2007 Saturn Aura XR: Fuel Economy Update (plus Fuzzy Black Tape)

19.9 mpg... why not get a big spacious SUV.

20 MPG average is decent considering that the Aura is a powerhouse. The Edmunds staff is constantly talking about its torque and torque steer and tire squealing engine, which means that they don't treat the Aura kindly. My guess is that the average consumer will do better in the MPG department.

Zoomzoom22;

20 mpg average is not very good for a sedan at all, even if it is a "powerhouse." a VW Passat 3.6 gets better gas milage and puts out 28 more hp and gets better gas milage

way to be redundant

should read: a VW Passat 3.6 puts out 28 more HP and gets better gas milage

I think his point was that the Aura's 3.6 also "gets better gas mileage", if you're not a full-time leadfoot. Conversely, if you drive the Passat like they're driving the Aura, then you can expect the VW to slide below the EPA mileage.

In fact, aren't the EPA numbers for the Aura XR and Passat 3.6 fairly close?

That reminds me of how I zip tie things under the hood of my SRT-4. Figure people won't notice, as I don't keep it as a show car, popping the hood all of the time.

elfjon- my lifetime average for my first Mazda3 was 18.4mpg over 32k miles. So far, my 2nd Mazda3 is returning a slightly better 20mpg overall for 10.5k miles. If you do a lot of city/stop and go driving, your mileage will suck.

PS- nobody buys the Passat 3.6 which is why it won't be offered for '09. You can get it in the new CC but it'll cost you. The Passat also has direct injection which improves mileage although it still needs premium fuel despite better charge cooling. If you put the DI version of the 3.6L HF in the Aura, it'll easily match the Passat's mileage on regular gas so your comparison is pretty much moot. Not to mention, the Passat's HP figure is not SAE rated so it likely does not make the advertised 280hp under the new standards.

Thanks misterfusion, that was my point exactly. I should've been more clear I guess. The Passat's mileage is 17/26, which is exactly the same as the Aura's.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/comparison/results.html;_ylt=Au.7LgPPgGlm1FFcbDcTtYQOc78F;_ylv=3?pagetitle=overview&search_type=all&make=volkswagen&model=5442%3Avolkswagen_passatsedan_2008&trim=22407&carid0=24231&carid1=23257&carid2=23069

The Aura's EPA estimates are 17/26, so a 20 MPG average is decent. However, when compared to other V6 powered sedans, the Aura's mileage is unimpressive.

Accord: 19/29
Camry: 19/28
Altima: 19/27

Saying that the Aura's low end torque advantage is the reason for the lower EPA estimates is irrelevant because that torque is unnecessary. Fun, yes, but unnecessary.

Since 4-cylinder cars are all the rage, it is also important to consider the Aura's EPA mileage with the smaller engine:

Aura: 22/30
Accord (177 hp): 21/31
Camry: 21/31
Altima: 23/32

The 4 cylinder Aura is right in line with its competitors, making it a more practical and competitive choice than the V6.

Yeah the Edmunds staff isn't exactly known to be EPA testers in training. They drive their cars with gusto on the weekends, and they also drive in some of the worst congestion for day-to-day commuting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think the Aura has been on any significant roadtrips. These types of long-term tests can be good for gauging "real world" fuel economy, but their results still have to be taking with some interpretation.

zoomzoom22

Good info, but you missed something. The 2009 Aura is out already at dealers, with the 2.4 6speed combo.

22-33, making it tops in the midsize market along with the Malibu. Take that Accord and Camry :)

The mileage Edmunds gets is about average for many XR owners. I am averaging about 19.3 mpg overall for 12,500 miles. I have noone to blame but the wife and myself. I just enjoy that 3.6 way too much :)

In fact, I am surprised they are averaging that much, with how the editors drive in general.

Then again, the 07 Impala I have for work is averaging 27.0 mpg over 4800 miles. Mostly home to work and back, San Diego freeways.

I will point out the biggest flaw of the XR, the darned tires. They, not to put to fine of a point on it, are really bad :)

I can't wait to replace them with some Michelins, in a couple of years.

Wow I'm impressed The 2009 Aura 2.4-liter, 6-speed matched the mpg of the Altima 2.5-liter, CVT.

Now GM just has to work on getting the 2.4-liter Aura to accelerate 3 seconds faster to match the Altima's 0-60 mph time; the Altima's CVT capable of delivering uninterrupted power from 0 to 145 mph.

Will the 6-speed Aura be faster than the 4-speed?
It's exciting that GM is finally producing products comparable to the machines coming out of Tennessee. This calls for more excessive comparos of average joe's cars.

The MPG still can't mask the fact that the 4cyl is not as refined as the others.

"The MPG still can't mask the fact that the 4cyl is not as refined as the other"

According to who?

"Now GM just has to work on getting the 2.4-liter Aura to accelerate 3 seconds faster to match the Altima's 0-60 mph time; the Altima's CVT capable of delivering uninterrupted power from 0 to 145 mph."

The 0-60 difference between the Altima and Aura is about 1sec due to the fact that the Altima is lightest in class. I'm not sure how you have determined that only recently GM has designed a car capable of matching up to the Altima. Lets not forget the 3rd gen Altima had a cheap interior, torque steer, an unrefined 4 cylinder and debuted with a 4 speed auto. It's mileage was less than impressive as well. The 2007 car was a big improvement.

