backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by andrinoaa.. on Mar 25 at 6:50 PM


Saturn Aura Green Line
The Saturn Aura Green Line starts at $22,695 including destination charge

General Motors has officially announced pricing for its 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line hybrid sedan. The vehicle will retail for $22,695 including destination charge and will also be eligible for a $1,300 tax credit from the federal government for 2007 tax returns.

For comparison, the Honda Civic Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry Hybrid are priced from $22,985, $25,015, $22,975 and $26,820 respectively, including destination charge.

The 2007 Aura Green Line is considered to be a "mild hybrid" since it cannot move forward under electric power alone. The Aura Green Line hybrid powertrain (164HP 2.4 liter 4-cylinder plus electric motor/generator) is capable of providing mild electric assistance under acceleration, stopping the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop and starting it back up again when the gas is pressed. The car also takes advantage of regenerative braking to help recharge the battery pack.

The Aura Green Line boasts EPA ratings of 28MPG/35MPG city/highway compared to 20/30 for an Aura with the 224HP 3.5 liter V6 and 20/28 for the Aura with the 252HP 3.6 liter V6.

A more viable comparison may be with the Pontiac G6 base sedan. This vehicle is the Saturn Aura's platform-mate and also uses the 2.4 liter 4-cylinder engine and transmission without the hybrid add-ons. EPA ratings for the G6 are 23/33 city/highway which means that the Aura Green Line’s hybrid system affords the driver an additional 5MPG in the city and 2MPG on the highway.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/19/2007 10:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've sat in both the Prius and the Aura and whatever small measured differences there are, the Aura definitely feels roomier. But then, I'm 6'2" and very broad. I wouldn't buy either of them. My personal opinion is that hybrids are a waste of time. You can get a cheaper gas-powered cars that get equal or better fuel economy.

I'll take the Audi A8 TDI: twin-turbo V-8 turbo-diesel, 320HP and 480lb-ft torque, all-wheel drive, 0-60 in 5.6 and ultimate luxury seating for 5. Did I mention 40MPG?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By milomnderbnder21 on 3/19/2007 10:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
According to a recent study posted on DailyTech, the only two cars in the united states that get a mixed miles per gallon rating of 40mpg or higher are the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Prius.

The honda gets 49/51. You will not find a non-hybrid in this country that can touch that. The Prius is even better in this respect. If you are buying a car, that improved gas mileage will add up over the years.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By FITCamaro on 3/19/2007 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. But considering the huge majority of cars "sold" these days are leased, you'll never see the savings because you'll constantly be paying a car payment.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Martin Blank on 3/20/2007 12:46:19 AM , Rating: 3
A huge majority? You mean the roughly one quarter of all new vehicle transactions that are leases? That "huge majority"? What about the other roughly three-quarters of new vehicle transactions that are sold outright, not to mention all of the used car sales, few of which are ever leased?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By timmiser on 3/20/2007 4:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, diesels are not included in EPA stats for MPG.


By milomnderbnder21 on 3/20/2007 9:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
The study I mentioned from DailyTech was not a government study. They had, I believe, their own numbers from testing. I do not know if they included diesels, but you can't decide automatically that they did not consider them because it was an EPA study...it was not.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By fxnick on 3/19/2007 10:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your totally right, hybrids are a big waste of time and money, diesels really are the future when it comes to the power/MPG ratio. Hybrids are over-rated on their actual MPG too.

Watch in like 5 or 10 years there will be tons of hybrids out there from this generation with batteries that are no good.

