Mileage Wars Are On: Details on GM's New Four-Cylinder Engine

At GMC’s New York auto show display last week, we asked spokesman Randy Fox for more details about the automaker’s latest engine, a 2.4-liter four-cylinder that helps the GMC Terrain and Chevy Equinox achieve 21/30 mpg city/highway with front-wheel drive, according to preliminary EPA estimates. If the numbers pan out, that means the Terrain and Equinox will beat the thriftiest versions of the Ford Escape and Toyota RAV4 (both 22/28 mpg), as well as the Nissan Rogue (22/27) and Honda CR-V (20/27).

That’s just the beginning. The four-cylinder is a modular engine that will also make its way under the hood of the redesigned Buick LaCrosse, Fox said. How about the Chevy Malibu? Fox said it’s a possibility.

With fuel-saving — and power-increasing — direct injection, the engine makes 182 hp in the Equinox and Terrain. If that means the Malibu could make equivalent power (its four-cylinder currently makes 169 hp), that could help with highway passing — and bump mileage beyond the car’s current 22/33 mpg EPA rating. Unlike the horsepower wars, the mileage wars are something we can get behind. Ford stole the title of thriftiest non-hybrid family car with the 23/34 mpg Fusion. Can GM leapfrog that? We’ll have to wait and see.

Comments

I don't know what planet the Fusion is a family car on, but they must be some seriously small folks. I find it laughable that the Malibu and the Fusion are in the same class. The Malibu is plenty roomy while the Fusion, even in the front seat, makes me eat my knees no matter how far I put the seat back. Now granted, I'm a big guy and I know this, but I'm not talking about anything but leg room. I'm 6'1", so I'm not some NBA freakshow, but that car is just ridiculous and made for really small folks. And forget the back seats; they're completely off limits if you're over 5'5".

Sorry to derail this a bit, but I just think the comparison of the Malibu and Fusion is a bit silly in the real world.

Vinny,
Yeah a bit off tangent. In my experience I think both cars are extremely similar in terms of interior room. The specs of the 2009 Malibu and 2010 Fusion are also pretty darn close with the Fusion coming out ahead in many areas especially hip and shoulder room
http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB90CHC111A0,USB90TOC021A0,USC00FOC201A0

I'm guessing you probably didn't spend enough time adjusting the seat to fit you. Also sometimes I just find some cars uncomfortable for me and others not despite the specs. But overall for those two cars there really is no difference I can find.

"Unlike the horsepower wars, the mileage wars are something we can get behind."

Uh. Okay? Is gas mileage really the most exciting thing about cars?

Will this engine be in the lacrosse for 2010 or later? The report GM submitted mentioned this engine in the Lacrosse but I have seen no other mention of it until now. It wont be available at launch I suppose.

Ever notice that what GM promises and what they deliver are two totally different things? You won't have to any longer as they're filing for bankruptcy. Comparing an unproven engine from an unethical car company is not impressive. Only a fool would buy a GM product, look at all the Saturn suckers they've created.

Just reminds me of the laughable Chevy commercial.
The Malibu beats Accord in mileage?
Oh, the CR-V also beats the Suburban in terms of mileage too.
The Accord is a full-size, the Malibu is a mid-size.
And to talk about the Cobalt XFE vs Civic is even funnier. They almost have to strip out the sound insulators and to have manual only to get one more mile per gallon than the Civic.
I can see GM is desperate to come out from getting into backruptcy, but spinning like a politician is gonna help it go down faster.

K:

The EPA creates the standard for rating vehicles, not GM. I'm not sure how you can argue that Chevy vehicles arent more efficient than their Honda counterparts. That's like saying someone who is 6' is shorter than someone who is 5'10". The Accord is only full size without the sunroof, its BARELY full size. Don't be silly and act like the Accord isnt compared to the midsize malibu on a regular basis. You act like the Chevy commercial is unaccurate just because some models of the Accord qualify as large cars by EPA classification. The Cobalt with manual tranny is the XFE model and no sound insulation has been removed from the car. The mileage gains come from a VVT engine, tires and changes to gearing and/or final drive ratios. While the XFE only gets a couple mpg more than the Civic, it does so with a larger, more powerful engine. I see you forgot to mention that.

