2007 Saturn Aura: Fuel Economy And Range

Somewhat lousy mileage is most likely (at least partly) a consequence of the Aura's general porkiness. The car is nearly 600 lbs heavier than its similarly-sized predecessor, the L300.
 
On a side note, that has to be the classiest gas station I've ever seen!

That's a downer for a hardcore GM'er like me. I'd like to see GM squeeze another 3-4 mpg out of that engine. The performance figures of all 3 cars escapes me at the moment. If the Aura is quicker I could see that as acceptable.

Billt9: True, the Altima's 3.5-liter V6 can be fueled with regular. But on the tech sheet (owner's manual) you supplied, Nissan does recommend the use of "premium" fuel with an octane rating of at least 91 for the V6. If you fill the Altima with regular, power will likely drop as the engine's computer will make adjustments to avoid engine knock. As premium is not required by Saturn or Toyota, one can assume that those V6 engines will make full power on regular fuel. -- Brent Romans

With my XR, I got 27-28 mpg on my last trip. San Diego to Vegas and back. Not bad, 70-90 mph, air on all the way. Around town, I average 19-20 mpg. Get the Aura on the highway, that is where it is happiest.
 
One trip and my average mileage since ownership went from 19.8 to 23.5. How many highway miles does the LT-Camry have? Makes a big difference when talking about fuel economy. If the XR is only in town, and you drive the Camry on long trips, you very well can't compare mileage, now can you?

I think aurakr makes a good point; didn't the Camry spend a lot of time on road trips right after it entered the fleet? I know that highway mileage makes a huge difference in my mileage, too.

thank you pen boy.
 
I just reviewed all the L-T Camry reviews from Edmunds. It seems to me, the majority of the time the Camry was on a long trip. I do mean long. 2 times Los Angeles to Michigan and back. Colorado to Los Angeles. Every review talked about a long trip in the car. One trip was 1776 miles. Another 430. With all the highway miles, I am surprised it is only averaging 25 mpg. Should be much closer to 30, being a Toyota and all.
 
If the reviewers would just take the same trips, drive the identical way, at the same time, with the identical weather, as they did in the Camry, then over the next 15000 miles, we would have a better indication of a mileage comparison. You say that is impossible? Oh my we have a quandry don't we? This is what I call bias, unfortunately it really does exist.

2007 EPA ratings for the 3.6 Aura are a bottom end 20/28 while the 3.5 Camry received a best in class 22/31. How bad that test is at measuring actual driving has been done into the dirt, but it should at least be consistent with itself.
 
Getting a full 25% better mileage out of the Camry isn't apples to apples, but all sources and anecdotes I have come across agree that it is the more efficient vehicle by a couple mpg.
 
Under 300 miles between fill ups is disappointing. Relatively thirsty vehicles should have a relatively large tank. 18 is good, 20 like the Altima is even better. Bottom of the class mileage and bottom of the class gas capacity are a poor match.

We certainly don't just drive the Aura around town and the Camry on highway trips. The usage and assignments of our test vehicles are random.
 
Aurakr, you are right to point out that the Camry has been taken on some long trips, and our Aura, at 5,000 miles, has not necessarily had full exposure to different drives. (Incidentally, the Camry, at the same 5,000-mile mark as the Aura, was still posting a 25.4 mpg average.)
 
If you want to eliminate any perceived notions of bias, just stick with EPA estimates. And those are (revised for '08) 19/28 mpg for the Camry and 17/26 mpg for the Aura. The Aura does fair better in this regard. Combined averages are 23 and 21 mpg, respectively.
 
That said, the purpose of this blog is to report our experiences and findings. And so far, the stated mileage figures are what our Altima, Aura and Camry are posting. -- Brent

No wonder gas is so much more expensive in CA - look at that gas station! Marble. Stone pillars. Natural wood beams on the roof. Are the fuel nozzles gold-plated, too?

the mileage of the camry indicates it has been heavily driven on the highway, there is no way you would 25mpg with a V6 if the mileage was split evenly highway/city. The 2008 EPA ratings even show 25mpg is a VERY favorable result, in fact a recent C&D test showed that most four cylinder cars in this class average 24mpg. Do some real city driving with the camry and that number should drop to 22-23 in mixed use.
 
