efforts between GM and Segway, I was skeptical. Who would want to buy this ugly, awkward, and flimsy excuse for a car? Even though it was electric, I didn’t think it was much of a vehicle and didn’t think it would go anywhere.

Well, after seeing it in person today, I must say my tune has changed a little bit. Not only is the little EV quiet and quick, but it operates smoothly and deftly. There is no question that this vehicle will be good at what it is intended to do.

Not only that, but GM is working on the technology to allow these vehicles to network with each other, allowing them to travel together in sync without driver input. This could lead to self-driving transportation pods that eliminate the driver completely.

However, safety is still an issue. If the above networking model is put into place, accidents might not be such an issue. Until then, it is still troublesome to imagine this kind of vehicle in an accident. Besides being incredibly small, I doubt the PUMA could remain balanced during an accident, putting the occupant at risk of serious injury.

As you can see in the video above, all they currently have is a driving prototype. In the coming months we will see an electric vehicle with a full body and more safety features.

Well, calling it ecodriving is pushing the limit a little bit, but I did get to take the fortwo out for a serious spin around the block. I test drove the U.S. version of the car, and not any of the cooler, European options, so that certainly needs to be taken into account. On that note, I was very happy with my drive, aside from a few caveats.

Despite the fortwo’s reputation as a cheap ride, it felt very solid and well constructed. The seats were comfortable and the cabin well designed, with the open top a welcome way to avoid the claustrophobia you might feel in a vehicle with such little overall interior volume. The gauge cluster was well laid out, and the analog clock on the dash added a nice touch, though it might make reading the clock more time intensive than safe when on the road.

As far as the actual drive is concerned, the car felt very solid and had plenty of pep. Compared to the i MiEV electric car, it wasn’t as fast, but it till avoided the age old “too slow to get out of it’s own way” stereotype that still plagues the subcompact section of cars. I was actually following the i MiEV during my test drive and found myself easily able to keep up with its lead-footed driver in most circumstances.

However, that brings me to my two main criticisms of the car. The first is that the transmission available in the United States is very unsatisfying. The shifting is much rougher than it needs to be, and makes the overall experience of the car seem rather unrefined, especially for a product from Mercedes. I am under the impression that this isn’t the case with many of the European models, but that doesn’t erase the fact that U.S. options still have major flaws.

The second complaint from me is that Smart really needs to add some sort of fuel economy gauge to the car. Sure, this may be a little expensive, but I think most drivers would welcome the information, especially since many of them are certainly buying the vehicle for its impressive fuel economy. I hope smart will jump on the bandwagon with this in the next few years.

That said, I can’t tell you what fuel economy I delivered with the car, but if you live in the city and are looking for something small and fuel efficient, the fortwo is a worthy choice.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

+ Efficient for Size
+ Good Torque Response
+ Improved Exterior Styling

- Bargain-Basement Interior and Defects
- Expected Reliability
- Sponge-Tastic Tires

Introduction: I’ll admit it.  I have mixed feelings for Mitsubishi.  I once owned a 2003.5 Lancer Evolution VIII that was a blast to drive, yet was plagued with factory defects.  Most owners of that conveyance have since traded it for a Subaru Impreza STI, or something else, before it catastrophically failed.

The Galant was the only 4-cylinder offering in which to choose from the lineup in Rental Row.  Among with the Impalas, SUVs, and Chrysler 300’s, the Galant offered the most promise in it’s small 2.4L “World” engine (that’s the same one shared with many Chrysler-based vehicles — such as the Sebring, Avenger, and high-trimmed Caliber.  The FE may just save this vehicle’s shortcomings.

On the Outside: The front-end harkens images of the ill-fated Diamante, with the rear ¾ view taking after the youthful Lancer.  I would classify it “awkwardly average” with an air of some class.