PS:

K,

It amazes me how people like yourself who often claim that we should always buy the best vehicle for our money instead of worrying about buying American do nothing but create excuses when an import brand gets beat. Instead of saying Honda should work to increase the mileage of the Accord (which trailes Malibu, Fusion and Sonata) you try and excuse the car based on an EPA classification even though you are smart enough to know the Accord is cross shopped with midsize cars like the Camry and Malibu.

I'd have to agree with OS. These American vs. Import arguments remind me "my dad can beat up your dad" arguments.

The high mileage from all the crossovers mentioned in the article is impressive.

Bowrider:

My experience with people here is that if you point out an inconvient truth such as Accord automatic gets worse mileage than Fusion or Malibu you are met with excuses and accusations of being anti import. Apparently anyone who notices the superior mileage of Accord competitors is being irrational and advocating the purchase of inferior product based on American branding.

Conversely, if you make excuses for underperforming (and often more expensive) Hondas (or any other import) you are an educated and objective individual who always buys the product that gives you the most for your money regardless of country of origin.

i am still perplexed at why this 'truck' can get decent mileage AND horsepower, but even the base colorado gets neither. i mean, is the weight difference really that big an issue? i would kill for any truck that could get 30 mpg or even close to that with an automatic. i'm not pulling any trailers or anything, i just want an efficient car that is semi versatile that isn't emasculating.
btw, 'winnner', i am a very happy saturn sucker.

OS,

All you are trying to do is to legitimize the Chevy's claim which is plain and simply stupid.
It does not matter if it barely reaches or is it fully passed the full size limit. If it passes as a full size, it IS a full size whether you like it or not.

Mileage wars for real.
This is why I don't buy Accord. Mazda6, while I love it, has no chance with me. But I also don't buy Fusion and Malibu but for different reasons.
But the car on the picture here above... Oh well. I better keep quiet.

It does not matter if they cross shop between 2 vehicles. If it is not the same vehicle class, it is not the same.
People can cross shop between a smart and a Focus, but heck, they are not the same class. Therefore Original Sheth, the domestic incompetent fighter, is just full of garbage in his arguments again.

Well…. As annoying as I find OS and some of you with your comments, I think most consumers would cross shop between the Camry, Accord, Altima, Mazda 6, etc. The reason is simple, they have always been competitors and even though the Accord is classified as a full size, it’s still mostly mentioned whenever someone speaks of the Camry and Altima. Besides, Honda just might sway a couple of the value conscious buyers out there with the slightly bigger Accord.

Now back to the topic of higher mileage on GM’s new 4 banger. It’s always good to hear of crossovers, traditional SUVs, etc. hitting the 30 mpg, whether it is city or highway; this will only further the competition to find a way to increase their mpgs. But the design of the Terrain, now that’s a topic I’d rather not get into on this blog.

At least with bankruptcy GM will have added another excuse to explain why they are the worst car company in the world.

I see GM is still making the ugliest and worst selling new cars today. I'm not surprised that the last generation Camry is still easily outselling the King of Rental cars Chevy Malibu. Take away the fleet sales and I bet the Malibu wouldn't even be in the top 25. What a joke!

"All you are trying to do is to legitimize the Chevy's claim which is plain and simply stupid.
It does not matter if it barely reaches or is it fully passed the full size limit. If it passes as a full size, it IS a full size whether you like it or not."

I will repeat this one more time: The Accord BARELY qualifies as an EPA large car WITHOUT THE SUNROOF. With the sunroof it is a MIDSIZE car. The EPA has an arbitrary figure (I believe its 100 cu ft of interior space) that divides the midsize from full size. If a car has 99 cu ft its midsize but it has 101 cu ft its full size. Anyone who is capable of logical thought knows the Accord is compared to the Camry and Malibu by EVERY major auto magazine and website. To say the Accord doesn't compete with those cars because of an EPA rating for non sunroof models foolish. I am willing to bet that if we check Honda's site the car will be compared to the MIDSIZE Camry and Altima. I have never heard anyone say the primary competition for the Accord is the Avalon or Taurus or 300. Those cars are considerably larger and come with standard V6 power.