Ill take a nice fire-breathing Mustang GT500 or Powerstroke over those woman cars.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Tsuwamono on 3/19/2007 11:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
except that diesels polute more dude. Ya great millage but tell that to your kids when they earn our crappy planet once we are done fucking it up real good. If i could i would go hydrogen. Much better.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Martin Blank on 3/20/2007 12:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Check your facts. Aside from PM10, diesels are quite clean, especially with the new ultra-low-sulfur fuels.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By timmiser on 3/20/07, Rating: 0
By otispunkmeyer on 3/20/2007 5:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carbon Dioxxide (CO2) - This is the stuff that is hurting our environment. It causes global warming but it does not cause health issues. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption and since diesel engines use 30-40% less fuel, they emit 30-40% less CO2 than gas engines.


now first off, there are many many green house gases, we produce many of them too, but all anyone wants to believe in is man made CO2.

on top of that, im not entirely convinced that man made CO2 is the cause of GW. alot of people, jobs and money and based on the premise that man made CO2 is the sole contributing factor to GW. im not denying GW at all, im just sceptical as to the cause... i think man madeCO2 is just a small portion of a very big pie that includes other man made products, the sun and the earths natural cycle.

most cars have catalytic converters...these actually make a car produce more CO2 than they normally would because they are converting all the nasty gases like CO into something less detrimental to our health.

i honestly think, despite all this push to be green, driving green cars and paying large green taxes the outcome will be exactly the same. the earth will continue to warm and we'll be heavily out of pocket because of it.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 6:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel engines use less fuel, but those 30-40% are on volume. As diesel fuel is denser than gasoline, the output contains more CO2 than the MPG seems to imply.
The only pollution component that is checked for diesel engines here is particulate (the smoke out of the tail pipe must not be black). Black smoke out of diesel engines is bad.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Samus on 3/20/2007 6:44:33 AM , Rating: 3
Deisel's output the same amount of hydrocarbon/gallon than any unleaded gasoline engine. the reason they have a bad reputation is because of poor implementation of polution prevention devices, especially on trucks, so they smell awful and make a lot of noise.

I bet you'd drive my Passat and not even notice it's deisel because its responsive, quiet, and the pipes run clean.

Then you have to consider that deisel engines are built like tanks and statistically last hundreds of thousands miles longer than unleaded engines, making the cost savings in the end quiet substantial.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By giantpandaman2 on 3/20/2007 1:54:15 AM , Rating: 4
Diesel gives out more energy/volume, so a direct comparison between the two based on MPG to talk about efficiency is misleading at best. Now if you did miles/kJ or a simple %efficiency you'd get somewhere. Also diesel doesn't cost the same as gasoline.

Honestly, I don't get this "Turbo Diesel is better than Hybrid" stuff. It's not like either technology is exclusive. Can I imagine a Turbocharged Biodiesel Hybrid? Would actually be very easy to do, since Toyota's hybrid system (currently the most advanced out of all carmakers), as far as I know, has nothing that would limit to gas powered cars only. The only thing keeping that from happening at the moment is that most hybrid makers (Toyota/Honda/etc.) don't make diesel cars. Least I've never heard of them.

In the short term, both gasoline and diesel will come from petroleum. Both come from the same basic stock-crude oil. And it's not like you can turn crude oil into pure gasoline or diesel. What comes out is simply what was in the crude oil to begin with. In other words-if we all started running on diesel we'd not be able to make enough of it and we'd have a huge surplus of gasoline.

Unless of course you go to biofuels, but that's long term.


By giantpandaman2 on 3/20/2007 1:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case I didn't explain the Crude oil thing well enough...here's an easy place to learn.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/no...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 6:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Toyota has the D4D naming for its new diesel engines.
The D4D has reached some 2.4l/100km in a closed circuit around Ireland, if I remember correctly (small engine on a small car).


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 5:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
All for no more than $22,700.
Your Audi A8 will get the 40MPG only on highway, constant speed of 55mph (and with the engine close to idle RPM). The moment you start exercising all those horses, the mpg will fall like a stone.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 7:38:25 AM , Rating: 3
The same goes for those hybrids - or any car for that matter. If you push it, gas mileage plummets. My current car has MDS, it will shut down half the cylinders (8-->4) to conserve fuel when cruising at any speed between 30-85MPH. Sure, this 4200lbs 350HP beast can get 26MPG, but there's no fun in that. I'm perfectly content getting 15MPG.