Mitsubishi has had its fair share of trouble lately.  Before the Chrysler buy-out from Cerberus, Mitsubishi was left wondering were to go and was struggling to gain a foot-hold on the U.S. market while still sharing engines.  The Eclipse bloated-up, the Galant itself was slipping in simplicity, and the brand was viewed as a risk to buy.  Now, the Chrysler brand has broken free any new design sharing, but retains the venerable 2.4L, DOHC, 4-cylinder that powers much of its lineup.  The question: has Mitz redeemed itself lately?

On the Inside: Ugh.  The interior is cut-and-pasted from the Endeavor SUV, which is at best, mediocre (or vice-versa).  The biggest complaint is the driver’s seat comfort.  Height adjustment is available in this trim via knob, but lumbar is fixed in the Hunchback Position.  The wheel/column only tilts and doesn’t telescope.  Even the Chevy Cobalt offers a telescoping wheel.  Not good.  The HVAC and radio controls are cheaply lit, and hard to see in bright light.  Is the A/C on or not?

Reporting in all fairness, blind-spots were abundant and sound system was utterly awful.  The bass boost was in full-force.  A full adjustment to “-6” on that setting still announced the authority of the thump.  Conclusion: it’s uncomfortable in there.

Otherwise, expect faux-wood trim, a bit of extra room and some added safety features.

Safety:Tire Pressure Monitoring, depowered drivers bag, side airbags, and ABS with EBD.

Efficiency: This is the only reason why I bothered to report on this car.  Over 73.4 miles of Cincinnati hills and gridlock, the car only used a smidge under 2 gallons of fuel.  Let’s assume the previous renter filled-up a ways-out from the lot, and give it 73 miles at 2 gallons.  That’s [B]36.5 MPG[/B].  I could hardly believe it!  Honestly, I didn’t go easy on the go pedal at all.  On the highway (when it opened-up), I set the cruise for about 65-70 and went around town with the traffic (at their hefty pace and acceleration).  The only technique I used was to force an upshift from the slap-shift gear selector.  Otherwise, it was business as usual.

The Drive: Perhaps this is where the Galant makes up for it’s shortcomings.  Steering feedback is precise, torque is well-pronounced, and transmission feel is rather appropriate.  The ride is well-adjusted for the vehicle’s size, which promotes some driving confidence.  Where it starts to sponge out, is during corners with its marshmallow tire sidewall strength.  Save cash on manufacturing where you can, I suppose.

For the Energy Conscious: This car competes with some pretty heavy-hitters in the FE lineup: Accord, Camry, Sonata, Malibu, Fusion.  Further testing would be required, but the only advantage I can see is: 1) Potential FE, and 2) being different (with choice #1 actually paying for itself).

As always, consider the size of vehicle you need. This car may fit the bill for folks looking for a new car with low financing and a gracious warranty.

For an efficient, mid-sized sedan, others are out there.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2009 Mitsubishi Galant
Trim: ES (Base)
Class Size: Mid-Sized Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 2.4L SOHC, 16-Valve, “MIVEC” Variable Valve Timing, I-4
Rating: 160 hp at 5500 RPM and 155 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2400
Price as Tested: $21,000 USD (June, 2008)
Curb Weight: 3483 lbs.
EPA: 20/27
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: TBD
Emissions: ULEV

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: [B]36.5 MPG[/B]
Speed Avg: ~40 MPH
Time of Operation: ~1.0 hours
Distance Driven: 73.4 Miles
Ambient Outside Temp: 75-95F
Cruise Speed: 65-70 MPH
Test Loop: Metro Cincinnati, OH
A/C Usage: 100% of time
Wind/Weather: Warm, Humid – Wind calm
Driving Style: Average (including some rush hour jams)

Photos: Edmunds.com

Gen-I Matrix/Vibe:

+ FE vs. Cargo and Passenger Capacity
+ Fun to Drive (especially handling)
+ Added Feature Content

- Uncomfortable Driving Position
- Hodgepodge of Toyota and GM Parts
- Spartan Interior

“New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.” or NUMMI is printed on stickers under the hood. What’s up with that?

