Change or die for the Big 3

"Josh S" <Josh RemoveThis @clean.spam> wrote in message
news:Josh-B3BEA7.23272707062008@news.telus.net...

>
> -A Pontiac Alero (I believe) in 2001 had far to powerful a V6 engine and
> gave poor mileage. The drivers space was tight.
>

If it was a Pontiac, it was a Grand Am, if was an Alero, it was an Olds.
Probably a Grand Am because way more of those were in the rental fleets than
the Alero. Either way, yours is a very surprising review as the 3.4L found
in the GT (which was the more common platform in the rental fleets), and the
3.1 gave pretty good mileage. Both delivered mid twenties around town, and
over 30 on the highway, even with a heavy right foot. These are not EPA
numbers, these are common real world numbers.

> -A 2005 Impalla had too much space between 3rd and 4th in the Auto.
> Obviously set up to get maximum highway mileage, which was very good,
> but it was very reluctant to down shift making it a real pain to drive.
> I've noticed this down shift resistance is common in GM V6 4sp drive
> trains.

Haven't driven a newer Impala other than for a few miles. I've never
noticed any reluctance in GM trannys to downshift. They don't have to
downshift as much as others because the engine torque is not all rolled up
into a ball at the high end of the rpm range. GM's will move out quite
stoutly in 4th gear where Japanese cars have to downshift a time or two to
keep the engine in its torque band.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE RemoveThis @alltel.net

In article <c7dab$484bd61d$471fbb65$17234@ALLTEL.NET>,
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE.TakeThisOut@alltel.net> wrote:

> "Josh S" <Josh.TakeThisOut@clean.spam> wrote in message
> news:Josh-B3BEA7.23272707062008@news.telus.net...
>
> >
> > -A Pontiac Alero (I believe) in 2001 had far to powerful a V6 engine and
> > gave poor mileage. The drivers space was tight.
Yes it was an Olds Alero, with far to powerful an engine; the 3.4.
Could have been a CDN model that isn't in the USA.
> >
>
> If it was a Pontiac, it was a Grand Am, if was an Alero, it was an Olds.
> Probably a Grand Am because way more of those were in the rental fleets than
> the Alero. Either way, yours is a very surprising review as the 3.4L found
> in the GT (which was the more common platform in the rental fleets), and the
> 3.1 gave pretty good mileage. Both delivered mid twenties around town, and
> over 30 on the highway, even with a heavy right foot. These are not EPA
> numbers, these are common real world numbers.
>
> > -A 2005 Impalla had too much space between 3rd and 4th in the Auto.
> > Obviously set up to get maximum highway mileage, which was very good,
> > but it was very reluctant to down shift making it a real pain to drive.
> > I've noticed this down shift resistance is common in GM V6 4sp drive
> > trains.
>
> Haven't driven a newer Impala other than for a few miles. I've never
> noticed any reluctance in GM trannys to downshift. They don't have to
> downshift as much as others because the engine torque is not all rolled up
> into a ball at the high end of the rpm range. GM's will move out quite
> stoutly in 4th gear where Japanese cars have to downshift a time or two to
> keep the engine in its torque band.
You must drive in flat country.
In hilly country I experienced the reluctance to down shift, then a big
increase in revs when it did.
It wasn't my driving style, I tried it on cruise.
It just needed another gear, but cheap GM simply moved high gear way up
for mileage. IMO not a pleasant car to drive on hilly highways.
The highway mileage was very good, although quite a bit lower than the
EPA rating. I get the EPA rating with most cars I rent.