Smiles per gallon!


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 8:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
> I'm perfectly content getting 15MPG. Smiles per gallon.

Hmmm, how responsible. There are ways of getting your macho kicks without ripping the environment you know. Try snowboarding, surfing, gliding etc etc. Just steer clear of gas-guzzling planes and cars. Our kids will thank us when we’re dust.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Etsp on 3/20/2007 9:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Is he driving a Hummer or Escalade? No, and I think thats good enough...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ok fair enough we have to start somewhere, I just wish we were beyond the point that driving anything but a hummer is considered environmentally responsible.

It's not even his choice of car that bothers me that much, it's that he's blatantly prepared to lower his fuel efficiency from 26MPG to 15MPG for fun. I was just pointing out that there are other ways to get one's kicks than to hammer your car, pollute the environment more than necessary and then brag about it in a thread about new hybrid car technology.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 2:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was just pointing out that there are other ways to get one's kicks than to hammer your car, pollute the environment
I see your point. But I don't like to do any of those things you mentioned. I DO like cars so I CHOOSE to have my fun with cars. You can go do the other stuff.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 10:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Are you paying for his gas? No? KTHXBYE

As for the environment, unless you can explain why there is global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and explain what caused the global warming on Earth that ended the Ice Age. I don't want to hear it. Unless you can apply models that predicit man made global warming by 2020 with data from the 1970s/1980s and come up with todays data, I don't want to hear it.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
> Are you paying for his gas? No? KTHXBYE

No, but in the coming years I will be paying for cleaning up the mess caused by his combusting excessive amounts of it. How? For example; I live in Holland and rising sea levels (which are almost certainly a result of excessive pollution since the industrial revolution) are going to be a very expensive problem.

Stick your head in the sand and wait on a 100% accurate climate model if you want to, but seriously, how much evidence do you need that this is a man made problem? Enhanced global warming problem is here already and will increasingly put a major strain on the overcrowded world's economies, wildlife and habitats.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live in Holland and rising sea levels (which are almost certainly a result of excessive pollution since the industrial revolution) are going to be a very expensive problem.

For lack of a better word: bullshit. It's too bad you chose to live so close to the water, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. Water levels have risen and fallen throughout all known history. I suppose next you will tell us that polar bears need swimming lessons.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hey it's not like we built our country on a fault line ;-)

Sure sea levels have always risen and fallen, but it's all about time frames. Usually there are VERY long periods between these transitions. Forcing the Earth's climate into an unpredictable transition at a point in time when the planet has an all time record 6 billion inhabitants and is politically fairly unstable (i.e. we're still fighting wars and building more weapons) just seems like a real bad idea to me.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 2:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Cleaning up what mess? A car that makes 400 HP is just as clean as a car that makes 100 HP. It just consumes more fuel to make more power. And someone willing and able to pay for more fuel is not stopping you from getting any and has nothing to do with gas prices. You are free to buy as much as you want or an afford. (see 'cartel' and 'oligopoly' for explanation to rising prices)

Lets compare a Hummer (everyones favorite gas guzzler) and a Civic (everones favorite 'eco-responsible' car). I personally find Hummers tacky and tasteless as I find all trendy flashy things, esp. things glorified by hollywood. It's not for me. But I don't care if someone else wants one.

Environmental impacts:

Now for every 1 Hummer made there are probably 10 Civics. Those 10 Civics consume more gas than 1 Hummer. There are more Civics in the world than Hummers, so you could conclude that Civics are a greater threat to global warming than Hummers (if you believed in such a thing as global warming). Combine every Hummer, SUV, Corvette, Cobra, Viper, etc. in the world and compare total production numbers on the road to all 'economy' and 'fuel efficient' cars on the road. In terms of environmental effects and emissions produced, it would appear that a few thousand Hummers don't hold a candle to the millions of eco friendly gas sippers all over the world. You could say then, that 'more people driving causes more polution' in general and be correct. To single out a single type of car is probably because you drive a Geo and are pissed off that you got passed by a Hummer. A real solution, if one was needed, is no cars at all, and we all walk around in sandals made of seaweed, which is really what the environmentalist hippy types want in the end anyway. Argument done.