That’s the name given the to the GM/Toyota joint venture in Fremont, CA. The unique situation is the History of a UAW manufacturing agreement between General Motors and Toyota, at a facility that has produced Union-made vehicles, such as the:

Chevy Nova (1984-1988)
Geo/Chevy Prizm / Toyota Corolla (1998-2002)
Pontiac Vibe / Toyota Matrix (2003-Present)
…and other vehicles exported abroad.

Background: The Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix were introduced in 2003 as a compact wagon to provide an answer to those looking for a performance-oriented Corolla Wagon, or a domestically-nameplated, small utility vehicle. The secret? Essentially a tall, extended Corolla with GM parts (radio, miscellaneous parts, etc.) + great FE to boot.  Now, a 2009 variant is available with a sleek makeover.  This review examines the Pontiac Vibe, along with the Toyota Matrix.  The latter is available with different outward styling and a near-identical interior, in the 2003-2008 model run.

2008 Toyota Matrix

The First Generation model was introduced about 6 model-years ago. The problem is this: I rented several of both variants over the course, and the FE wasn’t stellar.

Confession: Hypermiling rehab is a slow and steady process. I used to set the cruise for 6-7 MPH over the limit. That ended up being 77 in a 70. With the A/C running in the summer, the transmission was quick to downshift on modest hills, and was quite erratic. The FE suffered terribly. I gave it a shot at the speed limit and no more…

This was the only 4-cylinder vehicle available on the rental lot this week (mid-week slim-pickins). I hopped-in and gave it another try. Nowadays, I set the cruise for the limit and just let it ride. That made all the difference in the World.

On the Inside: The vehicle accomplishes so much in its totality, that I refuse to stress minor inconsistencies. The interior trim is basic and plasticky, but who cares? The look and substance exudes durability, and the FE seals the deal.

Feature content includes a 115V inverter to plug-in AC items (for me — perfect: I’m too cheap to buy an i-Pod, so I use my laptop as an MP3 player and pipe the sound through the speakers through an FM transmitter). Some vehicle models offer an auxiliary input (not in this case).  But hey, rock on…

The cargo area is where this vehicle shines brightly. The rear seats fold flat (including the front passenger seat) to allow the transport of long items. It’s a true wagon, so expect that sort of utility (and appearance).

From the driver’s seat, expect a “love it or hate it” Corolla-like seating position, and a 4-pod dash.   Rear seat passengers may find the legroom cramped if adults are passengers. If kids are the ride-alongs, then it’s perfect — no worries.

On the Outside: The Toyota is more streamlined and Sporty, while the Pontiac displays durability and simple functionality. My test model offered foglamps, a rear wiper, and side skirts. Just speculation: later models seem to offer better aero than previous.

The Drive: Seating position is perhaps the weakest link. Think: SUV height and feel. I had no problem setting the seat to a higher height, moved the seat back and adjusted the tilt wheel. The problem is, some drivers may find this uncomfortable. I’m not at all tall, at 5′ 9″, with short legs. The position wasn’t too bad — although the ideal setup prohibited viewing the top of the instrument cluster through the wheel top (duck-n-view). If you’re unsure of this seat, visit a dealer and give it a shot (the Corolla is very similar).

Cubbies and cupholders abound. Handling is sprite, as is throttle response and acceleration. If you keep the speed down, downshifts are infrequent, and the FE total will thank you. At 60, the engine turns at about 2500. Road noise is adequate, and blind-spots minimal.

Features: The Toyota is more “upscale” in outward appearance. A 5-speed or 6-speed manual is available, as is a higher horsepower 1.8L and/or AWD (up to 2007).  The Pontiac has similar amenities available.

Used Analysis: A 2003 Vibe 5-speed can be picked-up for $8K, on upwards to a fully loaded ’08 Matrix XRS for 22K. The vehicle essentially hasn’t changed since its inception, so you can get the same feature content at a reduced price when purchasing used. In addition, Edmunds.com rated the Matrix/Vibe a “Used Car Best Bet” for reliability, etc.

