Gas prices are over $4 a gallon in some places in the country, so everyone is finally demanding more fuel efficient models. Couple that with the Bush administration announcement a few days ago about the new fuel economy standards. Now automakers are trying to figure out creative ways to squeeze out even better fuel efficient models. Chevy is hoping to capture some of these fuel-economy minded consumers with an updated Cobalt.
Chevy has done some updates to the current Cobalt in order to improve its fuel economy and to make it the most fuel-efficient model in its class. Chevy re-calibrated the engine, added tires with lower rolling resistance, and probably also tweaked the gearing of the manual transmission to improve the Cobalt's highway mpg to 36 mpg up from 31 mpg. The automatic equipped Cobalt is stuck with the 31 miles per gallon.
The fuel mileage improvement comes standard on the LS and 1LT models. These models will also be fitted with an "XFE" badge that stands for (E)Xtra Fuel Economy.
Full Story: Autosavant
Related Stories:
Chevy Announces New Malibu 4-cylinder with the Six-Speed Transmission
Comments (19)
Make it lighter, it'll do even better. I have to applaud the effort though, it's a start.
We had cars doing far better for fuel economy than this in the 80s.
1989 Honda CRX HF anyone?!?! 49 mpg city and 52 mpg highway. NON HYBRID.
Posted by Dan | April 24, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted on April 24, 2008 11:26
Yes because comparing the 89 CRX to an '08 Cobalt is pretty much a 1:1 comparison.
Posted by CJ | April 24, 2008 12:22 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 12:22
@CJ,
Thats the point. They're both small 2 door cars. Make the 08' Cobalt a bit smaller and strip off a whole lot of weight. They are the exact same class, its just that for some reason today we don't get small light sporty coupes anymore.
Posted by gm0n3y | April 24, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 12:42
CRX was a small hatchback this is a medium size coupe. Nowadays all the cars are heavier with their eleventy air bags and reinforced chassis for impacts... Time to get on a diet!
Posted by John Kimble | April 24, 2008 12:49 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 12:49
Agreed that cars need to made lighter to help with fuel economy. But these little tweaks should help Cobalt stay competitive in this segment. Not to pile on, but it is an unfare assessment to compare a 20 year old compact(approx. 1900lbs) w/out airbags, ABS, and appropriate supplemental safety gear to a 2009 Cobalt (about the size/weight of a 1989 Accord Coupe) with all the standard safety gear. Considering its size and weight, these are good MPG numbers.
Posted by longdxcommuter | April 24, 2008 1:05 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 13:05
Stupid safety crap. What if my wallet is more important than my safety? Why did the government decide safety was my only choice?
Posted by Cheap Car Lover | April 24, 2008 1:50 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 13:50
'Now automakers are trying to figure out creative ways to squeeze out even better fuel efficient models'
Creative ways....like 'calibrated engine, low rolling resistance ties and tweaked gearing'.
'Creative' in the sixties, maybe. Not in 2008!
How about 'not touching it'? The Euro Astra does 48mpg.
Posted by waldorf and statler | April 24, 2008 6:29 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 18:29
"these little tweaks should help Cobalt stay competitive in this segment" - longdxcommuter
Umm, the Cobalt has never been competitive.
"Stupid safety crap. What if my wallet is more important than my safety? Why did the government decide safety was my only choice?" - Cheap Car Lover
Good point. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'd prefer a sub-2,000lb car in the spirit of the CRX designed with modern engineering and just two front airbags.
Posted by Noya | April 24, 2008 8:21 PM
Posted on April 24, 2008 20:21
@noya
try the new Tata Nano. weight about 1200lbs and nearly double with full tank.
Airbag you have to inflate yourself, but at least they provide an aftermarket pump.