Responsibility and efficiency: (ie: converve gas by driving a hybrid type arguments)

But you could argue that its a waste, that you could transport 10 times as many people more responsibly in Civics with the same amount of gas as a single Hummer.
But for every Hummer or Civic there are a million people that don't drive at all, so its not like driving a Hummer is depriving someone of affording a car because Civics use less gas. Saying that we need to use less gas so there is more to go around when only a small percentage of the world actually drives cars is trying to meet some non existant need. It could also be called socialism, in that you want to regulate what someone else buys and consumes. How is 1 person driving a Hummer being less resourceful than 10 people that don't even have a car to put gas in? Argument done.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
> Cleaning up what mess? A car that makes 400 HP is just as clean as a car that makes 100 HP. It just consumes more fuel to make more power.

?!? Burning the fuel (derived from oil) is what makes the mess in the atmosphere. Driving agressively i.e. using the power of the car more often consumes more fuel and so makes more 'mess' to clean up.

> And someone willing and able to pay for more fuel is not stopping you from getting any and has nothing to do with gas prices.

This isn't what I'm worried about. In fact I'd rather see higher gas prices so that we don't go through our limited and otherwise very useful oil reserves too quickly, putting a historically unprecidented strain on the Earth. No natural process has ever burned on the oil reserves on Earth in the short span of a couple of hundred years.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Also please explain the cause for global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto? Last I checked, we haven't moved our factories and SUVs to other planets.

I'd like to know how a few million clean burning cars can have more of an impact on the environment than the several million acres of forest fires and volcanic eruptions that occur naturally every year.

For such an enviromental freak you sure don't give nature any credit for its historically proven track record to dwarf us humans.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Listen, I'm not saying global warming (as also witnessed on other planets) is a bad thing. It's what enables us to live on this planet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

It's that we've enhanced this natural process to the point were the climate is starting to change rapidly.

> I'd like to know how a few million clean burning cars can have more of an impact on the environment than the several million acres of forest fires and volcanic eruptions that occur naturally every year.

In absolute terms they may not have. The point is that the Earth was pretty well balanced before we suddenly built >600 million cars and planes and started pouring the Earth's oil reserves into them. If you know the saying, "the straw that broke the camal's back" then you'll know what I'm trying to get at.

BTW a lot of forest fires are caused by discarded glass bottle fragments and cigarettes, and so not what I would call natural.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are ways of getting your macho kicks without ripping the environment you know.

Show me how my car irreparably destroys the environment. I do more damage to the atmosphere when I fart - which is also a fun "macho" activity.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
> Show me how my car irreparably destroys the environment.

It doesn't. Pretty much the only thing that can irreparably destroy the atmosphere on earth is our Sun going supernova and we've got a good 6 billion years before that happens.

Your car alone is not the problem. The problem is that your car is not alone and all the oil they collectively combust when made and used (even more so given driving styles such as yours), release gases which are prematurely forcing the planet's climate into a different (possibly highly unstable) state.

> I do more damage to the atmosphere when I fart - which is also a fun "macho" activity.

True farting isn't the most environmentally friendly thing to do, but there ain't an aweful lot you can do about that. It's not like if you fart softly less comes out, it all depends on what you eat. What you can do is eat less livestock as they have truly impressive flatulence, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence#Environmen...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your car alone is not the problem. The problem is that your car is not alone and all the oil they collectively combust when made and used (even more so given driving styles such as yours), release gases which are prematurely forcing the planet's climate into a different (possibly highly unstable) state.
Prove this please. Thanks.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By chsh1ca on 3/20/2007 2:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
The act of driving your car around produces more pollutants than the act of leaving your car off and sitting in your driveway, thus the makeup of the atmosphere of the Earth is being altered.