"The MPG still can't mask the fact that the 4cyl is not as refined as the others."

wrong again. C&D said the Malibu I-4 was quieter than the Accord and their sound meter verified that. They said it was the most refined version of the ecotec ever. I have driven a 2008 Cobalt and the NVH is on par with the 3.

Edmunds' mileage is on target. In 90% city driving I am averaging around 14mpg overall. On the highway I have seen mileage as high as 29mpg but usually its close to 26mpg. As for the other V6 cars it's important to note that real world testing by various publications has found that the Accord and Altima are not much more efficient than the Malibu/Aura. The Camry routinely outperforms all three cars in real world mileage. Check out the comparisons on edmunds, MT and C&D for reference. I believe IL's Accord is averaging 21mpg which is hardly enough to guarantee and owner significant savings over the Aura.

"Saying that the Aura's low end torque advantage is the reason for the lower EPA estimates is irrelevant because that torque is unnecessary. Fun, yes, but unnecessary."

I don't think anyone inferred that torque is the reason behind the subpar EPA ratings. Weight and large displacement are the likely culprits.

"Lets not forget the 3rd gen Altima had a cheap interior, torque steer, an unrefined 4 cylinder and debuted with a 4 speed auto."

I'm going to take a moment and defend the Altima for a moment.

Browsing 2002's selection of family sedans, only four midsize cars had 4-cyl engines, Camry, Accord, Altima, and Alero/Grand Am. The Malibu, Century, and Taurus were only available with V6s (albeit weak V6s). The Oldsmobile Intrigue also was only had in V6 form. All of these cars were equipped with four speed auto boxes.

Altima's interior and engine refinement wasn't any worse compared with GM offerings of the time. The 4-cyl Altima didn't have any torque steer. It also had competitive EPA numbers.

To compare the 2002 Altima with it's comtemporaries, it wasn't a total lame duck.

I think the Camry's real world numbers are higher partly due to the fact that it doesn't have any sports car pretensions. You're never tempted to test its limits by making high speed turns, making jackrabbit starts, pretending Elise-like stops, or barreling along at 90 on the interstate. I think if you drove the Aura like a Camry, you'd get similar numbers.

" I think if you drove the Aura like a Camry, you'd get similar numbers."

No, the Camry beats the Malibu and Accord in mileage in auto enthusiast comparison tests. Even when driven aggressively the Camry is the most efficient in this class. The spread between worst and best is only 2-3mpg so it's not like you are saving $100 a month by getting a camry.

"Altima's interior and engine refinement wasn't any worse compared with GM offerings of the time. The 4-cyl Altima didn't have any torque steer. It also had competitive EPA numbers.

To compare the 2002 Altima with it's comtemporaries, it wasn't a total lame duck."

Altima was competitive and led the Japanese offerings in hp, but it was hardly world's better than GM's offerings in that time span. The 2002 Altima was better than GM's offerings that debuted 4 years earlier (mostly in terms of powertrain) but during it's lifespan newer models such as the 2004 Malibu, 2004 Grand Prix and G6 came out that were comparable to the Altima.

Saturn's not alone. Subarus have keys that clank and bang on the steering columms because Subaru was too cheap to put a rubber bumper there. Adding foam helps.
Ironically, the Malibu Maxx did have a dashboard rubber bumper for keychains, but it was too small and mispositioned to help much.

As for Aura's MPG ... enh. XT Foresters are getting 20 mpg and have AWD as bonus.

The 3 has some low NVH control.

The Ecotec engines have never been matched to Honda's 4cyl engines. C/D specifically said "it can hold it's own against 08 Accord, which says a lot".

That means it's close, but no cookie.

cx7lover, your original statement was:

"The MPG still can't mask the fact that the 4cyl is not as refined as the others."

Then your support for this was:

"The Ecotec engines have never been matched to Honda's 4cyl engines. C/D specifically said 'it can hold it's own against 08 Accord, which says a lot.'"

That quote does nothing to validate your claim. Besides, you specifically said the engine was as refined as OTHERS. Yet you only mention the Honda I-4- no mention of the Toyota, Atlima, Mazda and Hyundia four cylinder engines. Where's the proof that the ecotec not as refined as others?

"The Ecotec engines have never been matched to Honda's 4cyl engines. C/D specifically said "it can hold it's own against 08 Accord, which says a lot"."

C&D also said the Malibu I-4 had less engine noise than the Accord in their large family sedan comparo. That totally nullifies your argument and means its more than "close" as you alleged. You have zero proof that the ecotec isnt as refined as other I-4s in the class.

"The 3 has some low NVH control."

I have never seen those sentiments echoed by auto journalists.

As has been pointed out, this use of felt tape is pretty common.

I believe that the felt tape is for squeak and rattle, not to protect the console or buckle from scratches. The console and buckle pretty much always each hide the other's contact surface where they rest, so any scratches wouldn't be a high visibility issue. I'm sure the assumption is that the driver will use their seatbelt, thereby restricting the free movement of the buckle on the driver's side. However, often (most of the time) there's nobody in the passenger seat, so that buckle is free to make noise against the console.

Call me prejudice, but when comparing the Saturn brand to the Import models, I would rate it at the bottom of the list. It may be somewhat refined, and have comparable mileage. But I always feel that Saturns just don't have the same level dependability/reliability as the Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. And that's reflected in their resale value.