Vehicle Specs as Tested:

Latest Model: 2008 Toyota Matirix / Pontiac Vibe
Trim: Base
Class Size: Compact Wagon
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter (5-speed Manual Available)
Engine: Toyota 1.8L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with Variable Valve Timing
Rating: 126 hp at 6000 RPM and 122 lb-ft torque at 4200
Drivetrain: FWD (AWD available)
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
Price as Tested: $17,000 USD (April, 2008)
Curb Weight: 2700 lbs.
EPA: 21/31
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: $1554

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 35.5 MPG
Average Speed: 57 MPH
Distance Driven: 455 Miles
Engine RPM @ 60 MPH: 2500
Route: Kansas City – Wichita, KS – Kansas City (hit rush hour on the return)
Temp: 40F – 55F
Wind Speed vs. Heading: NW @ 5 MPH. Course 1 = SSW; Return = NNE
2009: Complete Re-design

Conclusion: Brilliant!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

+ Best Domestic Midsize FE
+ Comfortable Ride for all Passengers
+ Easy, yet Fun to Drive

- Keeps Getting Bigger Every Re-design (how many more times do I have to write this)?
- Low Quality of Interior Parts / Assembly
- Low Resale due to Fleet Sales

Introduction: If you’re familiar with my reviews, you know that I absolutely love the previous generation Malibu. Its simplicity, ergonomics, and fuel economy has earned it several accolades on my part. The new model has some big shoes to fill.

Made alongside the Saturn Aura at the Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas, the new Malibu is very similar in dimensions and appearance. The advantage to the Malibu is the available Eco-Tec 4-Cylinder. This all new redesign impacted the Press with its striking exterior, driveability and character (not to mention its larger size).

“2008 North American Car of the Year” by vote. “Car of the Year” boasts Motor Trend Magazine. “Ten Best” says Car and Driver . Others rave of its design; however, I was still apprehensive to drive it. Having driven its twin, the Saturn Aura, my impressions were that it wasn’t a good family representative. Heavy steering, poor V-6 FE, and vague driving feel turned me off to that model’s appeal. So, I stuck with the previous generation Malibu as my tried-and-true companion of 1000’s of efficient miles. Moreover, the new Malibu looks bigger and less efficient than before. The time had come to choose a pinch hitter for a family trip. It turns out that this player just might be from the Major Leagues…

The first trip included a family weekender from Kansas City to the Minneapolis Area / Central Minnesota, and back. Four adults and luggage cruised at 70-75 with ease and efficiency. The second portion was for business: KC – Sioux City, IA and back – with just yours truly.

Note: The 2008 “Malibu Classic”, or last year’s model, can be bought by fleets and the like. These will trickle into the mainstream as they enter the auction block. There is little to identify them, since GM decided not to call it the “Classic” like they did last time.

On the Outside: “It’s the car you can’t ignore”, advertises GM. Two model generations ago, I would have liked to ignore the Malibu by sinking it to the bottom of the Missouri River. Since that horrible lump of a conveyance, each redesign has vastly improved the outward quality of the drivetrain, driving feel, interior and exterior. The new model is vastly different, with a large frontal aspect, sweeping lines, and chopped rear deck. It has a European air about it, with side-marker turn signals and aggressive dual-grille.

Those are actually 5-spoke, 17” steel wheels with plastic wheel covers made to look like chrome. It will fool the average passerby, and give it a more expensive appearance. The taillights match the car’s aggressive demeanor and add to the visual experience.

The 4-cylinder is also available in the upline LTZ model, with satellite radio, heated seats, leather, and other goodies.

On the Inside: The interior is yet another improvement over the last model. The instrument cluster and accent lighting give it an upscale feel. The audio system offered a standard auxiliary input jack and good tone. Interior sound levels were low. There were some things that did not exude quality, however.