J:

So according to you people do not compare cars on hp, price, rear seat space, trunk capacity and engine offerings but they DO compare cars based on EPA classes. The Accord has similar space to the Malibu and Camry but you are saying its in a totally different class because it has about 2% more interior space and qualifies as a large car without a sunroof. That is silly. You are calling Chevy's commercials stupid but I believe that anyone claiming the Accord isn't a camry/Malibu competitor shouldn't call anyone stupid. BTW, you better tell C&D, Motortrend, Edmunds and cars.com that the Accord is not a camry competitor because they surely didn't get the memo. The DTS and MKS are full sized cars so I suppose they are often cross shopped with the Accord even though they are far more expensive and cater to a totally different market. After all according to you EPA classification is all that matters.

OS,

In your argument earlier you forgot that the higher mileage Malibu is for some trims and Fusion is a 2010 Model, not 2009. And Camry is also coming out with 2010 Model with 22/33mpg.
Come on.
You've been telling about Fusion's mileage like they've been selling for a year already. Are they on sale yet?

Yes,
forgot to add.
As per other discussion,
some Malibus still will come with 4AT.

Tony:

Yes they are on sale. HAve you not seen all the commercials? I just saw one at a dealer last week. The Fusion is the CURRENT model. The one that everyone is testing. Why would I talk about the 2009 model at this point? Have you seen any Ford ads for the 2009 model lately? I heard about the 2009 Camry, but that mileage is for the model with the manual if I remember correctly. I need to search the cars.com database to check. Either way the Fusion still offers more efficiency. BTW, is the 2010 camry on sale now?

Yes, Malibu LS and 1LT have 4 speed auto. Point is if you care about mileage the 6 speed is available on two trims. for 2010 its standard on 1LT.

Original Sheth,

If Ford cannot catch up with the Camry after 3 model years, they aren't playing a very good game, aren't they?

C:

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Fusion surpasses the current camry in every way except V6 hp. It has more engines, better mileage, more features, better styling and a more efficient hybrid model. In what way has Ford not leapfrogged the dull Camry?

Sheth:
“In what way has Ford not leapfrogged the dull Camry?”

Sales, Public perception, coupled with past bad experiences.
I now you will dig at me bring up the past. I’m not saying the perception is justified or right. But these things color people thinking about a product be it a domestic car or a foreign car. And affects who buys what.
In the past I owned a Taurus. The car actually drove well. I actually like the car but hated that I had to spend a fortune to keep it running. After awhile, I was going back and forth to the mechanics to replaced part. Then the OEM replacement parts would fail. Before I got to the 50k mile mark, I had tranny and fuel injection problems. It was a nightmare. Many others who I talked to had similar problems. After that, I got a Camry and had no more problems. I was hooked and stuck with the Camry’s there-after. (Am I advocating for people to dump there domestics and go foreign? NO! I’m just giving my experience.)

I think the new Ford cars (from what I’m hearing and seeing) are better built and are more reliable. I tend to agree with you, this new Ford Fusion (and even the Chevy Malibu) are poised in every way to give the Camry a run for its money. The Hybrid Fusion kicked the Camry’s Hybrid but in a recent C&D compare. The competition has caught up and found some of the imports napping. Cars of this caliber (more reliable, better mpg) were what we needed to have 20 years ago.

Again, the problem may be getting people to shed their old perceptions. It’s going to take time and many good experiences to turn it around. Am I ready to jump in and test the waters of Ford or GM again (cars of the past that I have had bad experiences)? To be honest I’m still in “Let’s wait and see” mode. (Not wait and see them fail and go bankrupt.) I need to do a lot of research thus why I‘ve been paying attention to these forums and looking at this car website) I am getting curious. For the first time in a long time I am opening my mind to the possibility.

AL:

I cant measure subjective things. I cannot quantify perception for you. All I can do is look at the cars being sold today. The warranty protection has increased, the independent measures of quality have shown improvement and warranty claims have plummeted. Part of this is an age thing and boomers (or those slightly younger) are obviously scarred. Bottom line is that if you are half as skeptical as you seem to be I doubt there is anything Ford can do to win you over. I personally don't believe that Hondas and Toyotas don' thave problems based on what I've heard from owners and read in various places. I'm sure you would disagree. I also don't agree that all or even most domestics started to fall apart after 50k miles.

I have no great recollection of superior imports in the 80s so I don't share you reverence for them. To my eyes most cars from the 80s were uninspiring. I don't doubt that the Japanese cars had engines that lasted longer but the 80s were a sad time for cars. All the cars were dull, the Japanese cars were rust prone and "performance" was a foreign concept.

