Joined
·
210 Posts
Consider the following estimates...
impala ~3400 lbs 3.4L/180HP ~30mpg
malibu ~3100 lbs 2.2L/145HP ~34mpg
sky ~2900 lbs 2.4L/170HP ~28mpg
Does this seem odd to anyone but me. I can tell you that fuel economy is not my top concern when looking at the sky, but when an impala can weigh more, have a bigger, more powerful engine, and have better (albeit estimated)highway milage, something seems wrong. I would think the whole point of having the complexity of VVT, would be to get that best-of-both-worlds performance (power when you need it, and economy the rest of the time).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the car as a whole. I thought the solstice was cool when I first saw pictures of it, and then I found this forum and got hooked on the Sky. (My first car was an Opel GT, so the mini-corvette-ness and distant Opel cousin-ness of this car gives it a special attraction for me.) I just get hesitant when I see things that don't add up, and this, to me, doesn't add up.
impala ~3400 lbs 3.4L/180HP ~30mpg
malibu ~3100 lbs 2.2L/145HP ~34mpg
sky ~2900 lbs 2.4L/170HP ~28mpg
Does this seem odd to anyone but me. I can tell you that fuel economy is not my top concern when looking at the sky, but when an impala can weigh more, have a bigger, more powerful engine, and have better (albeit estimated)highway milage, something seems wrong. I would think the whole point of having the complexity of VVT, would be to get that best-of-both-worlds performance (power when you need it, and economy the rest of the time).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the car as a whole. I thought the solstice was cool when I first saw pictures of it, and then I found this forum and got hooked on the Sky. (My first car was an Opel GT, so the mini-corvette-ness and distant Opel cousin-ness of this car gives it a special attraction for me.) I just get hesitant when I see things that don't add up, and this, to me, doesn't add up.