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 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.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











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