As mentioned, the trip included a trip with the the In-Laws to Minneapolis. While loading up at the hotel, one of the rear doors wouldn’t close – something was stuck! In the meantime, a cab driver began honking with impatience. “Hold on a second!” I shouted.

The plastic kickplate trim had come loose and became stuck in the door. I opened the door fully (more honking) and quickly snapped it back into place, but not without getting into a face-to-face argument with the Cabbie. All was resolved after the exchange of “pleasantries”, and we were on our way. Other trim pieces seemed loose or poorly fitted. On my way to Sioux City, an annoying rattle developed in the driver’s door. A few swift wallops took care of it.

Side Note: “I must explain, that it’s not my usual demeanor to get into a shouting match with other drivers (anymore). The hotel was downtown, near the I-35W bridge collapse site. Traffic was mayhem and construction detours seemed to raise the blood pressure of other drivers in the area, including me. The Interstate basically dumped itself into the streets of downtown. One has to stand back and reflect at the number of bridges we take for granted on a daily basis. In this case, it took a major catastrophe to open the eyes of the public. Luckily, the city had several other options to cross the Mississippi, but without GPS, I still would’ve been circling the Metrodome”.

Otherwise, steering-wheel buttons, ergonomically placed controls, and overall comfort and convenience trumped the stumbles in build quality. The dash is swept with more style, yet simple plastic panels are run-of-the-mill. The instrument cluster matches the nighttime “mood lighting” with a pleasant blue-green hue.

The information center cycles Avg. FE, Instant FE, Dual Tripometers, Ambient Temp, Average Speed, Distance to Empty, and other info such as Cruise Control updates. All are accessed within easy reach, on steering wheel.

The trunk is sizable, and stowed a 4-person luggage set with ease. Rear seat passengers are offered a dual cupholder, and plenty of room. The extended length of this model refresh allows for more legroom. Again, all passengers acclaimed that comfort was a definite improvement over the last model.

I have to summarize that the front seats were also very supportive and comfortable – no complaints. With Mother’s Day brunch sitting heavy and the satisfaction of a Red Sox win the night before, the 3 passengers soon drifted to sleep in the quiet abode. And yes, the center armrest is adjustable by sliding forward for elbow comfort (but the door’s rest is solid plastic). A Tilt/Telescoping wheel is standard. This car just might compete in the highly competitive mid-sized family sedan segment.

Safety: To put it bluntly, safety comes standard. The Malibu received 5-Star NHTSA Driver and Passenger impact ratings. Side-curtain airbags are standard on all models, with the driver’s bag deployed based on the weight of the driver. 4-wheel ABS is also standard, as is traction and stability controls.

Efficiency: This engine and transmission combo is a great pair. GM has taken cues from the obvious by making the final gearing taller. With a final drive ratio of 3.29, this rivals the 3.63 of past Inline-4’s. Revs at 60 MPH are approximately 2100, with 70 MPH coming in at 2500. This is traditional GM V-6 territory. Honestly, the 4-banger handled this range excellently. An odd trend during cruise: the torque converter would constantly unlock and lock slightly – in a rhythmic motion. While just cruising along, any reduction in load or throttle would cause the tach to bump up 200 RPM and back down into full lockup. It wasn’t noticeable or felt – just something noticed at the tach. I predict this to be a wear-out point in the future, but may be the secret to the low-RPM drivability of this engine.

A mild-hybrid model is also available, with a slight bump in EPA ratings.