The altima's tank is unusually large for this class. Most cars in this class have 16-18 gallon tanks. Most Gm cars have tanks that are slightly smaller than their competitors- dont know why.

PS:
 
the Aura's mileage probably explains why a 4 cylinder is being offered for 2008.
 
As for Altima, as noted the premium fuel knocks out the 2mpg advantage over the Aura in terms of savings.

Whenever a manufacturer recommends premium, that's what we use. The EPA follows the same policy when calculating annual fuel costs for the window-sticker label.

People, there is no such thing as an LT Camry, it's an LE !

LT = Long Term

Geez people. Brent was simply reporting what we've been getting in terms of fuel economy for the three cars. If we didn't report that, people would not only wonder why we didn't, there really wouldn't be much point in keeping records of such things.
 
Testing two long-term cars in identical conditions is possible, but that's not the point of the test. It's an inherantly unscientific process. For a more scientific indicator of gas mileage differences, read a short-term comparison between the vehicles (which we and others do), since they would in fact be done in mostly the same conditions and driven by the same people over the same terrain. The EPA's revised fuel economy ratings are also a good indicator to go by. Comparing long-term cars can be tricky since they do have different miles and are driven on different trips. In fact, after Brent's travels to Fresno and back, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Aura's mpg's going up.
  
Having said that, nothing can change the fact that the Camry gets better gas mileage than the Aura. It's not a radical difference, but there is one, and loving one's Aura or claiming we hate American cars ain't going to change that.

A 2mpg difference isn't a deal breaker for me. Camry at 19/28 and Aura at 17/26. That's, what, an extra couple hundred bucks a year for gas? If you're spending mid-20's for a car, an extra $200 wouldn't make much of a difference to me.

Yes, but here it come, but
 
If a person were to just read your mileage blog, and not know the type of mileage, one would think the Camry would always average 5 mpg more than the Aura. This is simply not the case.
 
Shopper: Let's buy the Camry, it gets 5 mpg more than the Aura.
Shopper 2: How come American cars guzzle gas?
 
The truth is a difference of 2 mpg, which appears to be the difference may not sway people in the direction of the Camry, but 5 mpg will. This is where as my father used to say, there are number, da--ed numbers and statistics. In this case, the 5 mpg difference mostly comes about because of the types of trips. The sad part is most people will think there is a 5 mpg difference, not a 2 mpg difference.

Very good posts aurakr. When posts are made to the blog the way you did this one, Brent, you lead people to believe you're making apples-to-apples comparisons and "this is what we got". Your replies here are much more to the point, in that they admit that the driving miles are different, and can't be compared. So what's the point of even mentioning the other cars' results during the blog for the Aura, if not to attempt to cast some doubt on the car's performance by comparison? If it doesn't apply, don't bother making the comparison. Sounds simple enough.
 
And fwiw, I agree 100%- the EPA's ratings are a good tool, since they established a repeatable routine that ALL the cars are put through. This is why I've always had a problem with folks grumbling when they fail to get the numbers on the window sticker. The point isn't "this is what you'll get", it's "compare this number for car A to car B's number, and you'll have a good idea how they rank". ;o)

jriz
 
Don't get all defensive. However, over time this is how many people have justified their purchases of vehicles, ie it gets better mileage, it handles better, etc. In this case, yes the Camry gets about 2 mpg better. But that is much smaller than the 5 mpg you are quoting.
 
This is what drives me nuts. A 2 mpg difference is big to some, not most. But anyone reading your results will not know the Camry has been driven far more highway miles than the Aura. All they will see is the 5 mpg difference. This is where numbers lie, and lie bigtime. This is also how pro-Japanese biases come in. Just remember, some of us are paying attention. It will also make Edmunds better in the long run.

Of course they're being defensive, you're accusing them of bias and giving a car a hard time because they hate American cars. What a load. Could it be that perhaps the Camry and Accord and Altima really are better cars than the Saturn? Could it be that you're biased FOR the Aura and they are not biased at all? If they're so biased, why is GM willing to advertise on the site? Reporting mileage like the writer did up there doesn't seem like a bias issue to me. It's not like they jump in the Aura, go 'ooh, I hate this car, I'd better floor it so the Camry gets better mpg." And also, are people so dumb that theysolely rely their car-buying on the edmunds long term blog articles? Please, look at the window sticker or any other review with epa numbers for that..

daxtripper:
 
  Yes in deed, most people who buy Japanese vehicles justify it by pointing out the mileage obtained in long term tests such as this one or CR. Many, many people today absolutely hate American cars such as this one. Just read this one, Autoblog, ToyotaNation, etc. In this day and age, blogs like this are where most people get their information, not from Honda and Driver, Motor Trend, etc.
 
I admit I am hoping the XR does well, why not? If you are denying that there is a possibility the editors don't like American cars, you are truly deluding yourself. Many times, a bias is self serving, and often times not truly evil in intention. Let's say the Camry and XR are driven over the same route each day, to include highway runs. However, the driver of the Camry leaves early enough to avoid most of the morning traffic. The XR driver, has to drop off kids and hits traffic jams every day. Mileage is affected. You don't see the bias issue on the mpg, because to you it reinforces your belief that Japanese vehicles are better. Doesn't matter if you might be wrong. They don't have to floor a car, just drive it at different times not condusive to good mileage. No evil intent, just in this hypo, the Camry hits the freeways at 70 mph, the XR in stop and go traffic. Guess which gets the better mileage?

i would just have to say that...anyone educated enough to navigate on the internet (and can visit Edmunds autoblogs) will probably use one of the many many many car websites to compare the EPA numbers between the cars during their decision process to buy a car.
 
additionally, Edmund's findings aren't that far off from fueleconomy.gov website.
 
Camry 23.8 -- 47% stop and go - 53% highway (8 users)
Altima 25.8 -- 28% stop and go - 72% highway (4 users)
Aura 21.6 -- 38% stop and go - 62% highway (4 - 1 users)
 
So on this website, there is a 2.2 MPG advantage for the Camry and it is stop and go 9% more

Think of it this way Brent, you're getting the same mileage as the Aura hybrid...

Dude, they already said that the Aura has been driven on the highway and in the city, and I think somebody mentioned the thing is on a road trip to Fresno. That's at least like a 6 hour drive or something for LA. The blog writer also said that the Camry was getting around 25 mpg after only 5K miles before they drove it across the coutnry. I guess they're lying, right? This idea that they're somehow driving the Camry only on the highway and the Aura only the city is pretty silly and unfounded. You're the type of person who thinks the government is stashing away aliens at Area 51, aren't you?

"Having said that, nothing can change the fact that the Camry gets better gas mileage than the Aura. It's not a radical difference, but there is one, and loving one's Aura or claiming we hate American cars ain't going to change that."
 
Wow, thats a pretty defensive reaction to some legit concerns raised by people. You may not be biased but as people noted, its pointless to compare the mileage of two cars that havent been driven in similar conditions and it appears the mileage of the camry is highly based on highway driving. Lets be real, its pretty much unheard of for any 3400lbs car with a V6 to average 25mpg in TRULY mixed driving. If thats the case the camry I-4 is a waste of time.
 
daxtripper,
 
you need to open your eyes a little bit instead of getting so upset. Consider the context of this entire Aura LT test. It was clearly stated in the intro that the staff of Edmunds has been totally undewhelmed by this car and they feel that the "home team" media has been giving it a free pass even though its largely a mediocre effort. When a test starts out with the publication questioning why the supposedly biased automotive media (who are supposedly less objective than the staff here) gave so many accolades to an average car you have wonder how this car stands a chance of getting a recommendation at the end of this process. I would like to think that the long term test here will raise their opinion of the car but I am skeptical, especially when the Camry has been declared the hands down class leader and they have one in their fleet simultaneously. After all Edmunds rated the Aura at 7.5 and the Camry at 9. Interestingly enough the owners of those cars who rated them here did not share those perceptions.

This is a serious question, please name all of these accolades as well as any comparison tests it's wwon. Of course such awards and comparos would be decided by these biased writers, but I'm legitimately wondering where all the accolades have come from?
 
From everything I've read (and seen personally at the auto show), the Aura is a nice car, just not the top of its class. Check out the Edmunds.com review found here
http://www.edmunds.com/saturn/aura/2007/review.html
 
"Overall, the 2007 Saturn Aura looks to be one of the more interesting midsize sedans available for 2007. With strengths including a balanced approach to ride and handling, upscale styling, a classy cabin and generous safety features, this is a Saturn that's finally competitive against the leaders in the midsize family sedan segment."
 
Doesn't sound so negative to me.

To poke at the hyperbolic relationship of money vs mpg again,
in my opinion, anything averaging 20 mpg or better is good enough. Small differences above 20 mpg average aren't super price shocking.
 
Over 15,000 miles, 25 mpg vs 20 mpg:
25 mpg: 600 gallons = $1,800
20 mpg: 750 gallons = $2,250
Difference: $450 per year.
So money is no matter.
But it matters if your objective is to save the world... or save your city from the smog cloud.
 
You'll have to buy a hybrid that averages 34 mpg, or a hybrid that averages 46 mpg to notice any big gas savings.

"From everything I've read (and seen personally at the auto show), the Aura is a nice car, just not the top of its class"
 
That's a very bold statement. No one has said the Aura is far beyond the top of it's class. Quite to the contrary, the reason the Aura has been in the spotlight so much is because it's the first comparable midsize to the Camry and the Accord. That doesn't make it groundbreaking. But it is a good move by GM.

My wife's 1998 Honda Accord V6 is averaging about 25 MPG. I've been keeping track of the mileage since 80K (Excel is a wonderful tool). It now has 147K. I can't say what percentage is highway and city, but I can say that it is used to commute 5 city miles to work everyday and occasional trips. So a midsized V6 sedan can get 25 MPG.

billt9:
 
from another save the planet view, 50 gallons a year X say 50,000 cars = 2.5 million gallons of savings a year
 
i think the problem is that GM should have designed the Aura to get better fuel economy. look at the Aura XE...4 speed automatic? what is this, the 90's?
 
20 MPG is pretty sad considering what it could be if the effort was put in to raise fuel economy. =T

estreka -- I actually agree with your analysis.

I think 5 mpg is quite significant when you comparing 2 cars that are basically the same. I get 25 mpg in my 4 cyl Legacy and 20 mpg in my 6 cyl Grand Cherokee. It's noticably cheaper to drive around in the Legacy but Jeep can do more so we don't mind.
 
I don't think the Aura can do anything that the Camry can't.

langjie, titancrew and firstwagon:
 
You are all perfect examples of what I was saying before. If you had read the previous blogs, you would have seen that the Camry only has such high fuel economy due to having been driven on lots and lots of trips. The XR has not been on many, if any trips. Again, I repeat I went from average mileage since ownership from 19.8 to 23.5 with one trip. See how highway miles make a big difference? This is why Edmunds should qualify how the vehicle was driven, when, where, etc.
 
langjie, the XR in question has a 6 speed automatic, geared for mileage. 2100 rpm at 80 means, 65 mph is about 1500 rpm. You can't get much lower than that. The XE you speak often exceeds 33 mpg on the highway. I too wish the XE had the 6 speed. GM does many dumb and confusing things.
 
Again the point is this, in normal driving the Camry would average 22 mpg, the XR 20 mpg. That's a diffference of 2 mpg, not big by most people's standards. The 5 mpg difference is attributable to the very high highway miles total of the L-T Camry.

"So a midsized V6 sedan can get 25 MPG."
 
check the weight and engine size Vs today's V6 cars. There is NO comparison whatsoever. Today's midsizers are around 3400lbs and have 3L-3.6L engines. Today's midsize V6 cares usually average 20-22mpg in mixed driving. 24mpg+ is the realm of four cylinders primarily.

"i think the problem is that GM should have designed the Aura to get better fuel economy. look at the Aura XE...4 speed automatic? what is this, the 90's? "
 
ask Toyota since they use 4 speeds on several models. Perhaps they can tell what decade we are in.

"i think the problem is that GM should have designed the Aura to get better fuel economy. look at the Aura XE...4 speed automatic? what is this, the 90's? "
 
ask Toyota since they use 4 speeds on several models. Perhaps they can tell you what decade we are in.