On what level you can feel free to argue, but you just asked for proof, and it can't get anymore basic than the difference between something being there, and something not being there.

Whether it's premature is debatable, since that would indicate it was going to happen eventually anyways and it may not have. Can't really argue that the state of the atmosphere is altered by altering its state, can you?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 2:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The act of driving your car around produces more pollutants than the act of leaving your car off and sitting in your driveway, thus the makeup of the atmosphere of the Earth is being altered.
Sorry but this isn't proof. Give me something lookup so I can verify for myself. That's how scientists keep each other honest. They release their work to others to to duplicate and verify. Otherwise, you just have rumors and speculation. Like I said, give me some proof other than the "because I say so" crap.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Steele on 3/20/2007 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Alrighty... Le tme start from the top.

Do you know that liquid stuff you put in the tank under your car? No, not the thick black gooey stuff, the clear liquid that looks like water... Yeah, that stuff. That is called "Gasoline" (unless you drive a diesel or something else, but since you don't understand "pollution," you won't know the difference anyway).

When you put gasoline in the "gas tank" of your car, you have "fueled it up." You are now ready to drive. When you start the motor, small amounts of gasoline are pulled from the tank into the motor itself by the "fuel pump." The gasoline is then sent to the cylinders of the car. These are the things that make noise and make the car "go."

Once the fuel has reached the cylinders, it is mixed with air, and a small spark ignites the fuel. Unfortunatly, life is not like Star Trek, so when the fuel burns, there are byproducts of this combustion.

These byproducts are exhausted from the engine and out the tailpipe of the vehicle. Among them, are Carbon Dioxide, theoretically one of the leading causes of global warming; Carbon Monoxide, which bonds with your blood cells and displaces oxygen, causing you to asphyxiate; water, which is usually harmless; and many other things. Those are the big ones, though.

You asked for proof that cars pollute. This is the best I can do. Frankly, if this isn't good enough, you're better off not driving a car.

Steele


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 4:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You asked for proof that cars pollute. This is the best I can do. Frankly, if this isn't good enough, you're better off not driving a car.
None of you have given any proof! LOL! Just rumor and speculation. Shit, I can do that! I'll show you.

There is no air pollution technically. Why? Because the earth's air is constantly being recycled. This recycling process removes any potential contaminants that are introduced. Therefore, there is no pollution, per se.

Now what makes what you said any different than what I just said. Without proof, there is no difference.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Keeir on 3/20/2007 5:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
mmm... maybe you should re-read the defination of pollute.

"
pol·lute (p-lt)
v. pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing, pol·lutes

To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter; contaminate.
To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors.
"

From the American Heritage Dictionary.

I would say that the combustion reaction of a Hydrocarbon plus Oxygen is not an issue of "proof" anymore. Any Hydrocardon plus oxygen will result in a mixture of (at minimum) of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Water Vapor. All of these components make the "correct" mixture of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, etc that make up standard air polluted because each makes the air less suitable for human respiration. Furtermore, Carbon Monoxide is indeed harmful to humans, and a car's combustion can quickly pollute a enclosed space with enough carbon monoxide to kill humans.

Cars pollute.

Does car pollution cause global warming? Does car pollution constitute a health risk? Does car pollution cause long term contaimination of the air? All good debatable questions.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
It is logically impossible to *prove* that something may or may not happen in the future. I can't even prove the Sun will come up tomorrow. The closest we can get is to model scientifically and make predictions. Pretty much any scientist who does this comes to the conclusion that the climate is changing as a result of human activities such as burning oil as gas in cars, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Climat...

What the eventual effects will be are hard to predict, all I'm saying is that it would be wise to avert this change at this point in time, seeing as it is within our power to do so.


By Hoser McMoose on 3/20/2007 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just as a FWIW, the Audi A8 TDI with the 4.2L diesel engine you're speaking of is rated for 20mpg (24 miles to the Imperial gallon = 20 miles to US gallon).

Ohh, and it's not available in North America.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki