What the heck?

[gonezythr]

I think the main complaint was with the first gen Aveos. They had pretty crappy mileage IMO. Here is a compairison between the 2005 Aveo manual/automatic vs Toyota's then comparable car, the Echo.

Plus the Echo engine had about the same HP as the Aveo's engine and was smaller.

[ontarian_frog]

The engine in the Echo is WAY more efficient. It has 10.5:1 compression ratio and variable valve timing. Look at a new Aveo with the same features and the mileage should be closer.

[reddemonx92]

I believe those numbers are accurate becuase my sedan is only getting about 26mpg last i calculated. Pretty bad IMO since chevy likes rating thier cars higher than normal

[ontarian_frog]

The EPA rates them, the the manufacturer themselves.

[thehunterooo]

I believe those numbers are accurate becuase my sedan is only getting about 26mpg last i calculated. Pretty bad IMO since chevy likes rating thier cars higher than normal

huge rims

idk how i get about 28mpg with my driving, you guys must be going faster than me :0

[petrified.rabbit]

EPA test isn't realistic. And you guys on 16+ rims travel farther that the odometer says with the increases rolling circumference.

I get 27 when I drive my usual fast. With 60% highway. When I get all highway I am around 33-35.

[MatchboxKiller]

Over the winter up here in NY, my mileage dropped to 27 mpg with the winter blend and added ethanol(my 3.8l camaro gets 28-32) Now were starting to transition back into summer blend and my mileage has gone back up to 30. Of course, I'm not letting my car warm up before I take off now either.

[Aveeo]

The Daewoo Lanos was very nice for it's time. It had around the same HP as a Civic of the same years, but that's not mentioned (especially from the Honda fanatics). The Aveo has been criticized for bad fuel economy compared to its competitors, and I strictly blame the poor gearing. Maybe if there are gears or transmissions that you could exchange for better ratios, that would REALLY help the poor fuel economy issue. GM wanted pure acceleration until 40+ MPH, so it would keep the consumer's mind of how overweight and underpowered the thing is. Think an Opel Corsa with an engine tuned for efficiently that is given gearing more performance driven than a Camaro.

[bjorkmae]

I got 29 mpg out of my first tank. I drove like a little old lady. It was mostly city driving, lots of small trips and starts and stops, with top speeds of around 40mph and a few back roads with twists and turns and maybe 30 miles of freeway. The tank was completely topped off before I began keeping track and was topped off again after wards to ensure it was not a result of different full tank levels. I thought that was pretty good. My 96 mustang was supercharged, 5 speed, required premium and got a best of 19mpg when doing 4 hours of freeway only driving again driving like a grandma going 60-65 the entire trip. I am not sure what it got in city but this car is saving me money!!!

[brendan.melanson]

I have pretty good fuel economy, not gonna give you the exact rating because I don't know but coming up these week, next time I fill up I'll write down the trip, how I drove basically and we can figure it out from there.

I'll tell you though, I filled it up last night $45 for roughly 36 or 37 litres, drove 35-40 minutes at speeds of about 100-120KM/H. Drove to school this morning, roughly 30 minute drive of speeds 90-100KM/H, then back home the same distance and speed roughly and it just barely moved under the full line.

This is shifting at 2,500-3,000RPM max. I drive it pretty easy, always try and shift a little early if I don't need the power to save the gas. You'd be surprised though, I could burn a quarter of a tank pretty quick with 2 or 3 red-line runs up to 5th...

Remember when you're adding extra power, accelerating aggresively or taking your car over 100KM/H you're losing fuel economy. For those of you who go through the city, you probably accelerate pretty quick to hit that speed you stop climbing at and that wastes a ton of gas too.