The Drive: Based on GM’s Epsilon platform, the Malibu shares underpinnings with the popularly selling, European Opel/Vauxhall Vectra. For the U.S., Chevy made sure the drive would be “just right”. Electric power steering in the 4-cylinder is easy to operate, yet offers little feedback. This is just fine, since it likely saves on fuel. The ride is perfectly balanced whether loaded or with a lone driver. Cornering is precise and the ride is mid-range (not too harsh or soft). The engine is rev-happy and very efficient. Shifts are firm and deliberate from the 4-speed automatic – that is, until the torque converter slides into lock and back again (and lock again, and back…)

The upline V-6 models come standard with a 6-speed automatic. The top-level LTZ model offers the 6-speed in 4-cylinder trim. This is a curious addition. Hopefully, the FE will benefit. This particular 6-speed was tested in the Saturn Aura and Vue over the last year. Around town, this transmission was indecisive and hesitant to downshift and seemed rather confused as to what to do. The Vue was equipped with the “Manu-Matic” shift gate, so to save on confusion, I did the shifting myself. On the highway, the final gearing proved beneficial, but balked on slight grades. We shall see.

For the Energy Conscious: Surprisingly, GM has come-up with an FE winner in an overall appealing package. This large, mid-size sedan, hits decent FE numbers through common sense techniques. Drive and ride is not compromised, and the looks don’t scream “Rental Car!” If you are after a Domestic, Mid-Sized Family Sedan, look no further. If FE is a priority, Imports such as the Accord, Camry, or Sonata manual-transmission models can offer better economy at a higher price tag.

Loaded up, the average was 28-30 MPG. Single passenger averaged 34-36 MPG.

As always, consider the size of your vehicle needs, and think smaller.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2008 Chevy Malibu
Trim: 1LT
Class Size: Mid-Size Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 2.4L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with Variable Valve Timing
Rating: 169 hp at 6400 RPM and 162 lb-ft torque at 4500
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2100
Price as Tested: $22,500 USD (May, 2008)
ECU Target Coolant Temp: 190F
Curb Weight: 3436 lbs.
EPA: 22/30
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: $1842

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 31.3 MPG
Speed Avg: 60 MPH
Time of Operation: Lots
Distance Driven: 1791 Miles
Gallons Used: 57.26
Ambient Outside Temp: 50-80F
Cruise Speed: 70-75 MPH
Test Loop: Kansas City – Minneapolis and Central Minnesota – KC – Sioux City, IA – KC
A/C Usage: 5-10% of time
Wind/Weather: Over 4 days: 50-80F Max Tailwind = 25 gusting to 40 MPH, Max Headwind = 20; 20% Rain, 80% Clear
Driving Style: Average, with max sidewall tire pressure applied

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Real World Review: 2009 Toyota Corolla LE
+ Super Efficient
+ Expected Reliability
+ Handling

- Keeps Getting Bigger Every Re-design (how many times do I have to write this)?
- Low-quality interior feel
- Painful Seating Position in lower-end models

Introduction: The 10th Generation, 2009 Corolla is already out, and it was ripe for the picking. It’s rare anymore to find a variety of FE-friendly vehicles on the lot, so it was selected. I wonder how it’s changed since its redesign?

For Toyota, the Corolla has been the solid poster child of efficiency and simplicity for decades, and all over the world. It sells and sells. As expected this year, it gained some weight – 200 lbs. The base 1.8L now has dual variable valve timing and likely some tweaks to make it more of a fuel sipper. At a glance, the Cd seems to have improved.

If you want more power, a 2.4L engine sourced from the Camry is available. Furthermore, leather, Sat-Nav, and a nifty stereo system can be added. The model tested was the “Rental’s Choice” LE, thankfully without the gaudy fake wood trim.

One note before we get started – you can tell Toyota is slipping on quality. The Interior is one place to easily note this. Secondly, a faulty fuel gauge indicated ¾ tank instead of full on pickup. I immediately went to the pump only to squeeze 0.8 gallons into the tank. Later I noticed the gauge at full, after driving a while. Not good.

This could all be stricken from the record after you see the gas mileage…

On the Outside: I think this is where they spent the most money on the redesign. The exterior has a sporty new looks and a younger feel. The 15” wheels shown are standard. Otherwise, the slab-sided sedan looks run-of-the-mill.