Posted by waldorf and statler | April 25, 2008 3:29 AM
Posted on April 25, 2008 03:29
""""longdxcommuter:
Agreed that cars need to made lighter to help with fuel economy. But these little tweaks should help Cobalt stay competitive in this segment. Not to pile on, but it is an unfare assessment to compare a 20 year old compact(approx. 1900lbs) w/out airbags, ABS, and appropriate supplemental safety gear to a 2009 Cobalt (about the size/weight of a 1989 Accord Coupe) with all the standard safety gear. Considering its size and weight, these are good MPG numbers.""""
driver education, driver improvement, actual skill of the driver. THERES YOUR SAFETY. if people would actually pay attention to their driving instead of being on the stupid phone or fussing with a nav system, we'd all be better off.
but we have stupid people not paying attention to what they are doing, so the government enables their behavior by adding safety standards.
what ever happened to educating yourself to become a better driver?
all of this electronic BS like traction control is just an enabler for people who don't know how to handle their vehicle and shouldn't be driving anyways. learn to drive, or pull over, park it and walk. leave the road to those who know what they are doing.
Posted by Dan | April 25, 2008 4:43 AM
Posted on April 25, 2008 04:43
I'm entirely serious.
Posted by Cheap Car Lover | April 25, 2008 5:21 AM
Posted on April 25, 2008 05:21
"""Cheap Car Lover:
I'm entirely serious.""""
I'm entirely sure you are. I share your sentiments.
Posted by Dan | April 25, 2008 5:48 AM
Posted on April 25, 2008 05:48
The thing about being safe is that its all fine and dandy if your safe, but the 16yr old blond chick who just smashed into you probably isn't the safest thing on the road. Obviously we have to trust others while on the road, but theres time that no matter how good of a driver you are it isn't going to help.
Posted by Alex | April 27, 2008 2:12 AM
Posted on April 27, 2008 02:12
BTW, good job chevy, hopefully people will buy cobalts now.
Posted by Alex | April 27, 2008 2:15 AM
Posted on April 27, 2008 02:15
Not exactly sure why Chevy finds it necessary to put a 2.2l engine in a car that small anyway. That's a fine engine for folks that want a step-up in hp, but why not put a decent 1.6l or 1.8l engine in for those more fuel economy-minded? Power will suck, but some people like me don't care when we're commuting at 35mph every morning anyway.
Posted by WS | April 28, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted on April 28, 2008 13:12
I believe the next gen Cobalt is slated to get a 1.6L or 1.8L in it for better gas mileage in 2010. It will still have the 2.2L as an option. Don't quote me on it though, just something I have seen in forums I frequent.
Posted by Avatar | April 28, 2008 2:34 PM
Posted on April 28, 2008 14:34
My 80 Corolla met this mileage threshold easily. Once again Chevy lags in technology, hence their vehicles use more gas. They ride much better too since they manufacture with Iron ore not recycled bottle caps.
GM is uncapable of making an engine smaller than 2.2 that runs at all, I am convinced of that, hence the Aveo, from Korea.
What I want to know is how do I take my 2005 Cavalier with the same 2.2 Ecotec engine, & squeeze the extra 3-5 MPG out of it.
The plugs I just pulled out are Iridiums. Ford Autolite makes a Platinum for much less $, & the mileage dropped accordingly. The cost difference was $1.25 each in a 2 pack with a rebate @ Walmart. vs. $9.00 each for the Iridiums at the dealership. I use Synthetic oil & drop it every 3000 miles along with Air filter changes after 12,000 miles.
Any suggestions to boost the mileage more?
Posted by Dave Segal | April 28, 2008 8:39 PM
Posted on April 28, 2008 20:39
A better headline would be "Chevy announces sales of this dreaded car to customers other than Avis, Hertz, and Budget."
I'm sorry, the General designs some cars with style. This is not one of them. The Cavalier/Cobalt have always looked 10 years old when new.
Headlights too big, tail too high and swoops upwards, seating position is typical of GM cars; too close to top edge of windshield and you can bonk your head.
Lame.
Posted by Rich | May 6, 2008 1:13 PM
Posted on May 6, 2008 13:13
Todays cars get terrible gas mileage.The reason is they are way to heavy....there is no need to have a small car like these way around 3,000 lbs.My 1994 Saturn with 5 speed gets 37 MPG in mostly city driving....around 40 MPG on the Highway,and it has 140,000 miles on it.These small cars get 25-26 MPG in the city and everyone thinks that is just so great ? Unreal !
Posted by randy | July 15, 2008 5:44 PM
Posted on July 15, 2008 17:44