I do love it when people say "we should have had this 20 years ago!" when talking about American cars. I might as well say we should have had the Prius, RX400h or GTR 20 years ago. All cars are far better than they were 20 years back, even foreign ones.

OS,

Think and read.
It means the Camry has been out in the market since 2006 as a 2007 model. If Ford still cannot catch up with a 2010 model released in 2009, they are not at their game.

c,

Who said the Fusion has not surpassed the Camry? I never said that. I JUST listed the reasons why the Fusion is superior. Can you read? If you have some reasoning to support your belief that the Camry is superior feel free to post it. Think and read. My guess is you will try to fall back on resale value and reputation- because there is nowhere else to go with your argument.

Sheth
You say: “Bottom line is that if you are half as skeptical as you seem to be I doubt there is anything Ford can do to win you over.”
I think I have a right to be skeptical. My skepticism of Fords is based on past my past experiences and from talking to those who own or have owned the cars. Cars aren’t cheap. When you put down your money on a car (at least I want to feel a few months, years in that I made a good decision). Trust me I am not as Anti-domestic as you paint me to be. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I am taking notice of the new Fords. And I do find their designs to be better than some of the competition. If the reliability is good I could see considering one.

You say: “I have no great recollection of superior imports in the 80s so I don't share you reverence for them.”
I agree that the 80’s were a bad time for all cars. However I’ve seen and still see many a late Honda, Toyota, and Nissan still on the road with quarter panels and doors rusted through. Hey they still run with all their uninspired 65 hp with 1 million miles (hyperbole of course) on the Odometer. Maybe you don’t or didn’t care for these cars but many did and do. It

My blinders are off; I know that Toyotas and Hondas have and had their share of problems. I don’t pretend these cars are infallible nor was I implying that all domestics fall apart after 50K. I was just giving my experience of one Taurus I had. I ‘m sure many have had good success with their domestics after 50K. I see some of these cars on the road also.

I see why others are simply ignoring Sheth's comments.

He does not read and twists the meanings of the other posters.

What I said was, if Ford cannot catch up with the Camry after 3 model years of its debut, they are not very good at their own game.
He can twist it to say I said the Fusion has not surpassed the Camry, when what I meant was they better have if they haven't catch up after 3 years. Meaning if they have catch up, that's not bad but because of 3 years time had elapsed.

C:

It would help if you framed your statement more clearly. It seemed to me that you were saying Ford was unable to catch the Camry after 3 years and thus isn't on top of their game. I'm glad we both agree the Fusion is the better car right now.

If the Fusion is the better car then why is the Camry outselling it and the low-quality Malibu? For every Malibu sold Toyota sells THREE Camry's! Without the sales to Avis and National the Malibu would be discontinued.

Cory:

You have no clue what you are talking about. First of all the Malibu is built in two plants that is shares with the Aura and G6. All of those cars are on the same platform and combined their sales rival that of Camry. GM does not have capacity to build enough Malibus to overtake Camry. In fact, there are few models that can be produced to the tune of 400k units today. In addition, Toyota includes Solara sales in the Camry number. The camry sedan probably outsold the Malibu by 2 to 1 last year. Ford cannot produce enough Fusions to pass the Camry in sales even if they wanted to. In addition, the 2009 Fusion was 4 years old vs 2 years for the Camry so its not surprising that Fusion sales were trailing off. Lets see where things stand at the end of 2009 with the new model that includes a hybrid.

Hey Bozo, 37% (up from 32%) of Malibu sales are to Fleets. You can add the G6 (the most incentivised car) sales, the Aura sales, and the Malibu sales together and the total would still fall short of the Camry. Toyota allows for just .08% of Camry's to be assigned to Fleets. Only a desperate Bozo would compare "platform" sales instead of actual models. Then again you are nothing but an excuse maker for pitiful GM. Move along junior.

DD:

Please provide a link to anything supporting those figures, especially that Camry rental figure. Camry rentals are common today so I know you are lying. If not, just show us a link.

Anyone who can read numbers knows that the Camry outsells the Malibu. My point is that GM cannot produce enough Malibus to outsell the Camry. It's just not possible. Since sales are all that matters the record should show the best vehicle in American is the F150, not the Camry. Also, the F150 outsells the Tundra by at least 3 to 1 so by your logic it must be about 3 times better. See how stupid that sounds? If sales volumes are all that matters the Passat and Mazda 6 must be terrible cars.