The rear shot seems to be the most attractive, with inset reflectors and a stylish lamp wraparound. The test vehicle was “Blue-Streak Metallic”, which was a striking color and spiced up the overall look and impression. Heated mirrors were equipped with this trim level.

On the Inside: Well, a bit of a disappointment. In this area, it appears as if the Korean makes could be overtaking interior quality. Fit and finish is clunky, and would it kill them to put some padding on the armrest! There’s nothing like driving down the highway resting your elbow on a cinder block. Don’t get me started on the “Park Bench” driver’s seat. You get the picture…

Optional Equipment Shown

Controls were placed within an easy reach, and the instrumentation average. The A/C was frigid and finally, the vents were redesigned to not blow cold air into your eyeball. But the center stack looks like it was taken out of the Kia/Hyundai Spectra/Elantra. Storage bins, nooks, crannies, and a double-door glove box make it practical.

One complaint: the clock was part of a “select-one” instrument cluster menu (and who knows how to set it)? I just used my cell phone or the GPS. Speaking of which, the SG had to be discluded from MPG and speed tests since the speedo was about 5% off. For the first time, though, the speedometer was spot-on with the GPS.

More on the instrument cluster – the display at the left cycled through: Instant FE, average FE, Time of Day, Timer, and Outside Temp. The tripometer had 2 memory positions.

The trunk is good for the car’s size, with a wide opening. Rear seat passengers have little room and a dual cupholder. If the driver is short, you might squeeze 4 people in there. It’s rated for 5 – I call dibs on the window.

Safety: Side-curtain airbags are standard on all models, which will likely earn it a top safety pick. The driver’s bag is deployed based on the weight of the driver. 4-wheel ABS is also standard. Optional are traction/stability controls.

Efficiency: The FE is definitely an improvement over the last model, which says a lot. The outbound leg was calculated at 43.1 MPG. This could be artifact based on the overfill, so the average from the car’s readout and the pump will be taken for both legs. The total averaged FE was 37.9 MPG! This could very well be the most efficient, non-hybrid tested.

The Drive:: Standard compact car fare here. Handling is superb, but the ride is a bit unsettling. Chassis rigidity is up, but there’s a shudder over bumps – similar to a convertible, but less pronounced. The feel is rather “large-car”, with soft responses to dips and undulations. The car is still tossable in the corners. I would recommend some additional tweaking for a more solid feel.

For the Energy Conscious: A manual transmission is available in the “S” and Base models with the 1.8 engine. The S adds sporty touches like ground effects and smoked headlamps and foglamps, and 16-inch wheels. This also opens the door for leather and satellite navigation. The base model is likely the best option with smaller wheels and less overall weight of options.

Consider the size of vehicle you need. This car may fit the bill for young families looking for an efficient, compact sedan. Others out there: Mazda 3, Civic, Kia/Hyundai Spectra/Elantra, Lancer, Sentra.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2009 Toyota Corolla
Trim: LE
Class Size: Compact Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 1.8L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with dual, intelligent variable valve timing
Rating: 132 hp at 6000 RPM and 128 lb-ft torque at 2400
Performance: 0-60 in 9.1 seconds; Skidpad – 0.83g; Slalom – 63.3 MPH
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2400
Price as Tested: $16,750 USD (May, 2008)
ECU Target Coolant Temp: 190F
Curb Weight: 3523 lbs.
EPA: 27/35
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: TBD
Emissions: ULEV-II

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 37.9 MPG
Speed Avg: 63 MPH
Time of Operation: 2.6 hours
Distance Driven: 446 Miles
Ambient Outside Temp: 60-80F
Cruise Speed: 70-75 MPH
Test Loop: Kansas City – Des Moines – Kansas City
A/C Usage: ~10% of time
Wind/Weather: Outbound – humid, sunny, slight tailwind; Inbound: Party Cloudy, 15 MPH Headwinds gusting to 20
Driving Style: Average

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.